No Link Between Video Games And Murder

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. They sold the exact same guns, they just changed the way the gun looked slightly.

The guns were still sold. This goes back to what I was saying before: Gun control advocates as a whole know extremely little about guns.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about, I brought it up as an example of the last time the federal government had any gun control legislation, not as an example of something that totally eliminated guns.

 

[Ur_Mom]

So what did happen, what are you trying to say, the government took the guns away and now the people aren't free anymore?

You take away one freedom (especially the 2nd amendment), and what is stopping them from taking the others away? Not a thing. Start with that one, and then the people can no longer fight for their rights and freedoms and they can just be easily taken. They aren't just going to strip them all in one fell swoop. It's little by little. When do you draw the line between freedom and non-freedom? For some, they want full anarchy. For others, they just want to be home, go to work, spend money, play golf. You can do that in N. Korea. Others like to exercise their rights. Just because you choose not to USE the rights doesn't mean that others don't.

 

[Stiletto]

You don't know how to read then. I bolded the part you forgot to read or failed to comprehend. THE KEY PART BEING AUTOMATIC or SEMI-AUTOMATIC along 2 additional accessories, not just being it has a fucking bayonet on it.

...did you just tell me I forgot to read or failed to comprehend something...

...right before you say the key part is automatic or semi-automatic, when there was no mention of automatic weapons in that part you're so concerned about? That's awesome, dude. Fucking awesome.

I'm guessing you don't even know the difference, but it matters. A semi-automatic weapon is any weapon where, when you pull the trigger, a single shot discharges. In other words, every pistol(as opposed to revolver) everywhere, a shitload of rifles and a shitload of shotguns.

In contrast, there are automatic weapons. With an automatic weapon, when you pull the trigger, shots continue to fire until you release the trigger, or the magazine is emptied of ammo. You know what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did about that? Fucking nothing, because it applied to semi-automatic weapons, which is the point you missed, even though you seemed to think I missed it. Automatic weapons were addressed by the Hughes Amendment, better known as the 1986 Machine Gun ban, passed under Reagan, outlawing the manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian possession. That is why you have semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are visually identical to their fully-automatic M4 and M16 counterparts used by the military.

You should learn what you're talking about someday.

 

[Stiletto]

Any sensible person with a reasonable mind...

...doesn't begin statements with those kinds of qualifiers. Buh bye.

 

[zero1945]

It's also an interesting political discussion. Anything that goes into restricting magazine sizes or types of firearms strikes me as political suicide for the Republicans. Screwing the 2nd Amendment base risks further fracturing the Republican Party.

Democrats are clearly expected to vote for gun-control. No one denies this.

But I can't imagine Republicans voting for it. If they do, there is basically no reason to vote for them anymore. They would become virtually indistinguishable form Democrats on another issue (among plenty of others). It's one of those things pillars of the Republican Party, like it or not.

 

[Nytegard]

Put it this way:

Every time a shooter's personality is described on news media as shy, introverted, shies away from people, lack of physical contact or friends, social outcast, and often times intelligent, it scares me that in a way they describe the kind of person I am.

My personality literally fits the description of nearly every shooter from Columbine to Newtown. Yet, why have I not committed a crime?

Good parenting.
...

While I agree with you, I don't think it's just a simple answer. We want simple answers. The person was insane, it was the medication, they were bullied, put a cop in the building, have good parenting, etc. The only true simple answer to this is, the person committed an evil act.

Now, I'm going to piss off probably everyone here with what I say here, but this is my take.

I don't think video games are entirely responsible, but they are a factor. Also, I look at why the school was chosen. And why is it these upstanding communities where we'd all love to live are the ones where these acts are being committed? In some of the worst areas in the world, where people go through significantly worse physical and mental anguish, they want to live.

