Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's your control group? "Comparble western nations" aren't actually comparable since they don't have government intervention on the same scale in the form of our war on drugs (among many other things).

If gun ownership among responsible citizens AND murder victims were distributed roughly uniformly, you *might* be on to something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Control groups in observatory statistics is funky in itself, but apart from that I was merely referring to easy to get statistics where you can see number of crimes per capita on a country-to-country basis, the sources are reputable enough - you can use interpol statistics for example.

Most of these will show that the US has a very high violent crime rate and murder rate, and skyhigh murder by gun rate compared other first world nations of somewhat comparable means per capita, whereas other crime statistics are comparable or often favorably lower. More violent crime, but less/same of other forms of crime - That IS quite funky, however you twist and turn it.

As for internal government intervention, I don't know how many countries you have studied, been too or lived in, but from an outside perspective the US is quite low on it.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poster A says he feels uncomfortable being near someone who wants to carry a gun.

Poster B says someone carrying a gun could have potentially stopped the VT shooting - that such a shooting is ALREADY IN PROGRESS is part of the assumption of the statement.

Then you jump in. Now, GIVEN that such an event is ALREADY IN PROGRESS, do you agree or disagree that an armed student could have potentially stopped it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I agree. The sky is blue and the pope still [censored] in the woods.

[ QUOTE ]
And in the context of "providing an environment in which these things don't happen," making a campus a "gun free zone" clearly does NOT prevent these things, since VT *IS* a gun free zone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I ask if you think this is a reasonable interpretation of my question? Are you just trying to win an argument here?

[ QUOTE ]
But since you brought it up, how results-oriented do you think your "lack of similar events in other countries" question is? Do you have any stats?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html<br />
[/ QUOTE ]

So in your link of (supposedly) every school shooting in the world, we see an overwhelming majority happen in the US. Your point was...?

[ QUOTE ]
In regards to the point that you were responding to, how many of these events, many of which occured outside the US, had armed citizens in the area who were *unable* to put a stop to the events?

[/ QUOTE ]

5. Definitely exactly 5.

[ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, we *can* see how easily an armed citizen can put a stop to such mass attacks:

[/ QUOTE ]

We *can also* see how various other things might put a stop to such mass attacks (such as, ironically, not having them and having massive coverage of them).

[ QUOTE ]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._in_tennessee/


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, why be results oriented when we have this sort... oh wait, no.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't imply that at all unless you can control for other variables, which is impossible.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
We *can also* see how various other things might put a stop to such mass attacks (such as, ironically, not having them and having massive coverage of them).

[/ QUOTE ]

And let me guess. Gun control is a way to "ironically, not have them".

most of the "worst" (they're all horrible, I'm speaking in pure #'s here) attacks have occured using illegal guns, which means they would've occured regardless of any and all gun control measures.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We *can also* see how various other things might put a stop to such mass attacks (such as, ironically, not having them and having massive coverage of them).

[/ QUOTE ]

And let me guess. Gun control is a way to "ironically, not have them".

most of the "worst" (they're all horrible, I'm speaking in pure #'s here) attacks have occured using illegal guns, which means they would've occured regardless of any and all gun control measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun control at what level? Cultural? Legal? Latter... not gonna help as much is it?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We *can also* see how various other things might put a stop to such mass attacks (such as, ironically, not having them and having massive coverage of them).

[/ QUOTE ]

And let me guess. Gun control is a way to "ironically, not have them".

most of the "worst" (they're all horrible, I'm speaking in pure #'s here) attacks have occured using illegal guns, which means they would've occured regardless of any and all gun control measures.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gun control at what level? Cultural? Legal? Latter... not gonna help as much is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many people in this modern world believe the world came into existance on their birth and will explode upon their death, but the fact of the matter is, people were killing people for millions of years, prior to the first firearms, and if you could somehow, magically, remove 100% of the firearms on this planet tonight at midnight, people would find other ways to kill each other.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't imply that at all unless you can control for other variables, which is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, exactly. This may be the first recorded case where I have agreed with xorbie.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

