Ex-cop murders theatregoer....isn't it nice that we let people carry guns around? (Page 19)

LiptonCambell: >>> I said it will reduce the number of mass killings.

With no basis behind this idea to boot. It's just a nifty idea you assume it should work- because people ALWAYS obey the laws.

You know. except for the people who this law is directed at. Since they break the law controlling gun-free zones, and they break the law denying people with severely dangerous mental handicaps from possessing a gun, and they break the law that....you know....stops murder.

But hey, maybe the problem of people breaking the law is there aren't ENOUGH laws. I bet if we have additional laws, THEN, and only then, will these people start taking notice and stop breaking the law.

The only effect these kinds of laws will have is good, decent, law-abidding citizens will be more likely to be denied a tool to defend their own lives, or be turned off by the increased bureaucracy- and as a result, their lives will be placed a risk.

People who intend to break the law though? This law won't affect them- just as the previous laws didn't affect them.

>>>I said YOUR idea for vastly more guns in the hands of the public won't reduce the crime rate.

The cases I presented state otherwise.

While the changes you suggest have been in place since 1991- prior to the mass shootings in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and the example this topic was about. Your changes ALREADY EXIST, and have lead to an increase in mass shootings, and an increase in the mortality rate of mass shootings.

>>> like so many flies I on poop.

....you're.....you're on poop?

davesdatahut: No Lipton, the cases you presented were full of circular reasoning extending correlation with cause and effect. They were inconclusive at best. You do no appear to like the laws of statistics. But I do. And they say what you presented was merely correlation.
The changes I suggest have not been in place. Otherwise, they would not be changes. This should be sefl-evident.
Meanwhile, you remain free to advocate for crackpots to have guns. And I am free to state, yet again, do it in YOUR town, Lipton. Not mine. Pass out the pistols to everyone with pulse. Go ahead. Let's see how that works out.
Your flies are again swatted away. I will keep doing it as long as you keep distorting what I have said.

LiptonCambell: >>>They were inconclusive at best.

Compared to the alternative, where you present no evidence backing up your claims, and ignore all cases that fit EXACTLY what you are proposing?

Yea, they're at least something.

>>>The changes I suggest have not been in place. Otherwise, they would not be changes.

There was changes, Back in 1993(sorry, I said 91 earlier), when the changes were made into law.

If you refuse to review and research your own position, that's your problem- but that doesn't mean other people must be as ignorant as you. And the Brady Bill, on page 7 lines 15-24, and continued on page 8, lines 1-17- most specifically page 8 lines 6-8 states;

‘‘(iv) has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution;

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1025rh/pdf/BILLS-103hr1025rh.pdf

Which is EXACTLY what you are calling for- that people with mental illness's are denied access to firearms.

" I asked what, if anything, society should do to keep them away from dangerously crazy people. "
~Datashut, page 10

"I would like there to be some way to prevent crazy people from getting guns because crazy people do crazy things. "
~Datashut, page 7

"But I also continue to believe that screening out loony toons from the gun buying class would help reduce mass killings and perhaps some rage killings."
~Datashut. page 8

I can continue if you want- you insist we need laws that prevent 'crazies' from obtaining guns....but these laws ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, and have been there for over 2 decades.

>>>Meanwhile, you remain free to advocate for crackpots to have guns.

I think the idea that more people having firearms leads to a safer society has merit- that every single mass shooting since 'gun free zones' have passed int law is directly because law abidding citizens have been denied the right to defend their lives. It has nothing to do a need to crack down on guns, but an increase in armed citizens, willing to do the right thing- which the law is now refusing to allow people to do.

As for denying the mentally ill, I feel it is a far too casual a term, with far too large a group with varying degrees of mental breakdown- that you have yet to present ANY evidence, whatsoever, that these people are a risk to the general population- and the ones that are apply under already existing laws and have been removed from society for the safety of themselves and others. All the research on the mentally i've had done shows that the mentally ill suffer from persecution from both the justice system and society at large

You know all of this. And the fact that you complain about your stances being twisted by myself, while you twist my stances to mean I "remain free to advocate for crackpots to have guns"- that isn't the case.

my stance is your ideas of crackpots being the cause of all mass shootings is incorrect, that you lack ANY evidence beyond emotional pleading, and that you are generalizing over 300 mental illnesses of varying degrees as all potential killers who we need to be protected from.