I think part why these things are happening more (besides obvious population increases) is quite honestly, because we as a society are trying to change human nature and become more civilized. As you've stated, the media often describes them as shy, introverted, outcast, etc. Yet, often they're not introverted. They're often trying to fit in, yet excluded from society from one reason or another.

Let's face reality for a moment here. Children can be very cruel, even grade school children. We all probably think or child is a saint, but probably they were a jerk to at least one other child in school (whether they realize it or not). People aren't outcasts because just a few bullies are picking on them. They're outcasts when they are at the very bottom rung, and everyone looks down upon them. It's human nature to despise people who don't conform. As an adult, we learn to curb our natural instincts, but children tend to be impulsive, and typically aren't held accountable for their actions.

I'm certainly not saying at all what happened on Friday was right, nor that any of the victims were involved. They were at the wrong place at the wrong time. And quite often, when people snap, it's not an eye for an eye. The perpetrator goes significantly overboard. I'm just saying that to the perpetrator, something obviously was wrong with him, and previous experiences could be a factor.

We talk about mental illness, but what do we really know? The media coverage on this has been a mess. He had a strict, paranoid mother to he had a loving mother who would have done everything she could for her children. He was a bright young child to he was on medication.

I certainly agree that we need better help for individuals who suffer mental illness, but I wonder if some of our view of help only helps escalate these problems. Who knows if he was on medication and what side effects they have. And with teachers and parents trying to "cure" their children by teaching empathy, or alleviate bullying, is that really helpful? We like to think we're aware as adults, but children are more aware of when we're watching and when we're not than we'd probably like to admit. And when we see an outcast and tell our child to make friends with them, they publicly do it because we're watching, but the second we turn our heads, they're not going to be who we think they are. When growing up, if bullied, you didn't tell a teacher or parent, because in the end, you only get bullied more.

The difference though is that it use to be, sooner or later, a person would only take so much before they'd fight back. And win or lose, the sheer act of fighting back would often prevent future acts of bullying. Today, we say not to fight back. Violence begets violence. We somehow claim emotional pain is as real as physical pain, and can't seem to comprehend that yes, violence does beget violence, but maybe the first violence is emotional violence, and will be returned with violence, no matter how hard we try. Yet we tell our children not to stand up for themselves. We tell them to bottle up these emotions of anger, despair, and hate. We tell them to talk it out, or we put them on some form of medication to dull the emotional pain.

And that's where video games and media come in. Their outlet for violence is these games or movies, which teach them violence is good. You kill as many people in CoD or Halo and you're the winner. But unlike a schoolyard fight, there is no negative. When you had a school yard fight, you learned to associate violence with pain (as probably both you and the other kid were hurt to some degree). Games and movies don't have that association. They do, however, desensitize you.

I'm not saying video games are responsible for what happened. The vast majority of us play violent video games, watch violent movies, etc. We don't commit these acts. The vast majority of people who are mentally ill don't commit these acts either. But as much as we'd love to guess why things happen, we don't walk in their shoes. And quite honestly, we can say "but this (bullying, outcast, etc.) happened to me as a child, but to what extent? Quite often, unless you have walked in another person's shoes, it's near impossible to comprehend why they are why they are, are why they do what they do. You can know why, but you still won't understand why. I think it's just too complicated of an issue, and sometimes we just don't want to face the truth. We try to change our natures for the better, but we don't want to face the fact that maybe there will be negative consequences.

 

[Stiletto]

It's also an interesting political discussion. Anything that goes into restricting magazine sizes or types of firearms strikes me as political suicide for the Republicans. Screwing the 2nd Amendment base risks further fracturing the Republican Party.

Democrats are clearly expected to vote for gun-control. No one denies this.

But I can't imagine Republicans voting for it. If they do, there is basically no reason to vote for them anymore. They would become virtually indistinguishable form Democrats on another issue (among plenty of others). It's one of those things pillars of the Republican Party, like it or not.

The Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 was voted through the Senate 95-4, with 42 Republicans voting yes. The four that voted no were two Republicans and two Democrats(one of them my former Senator Russ Feingold, who I respect to this day for his stand). This stopped being a partisan issue a looong time ago.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

...did you just tell me I forgot to read or failed to comprehend something...

...right before you say the key part is automatic or semi-automatic, when there was no mention of automatic weapons in that part you're so concerned about? That's awesome, dude. Fucking awesome.

I'm guessing you don't even know the difference, but it matters. A semi-automatic weapon is any weapon where, when you pull the trigger, a single shot discharges. In other words, every pistol(as opposed to revolver) everywhere, a shitload of rifles and a shitload of shotguns.

In contrast, there are automatic weapons. With an automatic weapon, when you pull the trigger, shots continue to fire until you release the trigger, or the magazine is emptied of ammo. You know what the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did about that? Fucking nothing, because it applied to semi-automatic weapons, which is the point you missed, even though you seemed to think I missed it. Automatic weapons were addressed by the Hughes Amendment, better known as the 1986 Machine Gun ban, passed under Reagan, outlawing the manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian possession. That is why you have semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are visually identical to their fully-automatic M4 and M16 counterparts used by the military.

You should learn what you're talking about someday.

By definition, a fully automatic weapon is ALREADY considered an assault weapon under the legislation. AS WELL AS:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

You should learn what you're talking about someday.

 

[Stiletto]

By definition, a fully automatic weapon is ALREADY considered an assault weapon under the legislation.

Again, you show that you know nothing about what you're talking about. The very legislation defines an assault weapon as being semi-automatic. Semi-automatic and fully-automatic are two different things, which is, unfortunately, a concept you are unable to grasp. You just keep posting all that text and not reading it. If you did, you'd see that not once is the term "automatic" used, but only "semi-automatic", because that's all the AWB addressed. Semi-automatic does not mean "automatics too".

Learn.

 

[Stiletto]

And I'm going to post before you attempt to claim that because it addressed "semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm", that it somehow legislated actual fully automatic firearms.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Again, I merely stated it as an example of the last time the government passed any legislation on gun control.

Obviously I know a semi-automatic weapon that didn't have 2 or more of the following wouldn't be considered an assault weapon.

Perhaps, it should be newer legislation with tighter controls of bans on guns in general.

 

[zero1945]

The Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 was voted through the Senate 95-4, with 42 Republicans voting yes. The four that voted no were two Republicans and two Democrats(one of them my former Senator Russ Feingold, who I respect to this day for his stand). This stopped being a partisan issue a looong time ago.

I absolutely don't deny it, but I think my point still has merit.

I look at the modern Republican Party and see them as virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats on the vast majority of issues. The 2nd Amendment stands out though.

If I'm a pro-2nd Amendment Republican voter and see them voting for gun control, I'd probably just stop voting period. I sure as hell won't vote for a Democrat. But I wouldn't even leave the house to vote Republican anymore.

At a time when the Republican Party desperately needs a solid base, voting for actual weapons restrictions (not expanded background checks, etc) strikes me as poor policy.

 

[Stiletto]

I absolutely don't deny it, but I think my point still has merit.

I look at the modern Republican Party and see them as virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats on the vast majority of issues. The 2nd Amendment stands out though.

If I'm a pro-2nd Amendment Republican voter and see them voting for gun control, I'd probably just stop voting period. I sure as hell won't vote for a Democrat. But I wouldn't even leave the house to vote Republican anymore.

At a time when the Republican Party desperately needs a solid base, voting for actual weapons restrictions (not expanded background checks, etc) strikes me as poor policy.

They will do it, I guarantee you. Hell, Romney was just the GOP candidate a couple of months ago, and he signed one of the only state-level Assault Weapons Bans in the country.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Again, you show that you know nothing about what you're talking about. The very legislation defines an assault weapon as being semi-automatic. Semi-automatic and fully-automatic are two different things, which is, unfortunately, a concept you are unable to grasp. You just keep posting all that text and not reading it. If you did, you'd see that not once is the term "automatic" used, but only "semi-automatic", because that's all the AWB addressed. Semi-automatic does not mean "automatics too".