No way. I adamantly refuse to believe that without guns anyone would ever die, ever. It is a proven fact that cancer, AIDS and radical Islam would all disappear should stricter gun controls be enacted.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't imply that at all unless you can control for other variables, which is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding, exactly. This may be the first recorded case where I have agreed with xorbie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pop the chamagna man, it's time to party.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you compare violent crime in britain to violent crime in US you will be surprised.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
No way. I adamantly refuse to believe that without guns anyone would ever die, ever. It is a proven fact that cancer, AIDS and radical Islam would all disappear should stricter gun controls be enacted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, and it's a good thing that radical Islam would disappear, because the NSA would have to give up the name, as the NRA would quickly become the "National Swordsman's Association"

BTW, I'm very interested in hearing MidGe's opinion on me, as a Law Enforcement Officer, possessing and maintaining a firearm.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you compare violent crime in britain to violent crime in US you will be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. Proof positive that guns reduce violent crime.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you compare violent crime in britain to violent crime in US you will be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. Proof positive that guns reduce violent crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not know what proof is, or do you just not care?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't imply that at all unless you can control for other variables, which is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I jumped the gun on that one and it was a false statement, I concede.

Still, there are interesting numbers to be found - the statistical difference on these values if you graph all the different crimes types up against other first world nations is extreme. It would seem that on almost other crime types the US is comparable to the same first world nations, but not on gun-related crime.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]


if you compare violent crime in britain to violent crime in US you will be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I won't be. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US has a disproportionally high number of murders per capita, almost twice that of any comparable western nation. This doesn't imply that US gun laws leads to more murders , but it does imply that they don't lead to less murders.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you compare violent crime in britain to violent crime in US you will be surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. Proof positive that guns reduce violent crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not know what proof is, or do you just not care?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was being sarcastic. What those statistics show to me is a (big) rise in violent crime, and a (slight) drop in death from violent crime, which I really contribute to a learning curve. Give the criminals time to learn to kill better using knives and the death rate will equal the crime rate again.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, we *can* see how easily an armed citizen can put a stop to such mass attacks:

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's another one:

[ QUOTE ]
On January 16, 2002, ASL Dean Anthony Sutin, Professor Thomas Blackwell, and 1L student Angela Dales were shot and killed by disgruntled student Peter Odighizuwa, 43, of Nigeria. When Odighizuwa exited the building, he was subdued by two students armed with personal firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...ampus_shooting

Curiously almost every mention of this case in "the media" (even fox!) neglected the fact that the students were themselves armed.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

pvn,

As usual, it should be noted that my opinion comes off as overstated because I'm forced to argue psuedo devil's advocate positions here. I don't think gun control is good a priori. I think liberals in this country make far too big an issue of gun control and go too far in their crusade against guns. It lets them sleep better at night.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an unbiased opinion to me!


[/ QUOTE ]

Not more biased than any quotes from NRA and similar organizations!

[/ QUOTE ]

So your counter to bias is more bias?

Also, LOL at your "source". Listen to this whopper:

[ QUOTE ]
Claim 2. Armed robberies are up by a "whopping" 44% since the new laws. In fact the rate of armed robbery increase dropped 12% in 1998.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not mutually exclusive, DUCY? Plus, data-cherry-picking FTW.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/assault.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/propcrym.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/murder.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse02.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse09.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse03.gif

NOW REMEMBER, your statement that I asked for a cite on was this:

[ QUOTE ]
Were all crimes with, or without, guns, eliminated? NO, in either cases, but they were reduced!

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide a source that backs this statement. The one you've provided does not, since it acknowleges that crime increased after the new austrailian gun laws.

Continuing on...

[ QUOTE ]
Lets put it this way. You favor unlimited gun ownership and you are in a room with a totally deranged person (they do exists). You would say that in the name of freedom you would like, or not object to, him to have a gun!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have to be compelled to be in a room with other people? I probably wouldn't want him to have a baseball bat, or knitting needles, or a fork, either.

Yet another case of jumping to edge-case scenarios (locked in an enclosed space with a "total nutcase") to justify impositions in the general case. If everyone were derranged and everyone were locked in rooms with other people, you might be on to something! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] &lt;-- I'm going to start taking a page from the RedBean/Midge Secret Trolling Handbook and start using more smart-ass statements, of course dding a "!" and a ":)" to the end.