>>>do it in YOUR town, Lipton. Not mine.

That's not how the law works. You aren't allowed to dictate who is permitted human rights and who is not, and who is ripe for persecution and who is not.

>>>Pass out the pistols to everyone with pulse.

Again, you understand my position and my reasoning- and the fact that you need to resort to caricatures and strawmen to belittle my stances, while becrying that your stances are being 'distorted'? Be the changes you want to see, datahut- you can't have it both ways- you can't distort other peoples positions, while whining that your positions are being treated with the same carelessness you treat others.

davesdatahut: Thank you, professor, for making note of the law cited in your last post. I was aware of this law. I don't think it goes far enough, as evidenced by the insane people who do mass killings. Hence, my desire for stronger background checks than the ones in the law.
We have gone back and forth ad nauseum on what to do about the mentally ill possessing guns. I doubt we are going to move each other off each other's position.
Who is talking about human rights here? We are talking about whether seriously mental ill people should have guns. You consistently try to broaden this out to ALL mentally ill people but I will have none of that because I don't think ALL mentally ill people should be denied a gun. It remains mind boggling that we are actually having a serious debate over whether really really crazy people should have guns. But you have your view and I have mine. Again, I have a hunch we are not going to change our views.
I do feel a need to thank you, however, for going through an entire post with distorting a single position of mine. Well done! And if I distorted a view of yours, I take it back.

raceintohistory: Move to Chicago. They have the strictest gun laws in the country and no one is allowed to carry concealed guns there. Yea, tell me how that law works there.

LiptonCambell: That's something I'd honestly like answered- why is it that, if you insist the laws are being poorly enforced, or outright ignored, that additional laws will make the difference.

We both agree that the current laws do not have a strong enough impact- I just cannot phantom why a person would insist that, when a law doesn't work, that the problem is we need additional laws.

davesdatahut: No, not additional laws, different laws. Stronger laws. And, again, as stressed multiple times: stronger laws tailored to address the problem of seriously mentally ill people getting guns. Not to take guns away from responsible gun owners. But to take them away from irresponsible owners with serious mental illness. Nothing more.
Of course, we could stick with the current laws, which don't work. But we've down this road here in this thread many times.

Wild__: California has some of the strongest Gun laws in the nation yet Elliot Rodger killed seven people, two of them were actually shot.

Yet we continue to blame the gun, even though some of his victims were stabbed, while ignoring the need to better address mental health issues.

davidk14: .

I understand daves point of making a change. We have also heard about 'change' and we are seeing how that does not working out.

Perhaps we should first enforce the gun laws already on the books. Making new laws means nothing unless you first enforce existing gun laws.

I agree with wildmann and the need to better address mental health issues. After the Veterans Administration debacle....I have no confidence that the government is addressing mental health issues in the private sector. You can lock up all the guns, all the knives, remove all the automobiles...the nut jobs will find a way to commit mass murder.

.

vaporize53: Gun control is Goy control!!!!!!

davesdatahut: Addressing mental health issues needs to be front-and-center in the debate about how to keep guns away from very ill people. No question about that. That has never been in question. At the same time, we have to figure out a way to strengthen our background checking system to better ferret out the seriously mentally ill - paranoid, schizophrenic, delusional people who may or may not have actually been adjudicated as insane - before they buy their guns. I have tossed out some ideas. What I generally hear in response is no, no , no...not a single measure to impose additional or different checks. And then more mass murders by really crazy people keep happening.
Perhaps others have other ideas? This whole issue has to be worked out with compromise, as with all political issues. It's a combination of a mental health AND a gun issue.

lori100: --------By Jessica Chasmar

-The Washington Times----------
Detroit police chief says armed citizens are curbing crime---------Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies than it did last year, and Police Chief James Craig is crediting armed citizens for the drop.

“Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” Chief Craig, who has been an open advocate for private gun ownership, told The Detroit News in an interview. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.

“I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect,” he added.

In addition to the drop in robberies, Detroit has seen 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes and 30 percent fewer carjackings in 2014 than during the same period last year.

Chief Craig said, however, that he doesn’t think gun ownership deters criminals from attacking other criminals.

“They automatically assume another criminal is carrying,” he said. “I’m talking about criminals who are thinking of robbing a citizen; they’re less likely to do so if they think they might be armed.”

Chief Craig’s statements are unusual for urban police chiefs, who typically advocate for stricter gun control. For example, Kansas City Police Chief Darryl Forte wrote an op ed column in March with Mayor Sly James supporting a Missouri bill that would have made background checks mandatory before all gun purchases and required that all gun thefts and missing weapons be reported.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/16/detroit-police-chief-says-armed-citizens-are-curbi/#ixzz38EwxTw3G
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

LiptonCambell: >>>Of course, we could stick with the current laws, which don't work.

I fail to see that, if the laws don't work, that one minor tweak is all it needs to be wholly effective.

As I've asked numerous times- can you prove that the mentally ill are a threat to society? You apparently cannot.

I can prove that, following gun legislation directed towards the mentally ill, that there have been a vast increase of mass shootings....if we were to believe you, these laws should have at least a positive effect at preventing mass shootings- but all major mass shooting actually followed these laws.

Any explanation? Or was the problem that the laws weren't intrusive enough to be effective?

>>>who may or may not have actually been adjudicated as insane

And just how do you propose that happens?

For all your complaints of your ideas being rejected, there isn't any real leeway or compromise with you- either everyone in the country undergoes a invasive, subjective, and intrusive study of their mental capacity- which despite you insisting that responsible gun owners would be unaffected, even current laws have responsible gun owners denied- or this problem will always exist. Or so you insist.

I say the problem lies in the laws themselves. mass shootings clearly began following gun control laws- and I've proven several times that crime goes up following these laws, and goes down following their repeal. You insist the ONLY option is have everyone have their mental state tested- I say that's bullshit, and opens the door to all kinds of nonsense.

We shouldn't be looking at the issue and saying "we need more laws"- we should be repealing laws that DO NOT WORK.

>>> I have tossed out some ideas. What I generally hear in response is no, no , no...not a single measure to impose additional or different checks.

Rather than getting bitter about your ideas not passing scrutiny, why not spend the time reflecting on why people may think differently than you.

I mean, jesus- I've presented ideas, and all I've heard from you is no, no , no...not a single measure to increase the number of responsible gun owners. Don't whine about how others are treating you when you're treating them no better.

>>> And then more mass murders by really crazy people keep happening.

Haha.....so there are laws on the books preventing the mentally ill from possessing guns- following the enforcement of these laws, we see an increased number of shootings from the mentally ill- and you're suggesting that it has NOTHING to do with the laws? That the ONLY solution is to live with the current laws, or pass more? Nothing else can be done?

guest 1234: According to studies, woman have a 40% higher chance to suffer from mental illness then men. If mental illness is the reason these men killed...why aren't there just as many woman involved in mass shootings?

lori100: Men are more aggressive---hormones...

