Answer to Mass Shootings: Less Guns, or More Guns ?

[cnm]

You think taking away guns is the answer, well criminals applaud you. They can't wait until you vote in people that think just like you and implement your ideas. It would be a free-for-all for criminals all across this nation.

Yet the data from other developed nations shows that fewer handguns in circulation correlate with fewer mass shootings. The point of this thread, which you refuse to address, instead going off on exculpatory tangents.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guns don't kill people--people kill people.

You know, the Russians were always envious at how the Americans would believe their own propaganda. I can see their point.

Well if you can prove that point incorrect, I welcome your challenge.

The latest Oregon victims were killed by firearms.

Yes they were, victims that were unarmed because of the school policy.

 

[cnm]

Yes they were, victims that were unarmed because of the school policy.

Killed by firearms.

edit...But I see for some unaccountable reason you've ignored the data I posted. Funny that.

 

[cnm]

Oh, I should say I've killed an awful lot of animals with rifles, in the thousands easily. Just for clarity's sake.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You think taking away guns is the answer, well criminals applaud you. They can't wait until you vote in people that think just like you and implement your ideas. It would be a free-for-all for criminals all across this nation.

Yet the data from other developed nations shows that fewer handguns in circulation correlate with fewer mass shootings. The point of this thread, which you refuse to address, instead going off on exculpatory tangents.

And if you look further in those countries, armed robbery, assault and rape increased in most cases. How could it not? People there are not able to protect themselves.

The reason you are safe in and outside of your home is because guns are legal and permitted in this country. You may not own a firearm, but the criminal doesn't know that.

If you don't believe me, try this: Hang a huge sign on your front porch that reads WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOUSE and get back to us in a few months and let us know how that worked out for you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Fewer fools psychos and terrorists. Number of guns is unimportant because it only takes one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes they were, victims that were unarmed because of the school policy.

Killed by firearms.

edit...But I see for some unaccountable reason you've ignored the data I posted. Funny that.

Why not post all the data, such as violent crime and gun crimes which have been on the decrease since the mid 90's until recently. That corresponds to gun ownership and more states adopting CCW laws and laws that protect the law biding citizen.

 

[hazlnut]

Liberals, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, are saying LESS guns, coming from more background checks, would stop mass shootings. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Conservatives in general, are calling for MORE guns as the answer to stop these awful massacres.

Who do you think is right ? More guns, or less guns ?

Neither.

When a person is diagnosed with a series mental illness they are flagged and local authorities act in a manner that protects their privacy and dignity while removing all guns from their residence and give their caretakers (if any) a talk on safety and watching the person for signs of a break.

The problem is that people with serious mental illnesses are allowed to legally buy and own guns... because they have not been "adjudicated".

When parents are suspected of child abuse or neglect, they are give their day in court AFTER the child is safely removed from the home. Give mental patients their day in court, sure fine, but get the guns out of the home as soon as DR. makes an official diagnosis.

And yes, PTSD, can mean you get flagged. Public safety trumps your right.

Blind people or seeing-impared can't get a drivers lic., why aren't we doing a better job of flagging the mentally ill -- in a respectful and compassionate manner. After all, they're not sex offenders. Well, not all of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, are saying LESS guns, coming from more background checks, would stop mass shootings. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Conservatives in general, are calling for MORE guns as the answer to stop these awful massacres.

Who do you think is right ? More guns, or less guns ?

Neither.

When a person is diagnosed with a series mental illness they are flagged and local authorities act in a manner that protects their privacy and dignity while removing all guns from their residence and give their caretakers (if any) a talk on safety and watching the person for signs of a break.

The problem is that people with serious mental illnesses are allowed to legally buy and own guns... because they have not been "adjudicated".

When parents are suspected of child abuse or neglect, they are give their day in court AFTER the child is safely removed from the home. Give mental patients their day in court, sure fine, but get the guns out of the home as soon as DR. makes an official diagnosis.

And yes, PTSD, can mean you get flagged. Public safety trumps your right.

Blind people or seeing-impared can't get a drivers lic., why aren't we doing a better job of flagging the mentally ill -- in a respectful and compassionate manner. After all, they're not sex offenders. Well, not all of them.

Your parameters are a very gray area.

It's difficult to take away a constitutional right over the opinion of a doctor, especially taking away a right from a person that never did society any harm.

We all know strange people, I know I do. So where are the limits set as to who can and cannot own a firearm? A person that suffers from depression and takes medication? A person that drank too much one night and got involved in a wild bar fight? A person who once tried to commit suicide?

Then politics comes into play. If left in charge, a Democrat leadership would greatly expand who cannot own firearms using the guise of mental instability.

 

[cnm]

And if you look further in those countries, armed robbery, assault and rape increased in most cases. How could it not? People there are not able to protect themselves.

So are you conceding that fewer handguns in circulation leads to fewer mass shooting events?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if you look further in those countries, armed robbery, assault and rape increased in most cases. How could it not? People there are not able to protect themselves.

So are you conceding that fewer handguns in circulation leads to fewer mass shooting events?

Not at all, unless you consider per capita. But one also must consider the ramifications of less guns as well. More violent crime comes to mind. Mass murders are not the only violent crime we (or other countries) have. In fact mass murders are the least of our problem when it comes to violent crime. More people get killed in Chicago over a normal weekend than any mass murder in recent years.