And since these people DO exist, I am certainly *entitled* to defend myself from them. Since these people DO manage to get guns (your precious gun control doesn't magically make them impossible to obtain) I certainly see a need for myself to have access to defensive measures.


Now, putting ALL of that aside, can you please explain why I need *your* permission in the first place?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most officers, myself included, prefer an armed public. Legally armed citizens are no threat, and the police can't be everywhere at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, especially considering that about one-third of justifiable homicides in the US are done by private citizens, either in self-defense, or against felons during the commission of crimes.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I'd feel much safer walking around Philadelphia if I had a gun. And I don't blame any student (college or otherwise) for wanting to have a gun at his side after what's been going on the past years in this country.

People are less likely to commit violent crimes if they know that 95% of the people around them are armed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really surpsised that people would want college kids carrying firearms. I've been out of college for 15 years now but my memory is quite strong. I used to marvel at impulsiveness and the stupidity of drunken college kids even when I was one of them. We had bars on campus (syracuse university) and walking around them on weekend nights you could always count on seeing someone do something stupid. And, of course, a lot of random violence.

College kids are known for their maturity. I'm glad to say that we can't prove I'm right when I suggest; if you arm a college; homicides will escalate.

Youth are not known to be cool and levelheaded... particularly when they drink. I think you're asking for trouble if you want them all to be armed.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

As usual, it should be noted that my opinion comes off as overstated because I'm forced to argue psuedo devil's advocate positions here. I don't think gun control is good a priori. I think liberals in this country make far too big an issue of gun control and go too far in their crusade against guns. It lets them sleep better at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let it be noted that I am not in favor of stricter gun control, I don't think it will change anything - by now I think any hypothetical problem with guns would be a cultural one and not a legal one.

I was merely trying to address that if we pick up the interpol charts it would seem the US is the first world nation in the world where people tend to shoot and point guns at eachother the most - and these are crime statistics, not justifiable homicide statistics and similar, but yet on anything else it seems to compare well.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an unbiased opinion to me!


[/ QUOTE ]

Not more biased than any quotes from NRA and similar organizations!

[/ QUOTE ]

So your counter to bias is more bias?

Also, LOL at your "source". Listen to this whopper:

[ QUOTE ]
Claim 2. Armed robberies are up by a "whopping" 44% since the new laws. In fact the rate of armed robbery increase dropped 12% in 1998.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not mutually exclusive, DUCY? Plus, data-cherry-picking FTW.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/assault.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/propcrym.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/murder.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse02.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse09.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse03.gif

NOW REMEMBER, your statement that I asked for a cite on was this:

[ QUOTE ]
Were all crimes with, or without, guns, eliminated? NO, in either cases, but they were reduced!

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide a source that backs this statement. The one you've provided does not, since it acknowleges that crime increased after the new austrailian gun laws.

Continuing on...

[ QUOTE ]
Lets put it this way. You favor unlimited gun ownership and you are in a room with a totally deranged person (they do exists). You would say that in the name of freedom you would like, or not object to, him to have a gun!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have to be compelled to be in a room with other people? I probably wouldn't want him to have a baseball bat, or knitting needles, or a fork, either.

Yet another case of jumping to edge-case scenarios (locked in an enclosed space with a "total nutcase") to justify impositions in the general case. If everyone were derranged and everyone were locked in rooms with other people, you might be on to something! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] &lt;-- I'm going to start taking a page from the RedBean/Midge Secret Trolling Handbook and start using more smart-ass statements, of course dding a "!" and a ":)" to the end.

And since these people DO exist, I am certainly *entitled* to defend myself from them. Since these people DO manage to get guns (your precious gun control doesn't magically make them impossible to obtain) I certainly see a need for myself to have access to defensive measures.


Now, putting ALL of that aside, can you please explain why I need *your* permission in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just got teary eyed.

I was in the process of copying those English charts, couldn't find the Aussie ones though.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

^^ owned.

also from wikipedia,
"In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms leglislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by academics Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).[17] This paper was criticised, notably by economists Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh,[18], who argued in a blog link that time series methods are unreliable, but used those same methods to argue that gun deaths are lower now than they were on average in the 80 year period before the laws were introduced. Prominent Australian criminologist Don Weatherburn described the Baker &amp; McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions."

