Side effects may include...Gun violence?!

[Ethel mermania]

persecution of people because they are mentally ill is exactly the same thing as persecuting them for being muslim

The Moslems can't help being that way, its not like they can simply convert to another religion.

how is that relevant?

[Gauthier]

In the case of the argument that those favoring a restriction of rights to those suffering from mental illness, yes, ot is. Dont be obtuse. Youre more intelligent than that. If the exception doesnt prove the rule then, obviously, several outliers among the millions of the afflicted dont prove those afflicted with mental illness are any more likely to commit violent acts than amypne else. Just like the outlier homosexual pedophile doesnt prove all homosexuals are pedophiles. Just like the outlier black man who deals drugs doesnt prove all black men deal drugs.

Youre smarter than this. I know it Gauthier.

Correlation is not causation. Issue closed.

You're implying that mental illness is inherently neutral like sexual orientation. When was the last time a mass shooting in the United States involved a mentally stable perpetrator? Yes, mental illness shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier but is giving a borderline personality the right to carry guns the way someone with mild depression would get is really a smart thing?

And it's rather telling you're relying on the debunked myth of homosexuals being inherent pedophiles.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

THE ARGUMENT
Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron's work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that "the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children."

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite the American College of Pediatricians' opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association as non-factual. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said Facts misrepresented their findings. "It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality," he wrote. "The information they present is misleading and incorrect."

[Gauthier]

The Moslems can't help being that way, its not like they can simply convert to another religion.

how is that relevant?

"Moslem" wasn't a clue that it was a driveby cheapshot at Muslims in general?

[Vazdania]

....*ghetto voice* WHY HE BE OWNIN' GUNZ?

[Gauthier]

This guy was crazy....*ghetto voice* WHY HE BE OWNIN' GUNZ?

Stay Classy.

[Vazdania]

This guy was crazy....*ghetto voice* WHY HE BE OWNIN' GUNZ?

Stay Classy.

He's had multiple instances where he had shown he shouldn't have owned guns.....for a mental disorder.

[Gauthier]

Stay Classy.

He's had multiple instances where he had shown he shouldn't have owned guns.....for a mental disorder.

And what does "ghetto voice" have to do with mental illness exactly?

[Galloism]

He's had multiple instances where he had shown he shouldn't have owned guns.....for a mental disorder.

And what does "ghetto voice" have to do with mental illness exactly?

All mentally ill people talk oddly. It's true. I saw it on the History channel.

[Ethel mermania]

how is that relevant?

"Moslem" wasn't a clue that it was a driveby cheapshot at Muslims in general?

it was meant to make a point with you. stigmazation is a bad thing, one who claims it so often should be more sensitive to it. persecution is persecution

most muslims in this country are good citizens and guests,
most mentally ill people are good citizens and guests.

neither should be persecuted for the crimes of others.

[Cameroi]

combine the romanticizing and rewarding of aggressiveness, whether by culture or context, with the availability of a gun, and any drug which lowers self awareness and self control (including alcohol), and yes, absolutely side effects may include gun violence.

[Greed and Death]

He's had multiple instances where he had shown he shouldn't have owned guns.....for a mental disorder.

And what does "ghetto voice" have to do with mental illness exactly?

Being poor is a mental illness just ask judge Whitey.

[Augarundus]

Wouldn't be wise or prudent public policy to exclude gun ownership for people on these violence inducing meds?

Why are they not entitled to the right of self-defense?

[Lithosano]

... a fundamental misunderstanding of the brain in medicine/science...

Ok OP, since apparently psychology, psychiatry, and neurology/neuroscience are all so wrong, what are your credentials? What secret knowledge do you posses that science does not have?

[Ethel mermania]

... a fundamental misunderstanding of the brain in medicine/science...

Ok OP, since apparently psychology, psychiatry, and neurology/neuroscience are all so wrong, what are your credentials? What secret knowledge do you posses that science does not have?

Penis envy does not just apply to women.

[Tule]

So you are telling me that depressed, bitter and angry people (the kind of people that are usually put on meds) are the types that go on killing sprees?

I'm shocked!

[Cameroi]

So you are telling me that depressed, bitter and angry people (the kind of people that are usually put on meds) are the types that go on killing sprees?

I'm shocked!

perhaps, it would be a very good thing for them not to have guns?

[Tule]

So you are telling me that depressed, bitter and angry people (the kind of people that are usually put on meds) are the types that go on killing sprees?

I'm shocked!

perhaps, it would be a very good thing for them not to have guns?

Even though these are the kinds of people most likely to go on killing sprees, they are on the whole ridiculously unlikely to do so.
Bitterness and anger is very hard to screen for in the absense of a violence conviction.

However it would be prudent for depressed people to buy or possess firearms for their own sake.

