By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Gun control debate issues that bother me. Will Libertarians and Republicans please address these?

HappySqurriel said:
JWeinCom said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.


In Israel they had a problem with soldiers commiting suicide via gunshot.  They changed military policy so that guns were not kept at home with the soldiers, but on base.  The rate of suicide via gunshot fell significantly.  The rate of suicide by strangulation rose slightly.  Overall suicide among soldiers fell significantly. 

Of course, the suicidal soldiers could have easily found other methods to off themselves, and some did.  But, the lack of easy access to guns brought down the suicide rate.  Putting an extra step between the thought and the action had a meaningful impact. 

Making it more difficult to get the gun adds several steps between thought and deed, adds more points at which suspicion can arise and the would be killer would be caught, and could conceivably alter the type of weapon that is used, possibly decreasing overall impact.


Are you implying that Israel realized they had a problem with suicide, they didn't do anything to address the underlying mental health problems, and the reason suicide rates fell was lack of access to guns?


The article I read was specifically in regards to access to weapons. It doesn't mention any other actions they took in particular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/



Around the Network

Suicide is a moral/ethical issue. Also more of a mental health issue. 

Israel is a bad example as they have been plagued by war since their "official" inception. War does terrible things to minds. U.S. soldiers are committing suicide at a faster rate than combat deaths. Are we really going to blame the guns for that, or the war and chaos themselves?



JWeinCom said:
HappySqurriel said:
JWeinCom said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.


In Israel they had a problem with soldiers commiting suicide via gunshot.  They changed military policy so that guns were not kept at home with the soldiers, but on base.  The rate of suicide via gunshot fell significantly.  The rate of suicide by strangulation rose slightly.  Overall suicide among soldiers fell significantly. 

Of course, the suicidal soldiers could have easily found other methods to off themselves, and some did.  But, the lack of easy access to guns brought down the suicide rate.  Putting an extra step between the thought and the action had a meaningful impact. 

Making it more difficult to get the gun adds several steps between thought and deed, adds more points at which suspicion can arise and the would be killer would be caught, and could conceivably alter the type of weapon that is used, possibly decreasing overall impact.


Are you implying that Israel realized they had a problem with suicide, they didn't do anything to address the underlying mental health problems, and the reason suicide rates fell was lack of access to guns?


The article I read was specifically in regards to access to weapons. It doesn't mention any other actions they took in particular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/


I suspect there were probably substantial efforts to reduce suicide rates but the article ignored those because pointing out that reducing access to guns was one small part of a large strategy to prevent suicides is less sensational, and would be down right honest; something you don't see from the mainstream media.



Scoobes said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is going to say all guns should be eliminated, especially with the current situation in the States. At most it's an exageration because it's not truly acheivable in any country, let alone one that has nearly as many guns as people.

The point most reasonable anti-gun people seem to make is that guns should have tighter regulations. The car argument came up earlier (cars kill lots of people everyday etc.), but firstly, a car has a different primary use but also has strict laws in place to prevent misuse. There are age limits, you have to take a written/theoretical as well as practical test before you can get a license to drive a vehicle and if you abuse that then you can have your license taken away. I don't see any reason why a similar thing can't be applied to guns.

there are age restrictions on owning firearms, there are age restrictions for carrying firearms. there are age restrictions on buying ammunition. there are training requirements for carrying a firearm in public.

You need nothing more than enogh money to buy a car. you dont need a license, a permit, insurance, nothing, no test to pass. just walk in a buy it.

and do you realize how ridiculous pointing out that cars primary purpose isnt to kill but to drive. as that just proves how inneffective guns are at killing, because apparrently their primary purpose is to kill, yet they kill 1/4 of the amount of people as cars do, yet cars arent even designed to kill. and there are more than twice as many guns as there are cars. So a tool not designed to kill, kills 4 times more people than a tool that has over twice as many laying around, and supposedly sole purpose is to kill.