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
^^ owned.

also from wikipedia,
"In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms leglislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by academics Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).[17] This paper was criticised, notably by economists Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh,[18], who argued in a blog link that time series methods are unreliable, but used those same methods to argue that gun deaths are lower now than they were on average in the 80 year period before the laws were introduced. Prominent Australian criminologist Don Weatherburn described the Baker &amp; McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions."

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this logic. I understand it from a pure statistical perspective, however, it boggles my mind on a political level.

"So, the law doesn't make any sense, but we're unsure. We'll have to leave it on the books for 100 years or so to ensure that the sample size is big enough to determine whether we've made a difference."

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Claim 2. Armed robberies are up by a "whopping" 44% since the new laws. In fact the rate of armed robbery increase dropped 12% in 1998.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow this is so totally misleading on purpose.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Claim 2. Armed robberies are up by a "whopping" 44% since the new laws. In fact the rate of armed robbery increase dropped 12% in 1998.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow this is so totally misleading on purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL -- wow, someone certainly brushed up on "how to lie with statistics" there, didn't they? The linked sight has ZERO credibility after something so totally deliberate and shameless...

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

Artful pvnage, pvn.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, putting ALL of that aside, can you please explain why I need *your* permission in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

And an excellent question.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I'd feel much safer walking around Philadelphia if I had a gun. And I don't blame any student (college or otherwise) for wanting to have a gun at his side after what's been going on the past years in this country.

People are less likely to commit violent crimes if they know that 95% of the people around them are armed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really surpsised that people would want college kids carrying firearms. I've been out of college for 15 years now but my memory is quite strong. I used to marvel at impulsiveness and the stupidity of drunken college kids even when I was one of them. We had bars on campus (syracuse university) and walking around them on weekend nights you could always count on seeing someone do something stupid. And, of course, a lot of random violence.

College kids are known for their maturity. I'm glad to say that we can't prove I'm right when I suggest; if you arm a college; homicides will escalate.

Youth are not known to be cool and levelheaded... particularly when they drink. I think you're asking for trouble if you want them all to be armed.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't know much about guns or people who carry them, do you?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

Hahaha. I was gonna reply asking why people still bothered to dignify Midge with a response, but this was well worth it.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like an unbiased opinion to me!


[/ QUOTE ]

Not more biased than any quotes from NRA and similar organizations!

[/ QUOTE ]

So your counter to bias is more bias?

Also, LOL at your "source". Listen to this whopper:

[ QUOTE ]
Claim 2. Armed robberies are up by a "whopping" 44% since the new laws. In fact the rate of armed robbery increase dropped 12% in 1998.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements are not mutually exclusive, DUCY? Plus, data-cherry-picking FTW.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/assault.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/propcrym.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/murder.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse02.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse09.gif

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/cjuse03.gif

NOW REMEMBER, your statement that I asked for a cite on was this:

[ QUOTE ]
Were all crimes with, or without, guns, eliminated? NO, in either cases, but they were reduced!

[/ QUOTE ]

Please provide a source that backs this statement. The one you've provided does not, since it acknowleges that crime increased after the new austrailian gun laws.

Continuing on...

[ QUOTE ]
Lets put it this way. You favor unlimited gun ownership and you are in a room with a totally deranged person (they do exists). You would say that in the name of freedom you would like, or not object to, him to have a gun!?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have to be compelled to be in a room with other people? I probably wouldn't want him to have a baseball bat, or knitting needles, or a fork, either.

Yet another case of jumping to edge-case scenarios (locked in an enclosed space with a "total nutcase") to justify impositions in the general case. If everyone were derranged and everyone were locked in rooms with other people, you might be on to something! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] &lt;-- I'm going to start taking a page from the RedBean/Midge Secret Trolling Handbook and start using more smart-ass statements, of course dding a "!" and a ":)" to the end.

And since these people DO exist, I am certainly *entitled* to defend myself from them. Since these people DO manage to get guns (your precious gun control doesn't magically make them impossible to obtain) I certainly see a need for myself to have access to defensive measures.