[Ainin]

Yes, it was totally the treatment that caused them to go on a shooting rampage...

[Distruzio]

In the case of the argument that those favoring a restriction of rights to those suffering from mental illness, yes, ot is. Dont be obtuse. Youre more intelligent than that. If the exception doesnt prove the rule then, obviously, several outliers among the millions of the afflicted dont prove those afflicted with mental illness are any more likely to commit violent acts than amypne else. Just like the outlier homosexual pedophile doesnt prove all homosexuals are pedophiles. Just like the outlier black man who deals drugs doesnt prove all black men deal drugs.

Youre smarter than this. I know it Gauthier.

Correlation is not causation. Issue closed.

You're implying that mental illness is inherently neutral like sexual orientation. When was the last time a mass shooting in the United States involved a mentally stable perpetrator? Yes, mental illness shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier but is giving a borderline personality the right to carry guns the way someone with mild depression would get is really a smart thing?

And it's rather telling you're relying on the debunked myth of homosexuals being inherent pedophiles.

... I think you should revisit my argument. Because you're attacking something I didn't say. I'm pointing out that myth of homosexuality and pedophilia as a mirror for the myth that mental illness equals criminality. I'm not defending the myth you mention. I'm attacking.

[Personal Defense Force]

For those that believe that gun control in the US is necessary to reducing shootings I'll post what I put on the other thread for you guys here:

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

I'll put the part in this that actually pertains to the argument at hand here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

I do believe mental health checks are necessary but the decision shouldn't need to be done by a physician. People that become "Shooters" and are dangerous to society would exhibit enough outward symptoms that anybody, not just a trained psychiatrist, should be able to see who wouldn't be safe with a firearm let alone any other kind of tool or weapon. The idea of a 7 day waiting period doing squat for shootings is flawed at its core and just adds more a mess to those that are legally acquiring a gun.

[Wikkiwallana]

For those that believe that gun control in the US is necessary to reducing shootings I'll post what I put on the other thread for you guys here:

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

I'll put the part in this that actually pertains to the argument at hand here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

I do believe mental health checks are necessary but the decision shouldn't need to be done by a physician. People that become "Shooters" and are dangerous to society would exhibit enough outward symptoms that anybody, not just a trained psychiatrist, should be able to see who wouldn't be safe with a firearm let alone any other kind of tool or weapon. The idea of a 7 day waiting period doing squat for shootings is flawed at its core and just adds more a mess to those that are legally acquiring a gun.

Moved your spoiler tag to shorten this up a bit.

Just wanted to say that this would be a lot more convincing if those links hadn't been destroyed by whatever method you used to get them from there to here.

[Occupied Deutschland]

For those that believe that gun control in the US is necessary to reducing shootings I'll post what I put on the other thread for you guys here:

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

I'll put the part in this that actually pertains to the argument at hand here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

I do believe mental health checks are necessary but the decision shouldn't need to be done by a physician. People that become "Shooters" and are dangerous to society would exhibit enough outward symptoms that anybody, not just a trained psychiatrist, should be able to see who wouldn't be safe with a firearm let alone any other kind of tool or weapon. The idea of a 7 day waiting period doing squat for shootings is flawed at its core and just adds more a mess to those that are legally acquiring a gun.

Moved your spoiler tag to shorten this up a bit.

Just wanted to say that this would be a lot more convincing if those links hadn't been destroyed by whatever method you used to get them from there to here.

I've run into that before. I'm not sure what causes it but it's aggravating as all get-out when it happens.

[Personal Defense Force]

Bah thats annoying...

I'm a bit ashamed to say I'm more of a liberal then a conservative, being that I despise both sides arguments on gun control as the lefties enjoy quoting statistics that don't exist and the righties enjoy using arguments that don't make sense.


So just for giggles, not that I think it's going to change anyones mind about any of this thing, I'll quote some statistics that actually do exist and give my own lil argument that I'm sure you guys will be more then happy to tear apart of your own free will.

1. Culture
2. Crime in the US over the past decade
3. Gun crime in areas with high gun control
4. Final Thoughts

[1]

The very first thing I have to say right now is to those that are citizens of foreign countries and believe "Because Gun-Control works here, it will work in the US". That would be a very sound argument if there wasn't such a substantial culture difference inbetween the US and a majority of this countries of this lovely world in terms of political and individual ideology. Things as how our government operate all the way down to how each individual person acts is substantially adverse compared to a majority of the nations.

For those that have had to switch inbetween living inbetween the US and a European or Asian nation such as myself, almost as a certainty you would notice how difficult it is to assimilate into the opposite cultures. This wouldn't be the case if you were say, a European moving to another European country, as the culture shock isn't as bad if at all as a majority of the European countries have similar customs. Although I do apologize for how poorly written this paragraph may seem to some of you I'm sure that those that like to exhibit some forms of intelligence will be able to appreciate what I am trying to say. The differences inbetween the cultures prevents certain actions or laws from being effective or useful in other cultures or countries.