One can only imagine in horror what kind of carnage would ensue if they started making cars with the primary use to kill. 100k, 200k dead, maybe more.

 

and lastly owning firearms is a RIGHT! not a privledge. 



HappySqurriel said:
JWeinCom said:
HappySqurriel said:
JWeinCom said:
HappySqurriel said:
A question I would want answered with gun control is "What do you want to achieve?" and follow that up with "How does eliminating guns achieve that?" ...

If someone has the intent to do harm and is ready to break the law to accomplish that banning guns won't prevent them from doing harm; because they will probably be able to get an illegal gun, and even if they can't they could find some other way (bomb, kinfe, car, etc.) to do the harm they want.


In Israel they had a problem with soldiers commiting suicide via gunshot.  They changed military policy so that guns were not kept at home with the soldiers, but on base.  The rate of suicide via gunshot fell significantly.  The rate of suicide by strangulation rose slightly.  Overall suicide among soldiers fell significantly. 

Of course, the suicidal soldiers could have easily found other methods to off themselves, and some did.  But, the lack of easy access to guns brought down the suicide rate.  Putting an extra step between the thought and the action had a meaningful impact. 

Making it more difficult to get the gun adds several steps between thought and deed, adds more points at which suspicion can arise and the would be killer would be caught, and could conceivably alter the type of weapon that is used, possibly decreasing overall impact.


Are you implying that Israel realized they had a problem with suicide, they didn't do anything to address the underlying mental health problems, and the reason suicide rates fell was lack of access to guns?


The article I read was specifically in regards to access to weapons. It doesn't mention any other actions they took in particular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/


I suspect there were probably substantial efforts to reduce suicide rates but the article ignored those because pointing out that reducing access to guns was one small part of a large strategy to prevent suicides is less sensational, and would be down right honest; something you don't see from the mainstream media.

There were.  It also didn't actually get the story right.  As it didn't stop all soldiers from taking home their guns.

"As a result, the IDF prepared a training program to help commanders recognize serious psychological distress among soldiers and thus enable necessary assistance to be offered in time. As part of the program, it was decided to reduce the number of administration soldiers who take a personal weapon home."

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3916239,00.html

 


"The figures show that there were 14 suicides in the army this year, the lowest in at least 23 years. They indicate that in 2011 there were 21 IDF suicides, and that over the past seven years, the worst was 2010, when 28 soldiers took their own lives.

Before the army launched a program aimed at improving the way mental health issues are handled among soldiers, there were between 34 and 40 per year, the army said on Wednesday."

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=297613

 

Of course that's only if you don't believe the recent story that the numbrs were made up.and higher then reported now.



Around the Network
sc94597 said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Wow, where do you get your information from because that's the complete opposite of everything that actually happened.

And the vikings never tried to inhabit America, they were the first pirates of the day, travel from place to place killing and looting and then taken their prizes back home.


It's ironic how you criticize somebody for questioning history, but then also provide a fallacious statement. Vikings (or the Norse rather) DID settle places. Look up where the name "Rus" in Russia came from and look up the history of the country of Iceland. 


Funny, cause i grew up Iceland and they weren't know to settle places. they where know to pillage. Just because they settled a few spots doesn't mean they tired to settle in America and got their ass kicked  by the Indians.



Mmmfishtacos said:
sc94597 said:
Mmmfishtacos said:

Wow, where do you get your information from because that's the complete opposite of everything that actually happened.

And the vikings never tried to inhabit America, they were the first pirates of the day, travel from place to place killing and looting and then taken their prizes back home.


It's ironic how you criticize somebody for questioning history, but then also provide a fallacious statement. Vikings (or the Norse rather) DID settle places. Look up where the name "Rus" in Russia came from and look up the history of the country of Iceland. 


Funny, cause i grew up Iceland and they weren't know to settle places. they where know to pillage. Just because they settled a few spots doesn't mean they tired to settle in America and got their ass kicked  by the Indians.