Learn.

You're just arguing for the sake or arguing because I used this as an example of the last legislation passed by the gov't, as opposed to including every single piece of gun legislation through out history that included fully automatic weapons, because that's the whole point of this.

 

[Stiletto]

You're just arguing for the sake or arguing because I used this as an example of the last legislation passed by the gov't, as opposed to including every single piece of gun legislation through out history that included fully automatic weapons, because that's the whole point of this.

Yes, and I pointed out the legislation passed just 8 years before the AWB(Hughes Amendment), that actually addressed fully-automatic firearms, which you never heard of before I mentioned it, just to demonstrate to you, again, that you should know what you're talking about before you start lecturing others about it.

Two massive pieces of gun legislation, passed just 8 years apart. Now you're acting like the fact that it's been 8 years since one piece expired is an automatic guarantee that we're not going to get any more legislation against guns.

...while at the same time suggesting that very thing, with more strict controls.

Great.

 

[Azhar]

So they took the weapons away because of tyranny? Do you think the government did that because they planned to round up all the people and enslave them later on and didn't want them to fight back? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
Maybe, just maybe, they took them away because of all the looting going around and they didn't want hundreds of guns unaccounted for in the streets?

So, even when government does what you say will never happen, there's still an excuse?

You're a good boy.

I want to quote you both because you're both wrong and right.

GWB employed mercenaries in New Orleans and they've severely abused the rights of residences. Yes, guns were removed from the populace because it was simply too lawless and dangerous there to let them have them, and yes, the government employed mercenaries were oppressive and tyrannical as well.

I recommend you guys read Zeitoun, a book about one man's experience surviving Katrina-damaged New Orleans. It's a VERY good book.

 

[zero1945]

They will do it, I guarantee you. Hell, Romney was just the GOP candidate a couple of months ago, and he signed one of the only state-level Assault Weapons Bans in the country.

They'll continue to lose elections then. In my opinion, they aren't going to gain voters by voting for gun control measures. People who support gun control aren't going to vote for them anyway. But, people who support them now for their 2nd Amendment stance will either not vote (most likely) or vote third party.

It's absolutely fascinating to watch the modern-day Republican Party self-destruct. Becoming Democrats-lite is quite possibly the worst thing they can be doing right now.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Yes, and I pointed out the legislation passed just 8 years before the AWB(Hughes Amendment), that actually addressed fully-automatic firearms, which you never heard of before I mentioned it, just to demonstrate to you, again, that you should know what you're talking about before you start lecturing others about it.

Two massive pieces of gun legislation, passed just 8 years apart. Now you're acting like the fact that it's been 8 years since one piece expired is an automatic guarantee that we're not going to get any more legislation against guns.

...while at the same time suggesting that very thing, with more strict controls.

Great.

You cannot prove that I didn't know anything about anything else so that statement is baseless, I merely brought the AWB because it was the last legislation that was passed, is that so hard to understand or should I just spam 100 more posts stating that before you decide my example is ok to use?

And my point was that after 8 years of it expiring, it took a bunch of public mass shootings like this to draw attention to gun control and bring it back into the picture because without it there would be no new legislation against guns.

 

[Stiletto]

Yes, guns were removed from the populace because it was simply too lawless and dangerous there to let them have them...

"It's really lawless and dangerous out there. Let me make things better by taking away any weapons, so that we can clean up your bodies if anyone breaks in. What? You want to protect your own life when it matters? Sorry, we know better than you how to protect your life."

I recommend you guys read Zeitoun, a book about one man's experience surviving Katrina-damaged New Orleans. It's a VERY good book.