Now, putting ALL of that aside, can you please explain why I need *your* permission in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]


And now I've found the post that I can link to anytime someone claims banning guns is a good idea. Well done sir.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
You don't know much about guns or people who carry them, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a enough about youths who have access to guns... they kill each other more. I also have enough direct experience with drunken college kids to know that if they all carried guns, there would be a lot of tragic incidents.

And I do recall that the 2001 Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence that an increase in youths access to firearms led to an increase in violence related to such weapons.

Just looked up a summary from it-
"Even though youth violence is less lethal today than it was in 1993, the percentage of adolescents involved in violent behavior remains alarmingly high. The epidemic of lethal violence that swept the United States was fueled in large part by easy access to weapons, notably firearms —and youths' self-reports of violence indicate that the potential for a resurgence of lethal violence exists."

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't know much about guns or people who carry them, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know a enough about youths who have access to guns... they kill each other more. I also have enough direct experience with drunken college kids to know that if they all carried guns, there would be a lot of tragic incidents.

And I do recall that the 2001 Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence that an increase in youths access to firearms led to an increase in violence related to such weapons.

Just looked up a summary from it-
"Even though youth violence is less lethal today than it was in 1993, the percentage of adolescents involved in violent behavior remains alarmingly high. The epidemic of lethal violence that swept the United States was fueled in large part by easy access to weapons, notably firearms —and youths' self-reports of violence indicate that the potential for a resurgence of lethal violence exists."

[/ QUOTE ]
Youths = college students?
Perpetually drunk and stupid college students = likely to drop $400+ on a hand gun and go through the trouble of getting a carry permit?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm really surpsised that people would want college kids carrying firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand the difference between "You do not have the authority to restrict activity X" and "You want people to do activity X"?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm really surpsised that people would want college kids carrying firearms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand the difference between "You do not have the authority to restrict activity X" and "You want people to do activity X"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he doesn't. If he understood that he would have nothing to whine about, and might be resigned to honest arguments.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for internal government intervention, I don't know how many countries you have studied, been too or lived in, but from an outside perspective the US is quite low on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many levels of government in the US. Some areas of the US have very strict gun control laws; by coincidence these are the same areas that have very high crime rates.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Youths = college students?
Perpetually drunk and stupid college students = likely to drop $400+ on a hand gun and go through the trouble of getting a carry permit?

[/ QUOTE ]

College students aren't 'youths'? Isn't 'youth' typically denote people who are young? You don't agree that your average college student isn't young and, perhaps, relatively immature? More prone to irrational emotional reactions?

[ QUOTE ]
Perpetually drunk and stupid college students = likely to drop $400+ on a hand gun and go through the trouble of getting a carry permit?

[/ QUOTE ]
what about drunk and stupid college kids who already have a gun? Or who come from a family with money? Or whose parents buy them guns?

Is your argument that my concern about the rationality of having a group who are still somewhat immature is invalid because you think they can't afford guns?

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about drunk and stupid college kids who already have a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, genius, they already have them.

[ QUOTE ]
Or who come from a family with money? Or whose parents buy them guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really neck-deep in several fallacies of aggregation.

1) Some college students are drunk and stupid.
+
2) Some college students have guns.
=
3) Anyone opposing a forcible disarmament of college students is advocating arming drunk stupid people.

It's FOOLPROOF LOGIC!

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Comparble western nations" aren't actually comparable since they don't have government intervention on the same scale in the form of our war on drugs (among many other things).

[/ QUOTE ]

....

As for internal government intervention, I don't know how many countries you have studied, been too or lived in, but from an outside perspective the US is quite low on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?

Please list "comparble western nations" that are more invasive when it comes to drugs than the US.

Re: mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what about drunk and stupid college kids who already have a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, genius, they already have them.

[ QUOTE ]
Or who come from a family with money? Or whose parents buy them guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're really neck-deep in several fallacies of aggregation.

1) Some college students are drunk and stupid.
+
2) Some college students have guns.
=
3) Anyone opposing a forcible disarmament of college students is advocating arming drunk stupid people.

It's FOOLPROOF LOGIC!

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I was a Campus Police officer while a student in college, and I carried a gun on me off duty, to class, and I never shot anyone.

I had several friends who were not campus police officers who carried concealed weapons to class, it never bothered me.