davesdatahut: Ok, Lipton, which laws should be repealed, and what do you do after these laws are repealed to keep weapons away from seriously mentally ill people? Not mildly ill people. Seriously ill people. Tell me which laws should be done away with? And after you have repealed these laws you find so odious to your notion of 'liberty,' what then?
What do you do then? Or do we not need any such laws?
A lifting of the laws would not address the problem of severely ill people getting guns and killing strangers. You may see my reaction to the lack of proposals as a whine. I see this is an issue of public safety - especially when it comes to seriously mentally ill people getting guns.
That I am even having a debate about whether seriously mentally ill people - like Elliot Rodger or James Holmes or Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner or Nidal Hasan or Seung-Hui Choi or Wade Page or Charles Thornton or Robert Hawkins or Charles Roberts (shall I contunue?) - should have weapons continues to boggle my mind. But a debate we are having. So what is your idea for addressing this? We do agree that there is a major mental health component to this. And this must be part of any solution. But I ask, in addition, what do you do about the access to guns for such people?
As for the broader issue of crime and gun control, you can pick and choose which stats you want to use to support your view. You have that right. But a full look at the stats shows an inconclusive picture. Some places have seen violent crime rise after imposing stricter controls. Some places have seen it drop. Some places with strict controls have low violent crime rates Some places with strict controls have high violent crimes rates. The data is inconclusive. You can pick places where crime went down to prove your point. But, statistically, you would be wrong because you would be ignoring the other places.
Now, you can also choose to say that, well then, no amount of gun control is good gun control if the connection between gun control and overall crime is inconclusive. You have that right, too. And I will disagree with you until the cows come home because then, by this logic, you repeal all the control laws and you would have open season for anyone to have a gun. You can take that risk. In your town. Not mine.
So, to close the circle here, which laws do you want repealed and what do you do then to keep guns away from seriously mentally ill people? Again, I ask the question as it relates to seriously ill people. Not mildly ill people.

davesdatahut: Yes, Kip, women do not commit violent crimes in anywhere near the amount that men do. Men are more violent because they are raised to solve their problems way more aggressively, or without talking them through, than women.

guest 1234: I would agree, boys are raised different then girls and perhaps that is where the problem with gun violence begins.

LiptonCambell: >>>hich laws should be repealed

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. These laws have caused more harm than they have prevented.

>>>what do you do after these laws are repealed to keep weapons away from seriously mentally ill people?

Nothing. Serious ill people, who are a danger to themselves and others, should not be out of asylums until they are rehabilitated, assuming they can be.

>>> And after you have repealed these laws you find so odious to your notion of 'liberty,'

Why are you twisting my words? Yes, I have a strong belief in freedom- one sadly you do not share- but we're not talking about freedom. We're talking about whether or not a law is functional- whether it achieves it's goals efficiently and effectively, or not. And these laws do not. Why else would you be calling for --more-- laws, if the current laws were doing their job?

>>> Or do we not need any such laws?

Now you're gettin' it!

>>>A lifting of the laws would not address the problem of severely ill people getting guns and killing strangers.

No, it would address the problem of healthy citizens being victimized because they were denied weapons because of bureaucracy and laws that were ill-enforced- these people, who would be denied or deterred by the bureaucracy, would have the opportunity to be armed, and thus, the opportunity to defend themselves in a dangerous situation.

You've yet to prove that the mentally ill- even the severely mentally ill(ironically deemed no threat to themselves or others by trained professionals to be free citizens) are a threat to anyone. And yet you act like it's a foregone conclusion. It isn't. The jury is still out on the subject of how dangerous the mentally ill are,and until you present ANY evidence that they are dangerous, then why should I oppose my research, which shows they are the victims of more crimes than the perpetrators?

Apparently you know better than psychologists who carefully study these peoples mental states, and we should ignore their findings.

>>>You may see my reaction to the lack of proposals as a whine. I see this is an issue of public safety

And I'm sure there are people out there who feel the same way when you talk about drug decriminalization- that they feel the war on drugs is an issue of public safety.

But, as you already know, these people are wrong - the laws on drugs do not encourage a safer public- and neither do the laws on guns.

>>>So what is your idea for addressing this?

Increased support for the mental health sector. Institutions are being closed due to lack of funding, forcing out dangerous people. We need more people out there to help people wishing for help, and we need to end the stigmatization you are using as a soapbox- that mentally ill people are not to be trusted, are dangerous, and unsavory characters. We need to end this stigmatization so people won't fear having their problems diagnosed, and will want them to be diagnosed.

Treating the mentally ill as second classed citizens- or even worse, as pariahs and scapegoats- will not solve this problem

>>>But I ask, in addition, what do you do about the access to guns for such people?

Either they're deemed unsafe for society, at which point, they are removed from society- or they are deemed safe- at which point, we must trust them and respect them- not treat them as plotting psychopaths just waiting for the day to open fire on a crowd.

>>> But a full look at the stats shows an inconclusive picture.