Thanks for the recommendation. Might check it out.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

You cannot prove that I didn't know anything about anything else so that statement is baseless, I merely brought the AWB because it was the last legislation that was passed, is that so hard to understand or should I just spam 100 more posts stating that before you decide my example is ok to use?

And my point was that after 8 years of it expiring, it took a bunch of public mass shootings like this to draw attention to gun control and bring it back into the picture because without it there would be no new legislation against guns.

Let me correct myself before you decide to crucify me:

Without it there would be no consideration at all for new legislation against guns or gun control.

 

[Stiletto]

You cannot prove that I didn't know anything about anything else so that statement is baseless, I merely brought the AWB because it was the last legislation that was passed, is that so hard to understand or should I just spam 100 more posts stating that before you decide my example is ok to use?

You cited the AWB as an example, and I pointed out that it was useless legislation that protected pretty much nobody. If you don't want people discussing what you bring up, don't bring it up, or don't respond to mouthy people like me.

And my point was that after 8 years of it expiring, it took a bunch of public mass shootings like this to draw attention to gun control and bring it back into the picture because without it there would be no new legislation against guns.

So you're saying these shootings occurred because of a lack of legislation against guns? Then how did Columbine happen while the AWB was still in effect? The weapons that the Columbine killers used would actually be more classifiable as assault weapons than the pistols that Cho Seung-Hui used in the post-AWB massacre at Virginia Tech. My point is that anti-gun legislation does nothing to curb gun crime, and that basing legislation over media-hyped events is stupid as fuck. We've got the lowest crime rate we've had in decades, but we're going to crack down on it because the media loves showing blood and guts in prime time?

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

It may have been useless but still it was the last time the government addressed got involved in addressing it.

Crime rate and murder rate by guns are 2 different things.

So you're saying let everyone be armed to the teeth and carry out vigilante justice. We can have all out wars whenever someone feels the need to shoot someone else. Lets also arm children, after all the best defense is the right to bear arms. No more gun-free zones also, EVERYONE gets a gun.

 

[pelo]

I'm going to use slippery slope. What constitutes a mental disorder sufficient enough to prevent the purchase/ownership of a firearm? Right now it's limited to being involuntarily submitted to a mental health institute, which does make sense. However, a lot of chatter is going on about the mental defects that the Connecticut shooter had, either being autism or a severe case of Asperger's. Should people with those maladies be prohibited from owning weapons? Some people think so, but I know people with Asperger's, and while they're annoying and tiresome, they have as much right as anyone to defend their lives. How about people with depression? We certainly don't want them blowing their brains out. Maybe they should be prevented from having weapons so that we prevent lots of suicides.

My point is that there are always "reasonable" explanations for all kinds of restrictions of liberty, as best expressed by someone earlier who mentioned the Patriot Act. I have no problem with those "reasonable" explanations being offered, but let's make sure that we don't freak out or label someone "extremist" just because they disagree that the ideas are "reasonable".

You're using Asperger's but neglecting a whole variety of other mental health issues that should preclude somebody from buying a gun.

For instance:

A man threatens suicide. He gets diagnosed with schizophrenia and shows a propensity towards violence, whether to himself or others. He's kept at a facility until diagnosed, checked into a halfway house while on meds, and then released to the public as soon as he's deemed safe enough to walk out.

Would he require a background check? And should that background check include the above?

I'd wager yes, and yes. Yet for 40% of guns sold, nothing of the sort is required.

So while you're throwing around Asperger's, I'm considering some serious mental health issues that would give someone with a propensity to violence (and still on meds) a deadly weapon.

That's a serious problem. If we're willing to strip away the voting rights of a felon, why and how does requiring a background check, and the failure of a background check for our hypothetical case for this potential gun owner, cause so much outrage?

I just don't get it, frankly. There are so many ways that your freedom has been encroached, chief among those freedoms being the encroachment of the first amendment by various laws meant to protect us since 9/11. Yet somehow requiring that people aren't fucking crazies before they get their hands on a gun is somehow taking it too far... where have you been the past decade plus?

