Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Licana]

My whole point now is that there one in the same.

School shootings contribute to overall homicide rates.

As such, the overall homicide rate shows that the US has a problem on a scale that peers do not have.

And that is partly the fault of school shootings.

Not really. Homicides as a result of school shootings are so rare in the US compared to run-of-the-mill homicide that they're practically statistical noise. The methods used to curb one may not have any notable effect on the other.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Ok, let's say that"People in the US who have never bought a gun" are a social class. But can you really say that they are? They are millions and millions of them. From every walk of life. It's too generic to be a class.

TIL lower class is too generic a class.

We are not checking if they are capable of using a gun, rather, we want to make sure there not planning on killing everyone.

That's easy,99.99% of people aren't planning on killing everyone.

Rich to poor people may have never gotten a gun before.

Rich people have private security, Poor people have knives and phones.

The stats from the American Journal of Medicine I posted say otherwise.

But the system is designed not to be abused. The doctors have no reason to falsify a diagnoses beacuse of the threat of having your medical license revoked. The money comes directly from the US government so states can't complain about being too poor to afford it. A two man system works for the most powerful bombs ever built, it can work here.

They don't have to falsify anything, they just simply have to change or expand the definitions of "mental illness."

A 2004 article? Political opinions will not go in to testing.

My whole point now is that there one in the same.

School shootings contribute to overall homicide rates.

As such, the overall homicide rate shows that the US has a problem on a scale that peers do not have.

And that is partly the fault of school shootings.

Not really. Homicides as a result of school shootings are so rare in the US compared to run-of-the-mill homicide that they're practically statistical noise. The methods used to curb one may not have any notable effect on the other.

Maybe maybe not.

But if it does have an effect on homicides US wide, it would still be worth it.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

No. The exam is to diagnose any mental health problems the gun buyer may have

This may come as a surprise to you, but when the exam won't disqualify the vast majority of gun buyers from buying a gun, and they still have to go before the judge anyway, you are wasting everyone's time and money.

and if they are buying a gun for any nefarious reason.

Even if I'm buying a gun for the express purpose of shooting my pain-in-the-ass neighbor in the face, if I tell the shrink that I'm buying it for target shooting/hunting/general self-defense, he can't prove otherwise.

Not one bit.

How is it not fair?

The exam can be done to any race, class, anyone, and it's on a case by case basis.

Everyone is judged fairly by the same rules.

But you're not giving free medical care to people who aren't buying guns.

It's not faaaaaiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrr! I want my free medical exam! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

It's not meant to stop most gun buyers from buying a gun. It's meant to stop crazy people from buying a gun. You kinda are missing the core concept here.

And they don't need to go before a Judge if they don't have a major mental Health illness.

That's not how psychiatrists work. That's not how they would diagnose you.


Refer back to my previous statement where I said universal health care is a good idea.

[Licana]

A 2004 article? Political opinions will not go in to testing.

Oh no, one of the two articles I posted is older than ten years. This obviously renders both invalid.

What you've posted is not a counter-argument, it does nothing to bring into doubt what I've brought up.

Maybe maybe not.

But if it does have an effect on homicides US wide, it would still be worth it.

Or, it would primarily affect those who use firearms for self-defense purposes (to the tune 500,000+ instances annually) and do little, if anything, to curb violent crime. Going from the actual data (and not youtube memes), this scenario seems more likely than the one you present.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

A 2004 article? Political opinions will not go in to testing.

Oh no, one of the two articles I posted is older than ten years. This obviously renders both invalid.

What you've posted is not a counter-argument, it does nothing to bring into doubt what I've brought up.

Maybe maybe not.

But if it does have an effect on homicides US wide, it would still be worth it.

Or, it would primarily affect those who use firearms for self-defense purposes (to the tune 500,000+ instances annually) and do little, if anything, to curb violent crime. Going from the actual data (and not youtube memes), this scenario seems more likely than the one you present.

