So gun control, mental health care, and mass shootings

[Zeebu]

pft, both companies set out to make money.

[Ephemeral]

should ford feel upset because some alchy got liquored up and ran over someones mother in their focus?

No, because a Ford's primary purpose is not to kill large amounts of people.
eph

[Celestial Jeddak]

and yet im not sure they even achieve 1/4 of the deaths that automobiles deliver us.

Yeah.
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,^[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
auto deaths in 2007: 41 thousand
auto deaths in 2011: 32 thousand
I'm a bit surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[Zeebu]

Is this what gun manufacturers/companies reply with? +1

The purpose of firearms is to kill.

and yet im not sure they even achieve 1/4 of the deaths that automobiles deliver us.

[megaman89]

I just hope Tone doesn't own a gun.

[Celestial Jeddak]

should ford feel upset because some alchy got liquored up and ran over someones mother in their focus?

Is this what gun manufacturers/companies reply with? +1

The purpose of firearms is to kill.

[Celestial Jeddak]

The statistics speak for themselves. You are 44 times more likely to shoot your own family than an intruder in your house. In 2010, 31000 Americans were killed by guns, that is 60 times more than the troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same year.

For the statistics to be valid, they need to be inclusive. 31000 Americans were killed by guns - does that include American troops? Numbers alone are a weak correlation (if at all). You want your statics to look more like this, if you want anyone with a brain to be persuaded:
"Canada 34 million people, 31% gun ownership = 10.6 million gunsU.S. 312 million people, 89% gun ownership = 276 million guns
So based on that alone, the U.S. should have 26 times more incidents. Which approx. accounts four(sic) your data, 237 U.S vs 8 Canada."

http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2012-12-14/why-are-school-shootings-more-common-in-the-u-dot-s-dot

The reason why you should do this is simple and in this example shown: "You compared the United States with Canada, well Canada not only has a lower gun ownership percentage as you stated, but a much smaller population as well." The population must be accounted for.

And don't forget Simpson's paradox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgLUDw8eLB4
"By this, we can already deduce that it is simply a matter [of] gun numbers.
Reduce the guns, reduce the number of tragic killings."
Assault rifles make killing more people than handguns do. Nukes more so. Which nations should be 'allowed' to have the strongest artillery, is a far more interesting topic imo..
But I'm taking a VAN to this party. (joke)

What is mental illness? What makes something wrong, or inaccurate? What is 'normal'? I think these questions can be reduced to what environments, behaviors, and mental illnesses make it more likely for someone to commit murder?

So, what constitutes a mental illness? Autism is a mental illness, no? Are mental illnesses wrong? Abnormal? ..Bad? Why is a lack of empathy considered a mental illness? Why is being gay not considered a mental illness? After all, it's not normal, and it is wrong.. the wrong way to produce babies and propagate your genetics. We may be able to avoid 'answering' what constitutes as a mental illness (give it a few hundred years), and thus, is wrong, by identifying what murder is, what makes it more likely, and what makes a person more likely to commit murder. Assuming 'murder' is killing society does not want.

Should poor people have access to health care? I think they should. We cannot account for everything. Nutrition has a big impact on people. We judge others quite often, but we're not gods. All of you aren't right even 10% of the time concerning major issues, and minor issues as well. To decide who deserves what without all the variables invites inaccuracy. Mental Health Care (is that name taken?) is serious and as a society, I think we should take some responsibility. It's obviously serious when murder is involved. You get what you deserve.

As that article mentioned, it seems likely reducing gun-ownership would reduce the number of shootings. Ultimately, my thoughts on this are that problems always stem from somewhere.

[Zeebu]

should ford feel upset because some alchy got liquored up and ran over someones mother in their focus?

[Bioture]

I own a shotgun, two rifles, and 2 handguns. None of them have really killed anyone. I don't see myself ever owning an assault rifle, so taking it away doesn't matter too much to me.

I'm all for reform and giving up my guns if it means people will be safer - though gun ownership is something that's really engrained in american culture, so it'll be hard to give up. Personally I'd like to think that people kill people, but that's just the blunt end of a long argument. A pistol with a 15 round mag such as my glock 19 can potentially kill 15 people before I reload, which doesn't take all that long. A tactical shotgun can potentially kill more than the number of rounds it has, due to spread and penetration if you use slugs. A rifle is capable of killing a person from far away, etc etc. You get the picture.

I'd like to see a ban on assault rifles, and a tax on regular firearms. Banning guns altogether is going to be really tough, and it isn't really fair for the responsible gun owners. But I am willing to pay a bit more so that the money goes towards mental health facilities? I know that won't solve the problem outright, but something along those lines would start the mitigating factors as opposed to a hard one-way ban that would make people push back even harder.

[Ephemeral]

The statistics speak for themselves. You are 44 times more likely to shoot your own family than an intruder in your house. In 2010, 31000 Americans were killed by guns, that is 60 times more than the troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the same year. The history of guns is obviously long in America but it has gotten out of hand. Here in my local town the Tea Party just announced a contest with the prize being a Bush Master assault rifle (exact same gun used in CT last week). Nice timing.

What are the reasons for owning guns? Well, obvious is ‘protection’ although it make no sense to me that people will buy a gun before buying a security system. And as stated the stats are crystal clear, you are far more likely to shoot and kill someone in your own family.
Then we have the ‘right to form militia as counter balance to Feds’ argument. This also makes little sense to me, in USA you CANNOT own any kind of arms that would stand a chance against the government. This has been proven in several situations, if they want you they will get you no matter how big your stash of weapons is.

I can see someone owning a handgun. I can see someone owning a hunting rifle. I cannot see the justification for private citizens owning assault rifles, high capacity clips, or certain ammunition.
I also do not know how the people who made money from selling this stuff can sleep at night. Talk about blood money, how can the owner of the shooting range where this dumb ass and his even dumber mother were paying to play with the guns not feel that he has blood on his hands? How the dealer who sold the gun and ammunition not feel like he also has blood on his hands? How can the manufacturer of the Bush Master not feel the same?

Right to bear arms is like the right to free speech, it comes with a lot of responsibility. Just because I have the right to say ‘fuck you assholes’ doesn’t mean that I SHOULD say it. And just because I have the right to own arms doesn’t mean that I should own them. If I am untrained, if I am not stable, if I am a convicted criminal then I should not own a gun. And just like I cannot own a nuclear warhead, I should not be able to own an assault rifle, large clips, or certain ammunition. Allow people to own their hand guns, allow people to own their hunting rifles. I would even be ok if SOME people were licensed to own things like assault rifles, large clips, or certain ammunitions. But I think that to have them as common and in circulation like they are now will only result I more of what we saw in Connecticut.
eph

[Supreme]

yes, many

[RednaZ]

no

[Bioture]

Thoughts?