 

[Azhar]

"It's really lawless and dangerous out there. Let me make things better by taking away any weapons, so that we can clean up your bodies if anyone breaks in. What? You want to protect your own life when it matters? Sorry, we know better than you how to protect your life."



Thanks for the recommendation. Might check it out.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that's what they were telling these people.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

Also the argument for increased background checks are as useless as legislation then. I might have a clean record but you'll never find out I'm a psychopath until it's too late.

There's no way to control this, everyone needs a gun to guarantee their own safety.

 

[pelo]

Also the argument for increased background checks are as useless as legislation then. I might have a clean record but you'll never find out I'm a psychopath until it's too late.

There's no way to control this, everyone needs a gun to guarantee their own safety.

So you propose to let them all have guns, even the ones we know about?

That's what I mean by people abiding to ideologies and letting common sense take a back seat.

If a person at one point in there life wasn't trusted with a fucking razor blade, I'm pretty sure nobody should be giving them a handgun. Yet, for you and others, it's quite alright, because there are lots of other crazies who we don't know about, so why bother with the ones that we do?

Logic. You lack it.

 

[MasonD]

There's no way to control this, everyone needs a gun to guarantee their own safety.

I can only dream. Would be a much more polite world.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

If legislation is as worthless as people claim it to be, what makes you think an extended background check is worth anything if I've never been diagnosed with a mental defect or managed to keep myself out of the system.

As long as there are guns available, you will never keep them out of the hands of psychos.

 

[Azhar]

Also the argument for increased background checks are as useless as legislation then. I might have a clean record but you'll never find out I'm a psychopath until it's too late.

There's no way to control this, everyone needs a gun to guarantee their own safety.

The problem isn't increasing the background check for those who were already checked on. The problem is that the FBI only has to do so many each year. For example, the FBI would spend time to do a minimum of 150,000 background checks out of 800,000 guns sold in a year. That's 650,000 gun owners who got by with a courtesy glimpse of their records.

The FBI needs to step up and increase their background check quota to, say, 100% of guns sold.

Mental health researches also needs to be kicked up a notch. Many notches.

 

[pelo]

If legislation is as worthless as people claim it to be, what makes you think an extended background check is worth anything if I've never been diagnosed with a mental defect or managed to keep myself out of the system.

As long as there are guns available, you will never keep them out of the hands of psychos.

It's not an all or nothing. What are you, 5?

That sort of logic astounds me...

Hey, you might die in a car accident on the way home from work. No matter how safe cars are, people are always going to die in accidents. Why bother going to work?

Girlfriends can be total snobs. I mean, the sex is great, but many girls cheat on their boyfriends. Why bother with a girlfriend?

It's the all or nothing game, boys! Join in!

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

It's not an all or nothing. What are you, 5?

That sort of logic astounds me...

Hey, you might die in a car accident on the way home from work. No matter how safe cars are, people are always going to die in accidents. Why bother going to work?

Girlfriends can be total snobs. I mean, the sex is great, but many girls cheat on their boyfriends. Why bother with a girlfriend?

It's the all or nothing game, boys! Join in!

Well that's exactly why girlfriends are great, but not marriage. You can do the same.

 

[SkribbelKat]

Well that's exactly why girlfriends are great, but not marriage. You can do the same.

Its good for girls as well because they can figure out their nerd boyfriend is a loser who refuses to speak outside of private messages and complains when you don't log into WoW for two days to do dailies on his account so he can spend the money on something that has a gem socket he can shove stuff into.

 

[Nytegard]

I just don't get it, frankly. There are so many ways that your freedom has been encroached, chief among those freedoms being the encroachment of the first amendment by various laws meant to protect us since 9/11. Yet somehow requiring that people aren't fucking crazies before they get their hands on a gun is somehow taking it too far... where have you been the past decade plus?