I do not believe you have a "full look" at the stats. I do not believe anyone does.

I believe you are being dismissive. I believe you reject my evidence because of the contrast between my mountain of evidence that can go as far back as several decades, even centuries, over entire countries and your small, brief evidence, that covers a few choice years in some cities.

I believe your "full look" criticism could apply to all statistics. That no statistic could pass such unrealistic and ridiculous standard. That you reject it, not because it's inconclusive, but inconvenient to your agenda.

>>>You can pick places where crime went down to prove your point.

Like entire countries? Over 150 years? With crime increasing the moment gun control laws were passed, and decreasing the moment they were laxed?

Yea. I'm totally cherry picking.

>>>You can take that risk. In your town. Not mine.

Again, Rights do not work like that. If a responsible adult has a right to defend their lives with a weapon, then you do not have the right to tell them not where you live. You are not the lord and master of your town and all who reside within.

guest 1234: I thought you would be interested in this story I found on news.msn.com: Doctor fired back at gunman in hospital attack (http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/doctor-fired-back-at-gunman-in-hospital-attack#tscptme)

sprocket girl: wanted to say I love the States and hope you Aericans keep your guns if you want them...

that said growing up in the UK is pretty cool, i live in Manchester a pretty large city.. i have never known anyone who has been shot. i have never known anyone who has a family member or friend who has been shot. i in fact have never seen an actual gun.

whats my point.. not sure but we do not have a gun violence issue in the UK, yes there are shootings but the numbers are low. i read that Chicago had more shooting on the 4th of July than we had in an entire year. not sure thats accurate, i find it hard to believe...

i will say this i dont know a single peer who has access to a firearm and consequentially i have never gone to school fearing being shot..

i hope the violence is somehow ended..
i hope if you want your right to have guns... you can keep it

but for me i am glad i grew up in a country where guns are illegal.... maybe we are just less violent, or maybe there are very few shootings because there are very few guns.

davidk14: .

I live in the US and also have never know anyone who has been shot or known anyone who has a family member or friend who has been shot. However I have known families who have lost a child to pool drowning as well as people injured in auto accidents.

.

davesdatahut: Despite all the great things about this country, we are a gun-crazed country. Gun-obsessed in some places. As such, we have high rates of gun violence. Personally, I'd like to live a place with the kinds of gun laws the UK has. But that ain't happening because that horse is so far outta the barn, it ain't coming back. So we have to live with what we have wrought, and the fact that we have all these guns in our midst.
The best thing we can do now is try to change our societal attitudes toward violence and keep guns away from as many potentially dangerous people as possible. It is not an easy task and any solution will be imperfect.
The pool and auto accident comparisons are thrown up as distractions. They are ruses and canards. The purpose of a pool or a car is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Or at least maim. So special protections and precautions are required. If we are to accept the argument that guns are just like pools or cars, then it stands to reason that people should have whatever weapons they want - pistols, automatic rifles, grenades, grenade launchers....and so on. Because, after all, guns don't kill people. People kill people. So a responsible bazooka owner is no threat to anyone. Right?

LiptonCambell: >>>Gun-obsessed in some places. As such, we have high rates of gun violence.

You seem to be suggesting a correlation between "gun obsession", and gun violence.

Do you have any data backing this claim up?

>>>Personally, I'd like to live a place with the kinds of gun laws the UK has.

What a shock- you want guns to be outright banned. Glad to see you've finally admitted your agenda.

>>>So a responsible bazooka owner is no threat to anyone. Right?

That's correct. After all, like you said, they are responsible owners.

davesdatahut: We have tons of guns in this country and we also have tons of gun violence. How close the connection is would be up for debate, as I have stated many times. The evidence is inconclusive as to exactly how much our gun violence is caused by the tons of guns we have, or the gun control laws, strict or otherwise.
I never said I wanted guns to be banned. I would like to live in a society with fewer guns. But, as I have said numerous times, I do not have a problem with Individuals and business owners having a right to own a handgun to protect their homes or businesses, Don't assume anything about what I think, Lipton. It insults your intelligence and mine.
You are free to advocate for bazookas in your community.