So you do understand Icelandic is a North Germanic language, right? What, the Vikings (Norse) came to Iceland pillaged the celts and then before leaving they taught them their language? LOL

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

 

According to both Landnámabók and Íslendingabók, Celtic monks known as the Papar lived in Iceland before the Norse settlers arrived, possibly members of a Hiberno-Scottish mission. Recent archaeological excavations have revealed the ruins of a cabin in Hafnir on the Reykjanes peninsula, and carbon dating indicates that it was abandoned somewhere between 770 and 880, suggesting that Iceland was populated well before 874. This archaeological find may also indicate that the monks left Iceland before the Norse arrived.[14]

The first known permanent Norse settler was Ingólfr Arnarson, who built his homestead in present-day Reykjavík in the year 874. Ingólfr was followed by many other emigrant settlers, largely Norsemen and their thralls, many of whom were Irish or Scottish. By 930, most arable land had been claimed and the Althing, a legislative and judiciary parliament, was initiated to regulate the Icelandic CommonwealthChristianity was adopted around 999–1000, althoughNorse paganism persisted among some segments of the population for several years.

The Commonwealth lasted until the 13th century, when the political system devised by the original settlers proved unable to cope with the increasing power of Icelandic chieftains.

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

The original population of Iceland was of Nordic and Gaelic origin. This is evident from literary evidence dating from the settlement period as well as from later scientific studies such as blood type and genetic analyses. One such genetics study has indicated that the majority of the male settlers were of Nordic origin while the majority of the women were of Gaelic origin.

 

 

And certainly if you don't know the history of the place you grew up in, why should anyone trust you to know the history (or the contestation of history) of other places? I did not make any implication that the Vikings did settle North-America (although there is evidence that they tried) I argued against your ridiculous egoism as if you're somebody credible on the matter when you stated that Vikings (who were a sub-set of Norse society) didn't settle places. 



HappySqurriel said:

people might say guns people want guns they will get them use they will but people that do this mass shooting are normally your average joe and wouldn’t have connection to get these weapons illegally.

 

 

These shootings are done by ppl under psychiatric council..  Full of psychiatric drugs..  Not your normal joes.  They ought to be in looney bins. 

 

 

I had a best friend growing up in junior high.. I went back to visit after been grown up only to find that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.  AND that he went off his meds and slashed up his neighbors with a kitchen knife.  Why does no one ask for looney bins???  I think it's because the sheep do what the news tels you.  I'm no sheep Im a snake.  Don't tread on me.



snyps said:

HappySqurriel said:

people might say guns people want guns they will get them use they will but people that do this mass shooting are normally your average joe and wouldn’t have connection to get these weapons illegally.

 

 

These shootings are done by ppl under psychiatric council..  Full of psychiatric drugs..  Not your normal joes.  They ought to be in looney bins. 

 

 

I had a best friend growing up in junior high.. I went back to visit after been grown up only to find that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.  AND that he went off his meds and slashed up his neighbors with a kitchen knife.  Why does no one ask for looney bins???  I think it's because the sheep do what the news tels you.  I'm no sheep Im a snake.  Don't tread on me.

:D



snyps said:

HappySqurriel said:

people might say guns people want guns they will get them use they will but people that do this mass shooting are normally your average joe and wouldn’t have connection to get these weapons illegally.

 

 

These shootings are done by ppl under psychiatric council..  Full of psychiatric drugs..  Not your normal joes.  They ought to be in looney bins. 

 

 

I had a best friend growing up in junior high.. I went back to visit after been grown up only to find that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.  AND that he went off his meds and slashed up his neighbors with a kitchen knife.  Why does no one ask for looney bins???  I think it's because the sheep do what the news tels you.  I'm no sheep Im a snake.  Don't tread on me.

It was ruled that Americans have the right to refuse medical treatment.  Which means that in general you can't comit someone until after they've committed a serious crime.

It's also the majority of the US's persistant homelessness problem.  People too mentally sick to hold a job or even apply and get all the government aid they'd need to survive, but who refuse to get treatment and stay at centers.