An old article from a sketchy site? I doubt that conservatism will be considered a mental illness.

Did you forget the data from the journal of medicine I linked to?

How on earth would a psychiatric test affect the people who buy a gun for self defence? All your data says that that a lot of people buy guns for that reason.

Buying a gun for self defence doesn't mean you have a mental illness.

[Len Hyet]

Oh no, one of the two articles I posted is older than ten years. This obviously renders both invalid.

What you've posted is not a counter-argument, it does nothing to bring into doubt what I've brought up.



Or, it would primarily affect those who use firearms for self-defense purposes (to the tune 500,000+ instances annually) and do little, if anything, to curb violent crime. Going from the actual data (and not youtube memes), this scenario seems more likely than the one you present.

An old article from a sketchy site? I doubt that conservatism will be considered a mental illness.

Did you forget the data from the journal of medicine I linked to?

How on earth would a psychiatric test affect the people who buy a gun for self defence? All your data says that that a lot of people buy guns for that reason.

Buying a gun for self defence doesn't mean you have a mental illness.

Here's a PhD in Psychology Today taking seriously the concept that conservativism might be a mental illness.

"But it won't happen!"

Well, we have your assurance that it won't, and evidence suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. I'm going to go with the evidence.

[Fartsniffage]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.



This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

[The Two Jerseys]

This may come as a surprise to you, but when the exam won't disqualify the vast majority of gun buyers from buying a gun, and they still have to go before the judge anyway, you are wasting everyone's time and money.

Even if I'm buying a gun for the express purpose of shooting my pain-in-the-ass neighbor in the face, if I tell the shrink that I'm buying it for target shooting/hunting/general self-defense, he can't prove otherwise.

Not one bit.

But you're not giving free medical care to people who aren't buying guns.

It's not faaaaaiiiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrr! I want my free medical exam! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

It's not meant to stop most gun buyers from buying a gun.

So why massively inconvenience them when they do?

It's meant to stop crazy people

Define "crazy".

from buying a gun.

"Doctor, I don't hear voices*, I don't have anger issues**, I have many friends*** and a normal social life****. May I have my gun now?"
_{*Not true
**Damned lie
***The voices in my head
****I drown puppies for fun}

You kinda are missing the core concept here.

I understand the concept.

The problem is that it's stupid.

And they don't need to go before a Judge if they don't have a major mental Health illness.

Literally not what you said before.

Also, define "major".

That's not how psychiatrists work. That's not how they would diagnose you.

Because every doctor is a complete saint and doesn't have an agenda. Right.

Refer back to my previous statement where I said universal health care is a good idea.

Refer back to our previous statements where we asked who is going to pay for it.

[The Lone Alliance]

They don't have to falsify anything, they just simply have to change or expand the definitions of "mental illness."

Well if we're gonna start labeling conservatives as having a mental illness then liberals need to be that as well you can't honest label one side having a mental illness just because they disagree with your beliefs. Saying conservatives are mentally ill is an illness in itself.

Isn't it a running gag that Right wingers state "Liberalism is a Mental Illness"?

[The Two Jerseys]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.

(Image)

This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

OK, that's just some shitty statistics-keeping by the Home Office...

[Len Hyet]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.

(Image)

This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

It is a good point. It doesn't counter the overall trend, but it's little idiosyncrasies in reporting that make it so difficult to compare crime stats between different countries. It's even tricky between states. Yeah, a murder is a murder, but if Massachusetts defines grand larceny as theft of over $2500 and South Carolina defines it as theft of over $500, the numbers won't jell (plucked from thin air, do not assume those are the actual definitions for those states yall).

[Fartsniffage]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.

(Image)

This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

OK, that's just some shitty statistics-keeping by the Home Office...

There are probably other examples down there years but I imagine those are the 2 biggest. What it really means is that the huge 25% increase in homicides between 2016 and 2017 is actually an 8% increase. Pretty close to the numbers killed here in the terrorist attacks.