But it's about what defines a person as crazy?

Over 1 in 5 adults suffer from some form of mental illness. The majority of that is depression. Some people might think that depressed people should obviously not be given a weapon. Who's to state that it doesn't go up in the future? (It's like that South Park episode with ADHD and all of the sudden, the entire class is diagnosed).

I'm not entirely sure he honestly was crazy. The way the media played out, I have absolutely no clue what the truth is to be honest. I believe he was evil though. And there is plenty of wrong in this world caused by sane, but evil people. How do you stop them from acquiring weapons legally?

Now, I'm all for gun control (always have been), I just don't think this is nearly as easy a subject to solve as we'd like to believe.

 

[Ducman69]

Americans are only #27th in killing people if we're talking murders-per-100k residents.

And if you remove certain cities from the statistics, we are virtually dead last.

Statistics show, the overwhelming majority of murders are committed by minorities against minority victims, often in drug and gang related violence.

As an example, Sugar Land (basically a suburb of Houston) has the highest number of concealed weapon permits per capita of Fort Bend county, however, it has a murder per capita from 2005 to 2010 of 0.22 per 100,000 which if on a national scale I'm quite confident would be the world's lowest.

Fact is, its PEOPLE that kill other people, not inanimate objects. Give a 9mm to a Buddhist priest and he's not suddenly transformed into a violent person.

 

[Stiletto]

So while you're throwing around Asperger's, I'm considering some serious mental health issues that would give someone with a propensity to violence (and still on meds) a deadly weapon.

I'm not "throwing around" anything. I'm citing the malady ascribed to the guy who shot up a Connecticut school 5 days ago. Whether you consider it serious or not is your call, but authorities investigating are trying to determine if it played a factor.

That's a serious problem. If we're willing to strip away the voting rights of a felon, why and how does requiring a background check, and the failure of a background check for our hypothetical case for this potential gun owner, cause so much outrage?

Frankly, I don't think felons should have their voting rights(or gun rights) stripped from them once they've served their time. If they've paid their due, why are they still being treated like prisoners? That's another issue, though.

I just don't get it, frankly. There are so many ways that your freedom has been encroached, chief among those freedoms being the encroachment of the first amendment by various laws meant to protect us since 9/11. Yet somehow requiring that people aren't fucking crazies before they get their hands on a gun is somehow taking it too far... where have you been the past decade plus?

Here's your confusion: you seem to be under the misapprehension that people like me are "okay" with freedoms other than the 2nd being encroached. We're not. This is little different than the so-called "cybersecurity" bills that are coming to "protect" us from websites or content the government doesn't want available to the public.

And you also don't get that no background check in the world will tell you if someone is "fucking crazy" if they've got nothing on their record to indicate it. I can go buy a gun right now, pass a background check with flying colors, and go crazy...just like the Virginia Tech shooter did.

I'm no religious believer, but people like you need to read the "Serenity Prayer":

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

You don't have to believe in any gods to understand the importance of that statement.

 

[pelo]

My sister works in the mental health field and I hear all kinds of crazy stories as well as being well aware with how these patients are treated and all that that entails.

If a person is considered harmful to himself or society at large, they're admitted. That's it. No questions. They're kept on observation for a period of time and then diagnosed. They're usually treated via medication and then either kept at the hospital or a halfway house, or even released (early) if the guardian/caregiver is deemed responsible enough (think doctor).

That's the sort of crazy I'm referring to. I'm not talking about your run-of-the-mill Asperger's case (which this kid had but his propensity towards violence means he developed other symptoms that weren't related to Asperger's since his initial Asperger's diagnosis). I wouldn't want a delusional schizophrenic who's been admitted to a hospital on numerous occasions to be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a rifle without going through a background check. I don't care about the Grandma with obsessive-compulsive disorder - unless Grandma's OCD involves murdering people ;P

 

[Stiletto]

It may have been useless but still it was the last time the government addressed got involved in addressing it.