 

[cnm]

And if you look further in those countries, armed robbery, assault and rape increased in most cases. How could it not? People there are not able to protect themselves.

So are you conceding that fewer handguns in circulation leads to fewer mass shooting events?

Not at all, unless you consider per capita. [...]

Batshit crazy is batshit crazy, just like invincible ignorance is named that for a reason.

Asked to do the calculation, data provided, data ignored. Invincible.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Do the calculations.

They've been done, you ignore them, just like you'll ignore this data.

11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States

11 essential facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States


7. More guns tend to mean more homicide.​

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders.

This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.​

Bullshit. An "assessment of the literature" is not a fact; it is an opinion based on other people's opinions. Otherwise called a rumor.

 

[protectionist]

Liberals, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, are saying LESS guns, coming from more background checks, would stop mass shootings. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Conservatives in general, are calling for MORE guns as the answer to stop these awful massacres.

Who do you think is right ? More guns, or less guns ?

Neither.

When a person is diagnosed with a series mental illness they are flagged and local authorities act in a manner that protects their privacy and dignity while removing all guns from their residence and give their caretakers (if any) a talk on safety and watching the person for signs of a break.

The problem is that people with serious mental illnesses are allowed to legally buy and own guns... because they have not been "adjudicated".

When parents are suspected of child abuse or neglect, they are give their day in court AFTER the child is safely removed from the home. Give mental patients their day in court, sure fine, but get the guns out of the home as soon as DR. makes an official diagnosis.

And yes, PTSD, can mean you get flagged. Public safety trumps your right.

Blind people or seeing-impared can't get a drivers lic., why aren't we doing a better job of flagging the mentally ill -- in a respectful and compassionate manner. After all, they're not sex offenders. Well, not all of them.

You contradict yourself. First you say "neither. And then you say there should be less guns based on mental illness. You also say nothing about gun free zones, where the lack of guns contributes to mass shooting deaths.

 

[protectionist]

And if you look further in those countries, armed robbery, assault and rape increased in most cases. How could it not? People there are not able to protect themselves.

So are you conceding that fewer handguns in circulation leads to fewer mass shooting events?

It leads to MORE mass shooting events, by giving the nutty shooter the confidence that there will be no guns present to interrupt and stop his shooting spree. Banning the gun-free zone policies would deter the shooters, by making him know he will be stopped.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Answer to Mass Shootings: Less Guns, or More Guns ?


People should be free to own and carry the guns they have. If they feel they need more, they are free to buy or build them.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The problem is that people with serious mental illnesses are allowed to legally buy and own guns... because they have not been "adjudicated".

And that is exactly the way it should be. If a psychiatrist considers a person a danger to himself or others he can be committed to an institution for observation. His case must be presented before a court for him to be kept against his will more than 3 days. In America we should never buy into the idea that it OK to deprive a citizen of their rights "on suspicion" nor should anyone other than a qualified mental health professional be allowed to determine mental illness and the appropriate response to it on a case by case basis. Not all mentally ill people are a danger to themselves or others and they do not deserve the same treatment as those who are (.and that most certainly applies to people with PTSD).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Answer to Mass Shootings: Less Guns, or More Guns ?"

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

Part of the solution is comprehensive mental health treatment, access to such treatment, and the funding to ensure mental health treatment is available to all Americans.

There are no simple solutions, there is no one single solution. It's a complex problem that requires a pragmatic, multifaceted approach, not blind adherence to failed, errant conservative dogma.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And if you look further in those countries, armed robbery, assault and rape increased in most cases. How could it not? People there are not able to protect themselves.

So are you conceding that fewer handguns in circulation leads to fewer mass shooting events?

It leads to MORE mass shooting events, by giving the nutty shooter the confidence that there will be no guns present to interrupt and stop his shooting spree. Banning the gun-free zone policies would deter the shooters, by making him know he will be stopped.

Correct. Many news outlets discussing this situation are refusing to use the name of the shooter just like the Sheriff. They realize that kooks get off on the sensation of the attention and horror our media brings.

However, if most of these mass shootings ended up with a citizen gunning down the shooter before he could complete any large scale killing, that would take away the excitement for the next potential killer.

But kooks know what works. They find a place where nobody is armed, everybody is their victim, and they kill as many people as they can before somebody gets there with a gun to polish them off. Afterwards it's the national main story for the next couple of weeks.

 

[the_human_being]

We must have more guns! Lots of guns! All school age children must be armed. Nursing home residents must also be armed. Everyone armed from about 6 years old to death. Road rage will become a level playing field. We must show the world that we know how to solve gun violence! We must have more guns! A panel of NRA experts will determine if anyone is mentally unfit to own a firearm.

Sorry but your attempt to paint gun owners as crazies, FAILED. Everyone knows your MO.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm a gun owner. Thankfully, I'm not an NRA gun nutter.

What's the difference between you and a NRA member? You're just too cheap to pay dues and get a good magazine.

The NRA was once a good outfit, and I was a member for many years until radicals took over in 1977.

How NRA’s true believers converted a marksmanship group into a mighty gun lobby

The Radicals?? Then you should have fit right in.