[New Emeline]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.

(Image)

This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

OK, that's just some shitty statistics-keeping by the Home Office...

is this what ancaps mean when they complain about statists

[Len Hyet]

OK, that's just some shitty statistics-keeping by the Home Office...

is this what ancaps mean when they complain about statists

That and not being allowed to keep recreational nuclear warheads.

[Licana]

An old article from a sketchy site? I doubt that conservatism will be considered a mental illness.

Wow, it's like you've completely failed to comprehend anything I've said. Go back, reread both articles, reread my posts, think on them for a bit, and then formulate an actual counter-argument. Remember, the writer of the first is someone who is a doctor of psychology, and the latter is reporting on the views of a professor of psychology. I know it might be difficult for you, but if you can actually read beyond the date they were posted, and make an actual, earnest attempt to comprehend what I'm saying (I'm not being obtuse, my point is fairly on-the-nose here) we might be able to have an actual debate.

Did you forget the data from the journal of medicine I linked to?

Which is basic tier statistical analysis that could not show a causal relation between firearms ownership and homicides. Considering your proclivity for youtube memes and the obvious fact that words don't seem to be reaching you, I'm going to try pictures. That's the homicide rate of the OCED nations (used by the article you linked to) compared to the firearm ownership rate of these nations as according to the Small Arms Survey. No correlation. On the state level, firearms ownership shows no correlation with firearms homicide or homicide in general.

For all of your talk of "biased and sketchy sources" the article you bring up is very partisan; trying to conflate gun ownership with gun homicides causally when the only thing it can conclusively show is that there is a correlation between firearms ownership and firearms death (note the terminology, this is a frequent tactic by gun control advocates). Show me causation, then we can talk. Though, I wish you luck on that endeavor, because people have been trying to conclusively prove that kind of relationship between firearms and crime/homicide for decades with no success.

How on earth would a psychiatric test affect the people who buy a gun for self defence? All your data says that that a lot of people buy guns for that reason.

Buying a gun for self defence doesn't mean you have a mental illness.

Are you intentionally trying to misrepresent my positions? Because I really don't understand how you can come to a leap like this based off of what I have written.

To spell things out: The wouldn't ask if a prospective gun owner wants to defend themselves (or if they do, it wouldn't be a question of particular concern). They would ask questions that could reveal markers of potential mental illness. Now if we decided to expand the definition of, say, psychosis to include psychological markers that frequently coincide with conservative values (knowing that gun ownership is a generally conservative trait), well that would just be a happy little coincidence to the powers-that-be, wouldn't it? For reference, the same could be done to left-wing ideologies just as easily. All that would have to be done is to influence the group in charge of the next edition of the DSM for this to happen. Self-defense never comes into the picture in this case, you're marked by your beliefs and value structure. This is why the idea is (and should be) unappealing, because if you look at it beyond a surface level you can see how it can be brought against the masses for malicious purposes.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Here's a PhD in Psychology Today taking seriously the concept that conservativism might be a mental illness.

"But it won't happen!"

Well, we have your assurance that it won't, and evidence suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. I'm going to go with the evidence.

Not all conservatives are like that.

It's not meant to stop most gun buyers from buying a gun.

So why massively inconvenience them when they do?

It's meant to stop crazy people

Define "crazy".

from buying a gun.

"Doctor, I don't hear voices*, I don't have anger issues**, I have many friends*** and a normal social life****. May I have my gun now?"
_{*Not true
**Damned lie
***The voices in my head
****I drown puppies for fun}

You kinda are missing the core concept here.

I understand the concept.

The problem is that it's stupid.

And they don't need to go before a Judge if they don't have a major mental Health illness.

Literally not what you said before.

Also, define "major".

That's not how psychiatrists work. That's not how they would diagnose you.

Because every doctor is a complete saint and doesn't have an agenda. Right.

Refer back to my previous statement where I said universal health care is a good idea.