[2]

The second thing I have to say is to those that state "Here in the US, the more gun control we have the less crime there is".

The first statistic I will quote is this:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This is a table I saw down below that will nicely demonstrate my first point

With the recent expiration of the assault weapons bill and the Supreme court ruling that handgun bans where unconstitutional in any state (Including DC) people assumed that gun crime would rise due to the increased availability of weapons in the US that were considered "Dangerous" just a few years ago. What happened instead is...

Absolutely nothing.

There was no increase in gun crime in the US of any degree whatsoever, rather the previous trend of a decrease in gun related crime continued, with an annual decrease inbetween 5% and 7% every year that has been happening ever since the 90's. Even looking at non-governmental statistics you can see the same trend happening on a yearly basis for much longer.

Even with the increase of mass shootings happening being added to the crime statistic, it still falls way short of previous years violent crimes

If anything, crime in the US is decreasing at a surprising rate as shown by this next table:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... es/table-1

Over the past two decades this trend has been continuing constantly in the US, and shows that even if we sit here with our thumbs up our butts and do nothing it will continue to decrease. No pro or against gun control law has had anything to do with the decrease of national crime, and no substantial evidence proving that there is any correlation with any law to the decrease in crime in general. The Culture of the US is simply shifting to a far less violent society then our predecessors.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self- ... -1993.aspx

This is, as statistics show, despite the fact the amount of households reporting gun ownership to there respective states has risen to the highest point it has ever been in the past two decades.

This brings me to the next point...

[3]

There will be those that say that culture across the US is substantially different (which again supports my first argument above), which in its essences is true but in this part I'll show you that the difference is about as relevant as the differences inbetween the European nations.

The point I'm trying to make here is simple, places with higher gun control suffer greater amount of crime then those that don't.

Example 1:
http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/manda ... wo-cities/

Keenesaw is the first place in the entire country that has mandated gun ownership within its limits where the population is required to have a firearm with ammunition inside its residence. With a population of 30,000 people and an unemployment rate around the national average, as well as being located on the east coast (An area generally stereotypes with being more liberal, despite Keenesaw's location in the south). In all essence it is a stereotypical town that an argument can be made towards its representation of a majority of US towns of that size.

Ever since it made gun ownership mandatory 31 years ago they have had 3 murders in there town, one of them was on the city limits and the other two where in a "Gun-free" zone outside of the local school, areas where the citizens wouldn't have firearms.

Example 2:
http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncont ... s-full.png
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Chicago was the subject of much dispute a few years ago with there handgun ban and the supreme court ruling that was discussed above changing said ban.

The main argument against the ban was the above statistic, the fact that once the ban was implemented the gun related crime there skyrocketed and can, unlike the above decrease in crime stated in bracket 2, directly correlated with a gun control law. The moment that the gun control law was struck down and law abiding citizens could buy handguns again the gun related crime dropped, and as it sits is just marginally higher then the national average (Mainly to do with the fact it is the subject of gangs and is a large city).

Example 3:
Uniform Crime Reporting Program, District of Columbia, 1960-2008." Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division
Any washington DC time lapse crime statistics

During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

Conclusion:
The conclusion? Gun control in the US does nothing to hamper crime in the US, rather it increases it by making it harder for law abiding citizens to gain access to guns and allowing those that legally or illegally purchased there weapons and have decided to use there weapons for illegal purposes to do as they wish unhampered. Now this may be an assumption but a better argument can be made for that then against it

[4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -frequent/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

We have no fucking clue (Pardon my language) what the "Shooter" profile is. The only thing that has been true between the shooters is the presence of mental issues that borderline insanity. Ignoring the media's description of 'Shooters" (Which only correctly describe less then half of the shooters that have existed since the 90's), the only thing we can legitimately do is require a background check

The only problem I have with that is the 7 day waiting period that is required for said background checks in the states that require them. In the day and age of the internet where the entire background check system is online and available for anyone to use by request for any variety of reasons and can be instantly checked, why in the world can't the clerk do it in store? IT's not any less effective then having a police officer do so and the clerk can make his/her own decision on whether or not the mental health of the person that is purchasing the firearm is in fact in question on the spot, unlike the officer that is possibly a hundred miles away with no idea what the person they are approving for a firearm is actually like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

For those that believe the second amendment is only for state militias, the Supreme court already ruled that the second amendment is the for the average man, and not the state militias.

That is all, good day sirs, use this post as you wish.

Theres the original post in its whole, click and read if you wish. Although it seems that the copying it from an NA post makes it do some very, very odd things.

Links should work, however.