Crime rate and murder rate by guns are 2 different things.

So you're saying let everyone be armed to the teeth and carry out vigilante justice. We can have all out wars whenever someone feels the need to shoot someone else. Lets also arm children, after all the best defense is the right to bear arms. No more gun-free zones also, EVERYONE gets a gun.

The first time you even discussed citizens using guns to defend themselves, you immediately jumped to "wars" whenever someone feels the need to shoot someone else, and armed children. You didn't even stop to consider the fact that 49 out of 50 states have legal concealed carry, most of them have open carry, and that millions of people carry weapons every day in this country without any wars, "wild-west shootouts", or "blood in the streets". I already linked you to an article about a concealed carrier that was present at the Portland mall shooting not long ago, in which he describes how he drew his weapon, but didn't fire because there were people in the background.

Gun owners are not the nutjobs you people make them out to be with your misguided stereotypes, but you won't even give a second to acknowledge that possibility. You immediately paint pictures of bloodbaths...something completely irrational. Which makes sense, given the amount of times you've announced yourself to be rational.

Hint: if you were, you wouldn't have to say it yourself.

 

[Ducman69]

Over 1 in 5 adults suffer from some form of mental illness. The majority of that is depression.

I am fairly confident that if you are not expecting it and you're just sitting at a bus stop, a good whack on the head with a simple hammer purchased at Lowes would kill you.

Dexter Morgan is quite successful with a kitchen knife.

We've already seen how gang members have ganged up on innocents and simply stomped them to death (your body weight jumping on someone's head that has fallen to the ground doesn't end well).

One in five people are not a dangerous liability, and if your statistic isn't just pulled out of thin air then it is only evidence that physicians are overdiagnosing people to make money on prescription drugs.

More importantly though, you can't uninvent a technology, not a in a free society, and if people can easily get their hands on something illegal like marijuana then likewise they can still get their hands on something like a 9mm. All you effectively do is increase the street price for a weapon, and ensure that the good law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves... how does that old quote go "criminalize guns and only criminals will have them"?

 

[Stiletto]

My sister works in the mental health field and I hear all kinds of crazy stories as well as being well aware with how these patients are treated and all that that entails.

If a person is considered harmful to himself or society at large, they're admitted. That's it. No questions. They're kept on observation for a period of time and then diagnosed. They're usually treated via medication and then either kept at the hospital or a halfway house, or even released (early) if the guardian/caregiver is deemed responsible enough (think doctor).

That's the sort of crazy I'm referring to. I'm not talking about your run-of-the-mill Asperger's case (which this kid had but his propensity towards violence means he developed other symptoms that weren't related to Asperger's since his initial Asperger's diagnosis). I wouldn't want a delusional schizophrenic who's been admitted to a hospital on numerous occasions to be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a rifle without going through a background check. I don't care about the Grandma with obsessive-compulsive disorder - unless Grandma's OCD involves murdering people ;P

And guess what? As I said earlier, you're talking about involuntary admission to a mental health facility, which would show up on a background check, and prevent a gun sale. It's been like that for years. However, almost none of the people involved in the killing sprees over the last several years have ever been involuntarily admitted, so they weren't stopped by a background check. Most of the people that carry out these things have been harboring their illness for years, and the spree is usually the first major demonstration of it.

So what you're looking at is either locking up more people at your discretion, so that they can't buy guns in the future(and lord knows that will never be abused by angry spouses, family members, etc)...or accepting the fact that for a free state to exist, you have to live with the occasional crazy person doing something horrible.

 

[Stiletto]

Dexter Morgan is quite successful with a kitchen knife.

He's also a fictional character.

We've already seen how gang members have ganged up on innocents and simply stomped them to death (your body weight jumping on someone's head that has fallen to the ground doesn't end well).

Please tell me you're not referencing a movie.