Refer back to our previous statements where we asked who is going to pay for it.

Because it's one time only and we want to make sure that there not buying it to shoot up a school/office/mall/random people.

People who go around shooting school/office/mall/random people.
And a dr can't call out Bullshit when he sees it?

How?


"Not what I said before"

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree. If either one doesn't agree then the person's 2A rights are not suspended.

And, if you have no major mental problems, then you get your gun.

If you do have mental problems, but there not that big, then you get your gun.

If you have major mental problems yet the court allows the sale anyways, then you get your gun.
...

If you do have major mental problems and the court agrees to take those rights temporarily away, then you already started your path to mental health.

Major as in "I want to go shooting my school/office/mall/random people."

Flip side of coin, every doctor hates guns/loves guns so much they will give them away to just anyone.

The whole point of revoking there medical license if they let there personal politics get to them when there doing professional work.
Refer back to when I said, the taxpayer. And also that it is a topic for another thread.

[Greed and Death]

In some good news Chicago appears to be backing off its ordinance requiring banks dealing with the city enforce gun control on their clients.

https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/chicago- ... l-policies

[Len Hyet]

Here's a PhD in Psychology Today taking seriously the concept that conservativism might be a mental illness.

"But it won't happen!"

Well, we have your assurance that it won't, and evidence suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. I'm going to go with the evidence.

Not all conservatives are like that.

Which will of course be no small relief to those barred from purchasing a gun anyways.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

An old article from a sketchy site? I doubt that conservatism will be considered a mental illness.

Wow, it's like you've completely failed to comprehend anything I've said. Go back, reread both articles, reread my posts, think on them for a bit, and then formulate an actual counter-argument. Remember, the writer of the first is someone who is a doctor of psychology, and the latter is reporting on the views of a professor of psychology. I know it might be difficult for you, but if you can actually read beyond the date they were posted, and make an actual, earnest attempt to comprehend what I'm saying (I'm not being obtuse, my point is fairly on-the-nose here) we might be able to have an actual debate.

All Right, the first sauce looks like Libertarian bent sause. Not going to trust an article from them, as they have a clear agenda to push.

Second one lists ten things conservatives might have. Might. As in they might not have it. All X are Y statements don't make any sense.

As for the rest of your statements, I don't care much for your condescending tone.

Rather tired of this debate anyway, so I think I'll stop now.

[The Two Jerseys]

Here's a PhD in Psychology Today taking seriously the concept that conservativism might be a mental illness.

"But it won't happen!"

Well, we have your assurance that it won't, and evidence suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. I'm going to go with the evidence.

Not all conservatives are like that.

So why massively inconvenience them when they do?

Define "crazy".

"Doctor, I don't hear voices*, I don't have anger issues**, I have many friends*** and a normal social life****. May I have my gun now?"
_{*Not true
**Damned lie
***The voices in my head
****I drown puppies for fun}

I understand the concept.

The problem is that it's stupid.

Literally not what you said before.

Also, define "major".

Because every doctor is a complete saint and doesn't have an agenda. Right.

Refer back to our previous statements where we asked who is going to pay for it.

Because it's one time only and we want to make sure that there not buying it to shoot up a school/office/mall/random people.

Because indications of mental illness will always be manifest when someone goes to buy a gun for the first time.

People who go around shooting school/office/mall/random people.

Nice clinical definition ya got there, chief.

And a dr can't call out Bullshit when he sees it?

Like how they call out bullshit when patients who don't need it ask for antibiotics and opioid painkillers?

How?


"Not what I said before"

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree. If either one doesn't agree then the person's 2A rights are not suspended.

And, if you have no major mental problems, then you get your gun.

If you do have mental problems, but there not that big, then you get your gun.

If you have major mental problems yet the court allows the sale anyways, then you get your gun.
...

If you do have major mental problems and the court agrees to take those rights temporarily away, then you already started your path to mental health.

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree.

Reading really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Major as in "I want to go shooting my school/office/mall/random people."

Nice clinical definition ya got there, chief.

Flip side of coin, every doctor hates guns/loves guns so much they will give them away to just anyone.

They give away drugs like candy because pharmaceutical companies give them kickbacks, so they can be bought.

The whole point of revoking there medical license if they let there personal politics get to them when there doing professional work.

Which only works if the licensing board isn't crooked. *cough* California *cough*

Refer back to when I said, the taxpayer. And also that it is a topic for another thread.

Universal healthcare would cost about 3/4 of the current federal budget. Good luck getting taxpayers to pay double.

[Greed and Death]

An old article from a sketchy site? I doubt that conservatism will be considered a mental illness.

Did you forget the data from the journal of medicine I linked to?

How on earth would a psychiatric test affect the people who buy a gun for self defence? All your data says that that a lot of people buy guns for that reason.

Buying a gun for self defence doesn't mean you have a mental illness.

Here's a PhD in Psychology Today taking seriously the concept that conservativism might be a mental illness.

"But it won't happen!"

Well, we have your assurance that it won't, and evidence suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. I'm going to go with the evidence.

Did he seriously say Republicans are mentally ill because Newt Gingrich has a resting bitch face ?

[The New California Republic]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.

(Image)

This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

I live in Scotland, and I have had a hell of a time navigating through the bureaucratic mess to get an air gun licence. It took them two years for my application to be processed. And, during that time, I was "illegally" possessing said weapons by default (I own three guns). I repeatedly called them to check on its progress, and repeatedly I was told to wait. Last week I got a call, saying that my application had been "misplaced" and they had just found it again, but it had been so long since I applied for it that I had to fill out the application form again. I finally got my licence through the post a few days ago. An absolute farce. I believe that the air gun license in Scotland is totally unnecessary, as crimes involving air guns had dropped to negligible levels before the licensing scheme started.

[Fartsniffage]

Here's a PhD in Psychology Today taking seriously the concept that conservativism might be a mental illness.

"But it won't happen!"

Well, we have your assurance that it won't, and evidence suggesting it's within the realm of possibility. I'm going to go with the evidence.

Did he seriously say Republicans are mentally ill because Newt Gingrich has a resting bitch face ?

No. It's a joke article.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I really don't want to continue this but I just need to clarify something.

It would require both a doctor and a judge to agree.

Reading really isn't your strong suit, is it?

By "require both a doctor and a judge to agree." I meant If the doctor doesn't think you have a mental illness, he doesn't report you.

If he think he does, he reports you but if the judge disagrees then the sale of the gun goes thru and you maintain your 2A rights.

Only by agreeing does your 2A rights get suspended.

[Fartsniffage]

Something I've just found out and might be interesting for people who use the UK as an example of why gun restrictions don't work.

(Image)

This graph with it's giant peak in 2003 is actually super misleading. 172 homicides were dumped on the stats in that one year because that was when the confirmed Harold Shipman victims were deemed to have been murdered. In reality they were spread out over the 30 years leading up to it.

It's has happened again last year with the Hillsborough victims, 96 of them, being added to the 2017 stats instead of 1989 when they actually died.

Not making any argument here but it's something interesting that I'm sharing and I think it's worth bearing in mind.

I live in Scotland, and I have had a hell of a time navigating through the bureaucratic mess to get an air gun licence. It took them two years for my application to be processed. And, during that time, I was "illegally" possessing said weapons by default (I own three guns). I repeatedly called them to check on its progress, and repeatedly I was told to wait. Last week I got a call, saying that my application had been "misplaced" and they had just found it again, but it had been so long since I applied for it that I had to fill out the application form again. I finally got my licence through the post a few days ago. An absolute farce. I believe that the air gun license in Scotland is totally unnecessary, as crimes involving air guns had dropped to negligible levels before the licensing scheme started.

*buys an air rifle without any hassle because England is better than Scotland*