Poll: Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So if you think that it didn't, please answer this question: how much longer do we have to wait before we can say that there has been such an effect?

Hell, you're saying it already.

But saying it doesn't make it true. Like I said, you're not a statistician. If the UK lives a peaceful 50 years where defenseless slobs only die one at a time, does that support your claim? Nope. Could just as easily be that the 2 incidences were the abberation.

I doubt the incidents in the US are plentiful enough to make any valid statements either. The total number of homicides or homicidal incidents is much more meaningful. Any those have been examined - no gun control law has made a statistically significant change in the murder rate.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's not to say that you make it easy for them.

So you're in favor of concealed carry at schools by properly licensed individuals, then?

The problem here is we seem to have gotten to a stalemate over this, but the reality is we're talking about two completely different things.

I would not have an issue with a properly trained in urban combat and police tactics person carrying a concealed weapon. I do not think average CCW meets that requirement however.

I do think it's pretty obvious though that we certainly should keep guns out of the hands of KNOWN mentally unstable people.

YOU wouldn't sell a gun to anyone you knew to be mentally impaired would you? (Would you?!?)

KNOWN to be? No. Are you in favor of releasing medical records to the general public? Because that will be the end result.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 1]

Quote

So tell me then, what exactly would it take to show you that a gun control law can have an effect on the frequency of mass shootings? Or is there nothing?

I already believe that they *can* or *might*. I just don't know that they DO. I need more than an emotional plea by people desperate to forward their political goals to convince me that there is a real, tangible benefit to society to ban gun ownership.

The desperate pleas are not coming from my side of the aisle. I have no particular axe to grind in this argument. I happen to like guns and like shooting them. I may own one some day but if so, it won't be because I feel completely defenseless and exposed without one. On the other hand, I can completely understand how someone who had been the victim of a violent crime would feel that way.

What does bug me though is when people twist the truth to their agenda. And that comes on both sides of the fence. The righties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iraq. The lefties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iran. And when there is a clear example of cause and effect coming from the UK in terms of passing a gun control law and having no mass shootings for 10 years afterwards, we just see more of the same.

If you want to know whether you're in denial about something, anything, ask yourself the following question, "What specific evidence would I need to persuade myself that the thing I'm so convinced of right now just isn't so?" If you can't answer that question, really answer it, ask yourself why.

[craddock 0]

Quote

And when there is a clear example of cause and effect coming from the UK in terms of passing a gun control law and having no mass shootings for 10 years afterwards, we just see more of the same.

Clear example?? Where? From what you have shown in this thread there were only two mass shootings that came almost ten years apart. Now it has been another ten years since the second one. If we are going to use some silly logic based on the time frame between shootings, then the UK is only due for the next shooting recently. That is just plain silly logic but even more ridiculious is trying to claim cause and effect on why it has not happened on your ten year timeline.

Mabey your just trolling?

That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

and then we'd find that certain doctors approved purchases by more future killers than the ones, and will declare them as crime enablers. (though in reality, they'll be the ones that do 90% of the evals)

It wouldn't matter who they approved, just approving the certificate to own for even normal/responsible adults would make them targets of radical gun nuts.

Rabid anti-gun nuts are easily on par with rabid anti-abortionists and will stoop to violence in their cause (and yes, the irony of that is very tanglible). This is just another way to aim nutjobs at doctors.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

>So, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for the sake of a new
>gun control law that won't work?

When keeping such a secret puts other people in danger - yes.

No new laws BTW. They're already on the books. Some of the bureaucracy just doesn't work well; that allows errors like this one.

Doctor/patient privilege is already sacrificed when public health is at risk. In most states (even Texas) there is MANDATORY reporting of the following:

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (via HIV reporting)
Amebiasis (Entamoeba histolytica/dispar)
Anaplasmosis (Anaplasma phagocytophilum)
Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis)
Arboviral disease


Babesiosis (Babesia spp.)
Blastomycosis (Blastomyces dermatitidis)
Botulism (Clostridium botulinum)
Brucellosis (Brucella spp.)


Campylobacteriosis (Campylobacter spp.)
Cat scratch disease (infection caused by Bartonella spp.)
Chancroid (Haemophilus ducreyi)
Chickenpox (via Varicella-zoster disease)
Chlamydia trachomatis infection
Cholera (Vibrio cholerae)
Coccidioidomycosis
Congenital rubella syndrome (via Rubella)
Cryptosporidiosis (Cryptosporidium spp.)
Cyclosporiasis (Cyclospora spp.)


Dengue virus infection
Diphtheria (Corynebacterium diphtheriae)
Diphyllobothrium latum infection


Eastern equine encephalitis (via Arboviral disease)
Ehrlichiosis (Ehrlichia spp.)
Encephalitis
Enteric E. coli infections
Enterobacter sakazakii


Giardiasis (Giardia lamblia)
Gonorrhea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae)


Haemophilus influenzae disease
Hansen’s disease (Leprosy) (Mycobacterium leprae)
Hantavirus infection
Hemolytic uremic syndrome
Hepatitis (all primary viral types including A, B, C, D, and E)
Histoplasmosis (Histoplasma capsulatum)
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection,
including Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)


Influenza


Kawasaki disease
Kingella spp.


LaCrosse encephalitis (via Arboviral disease)
Legionellosis (Legionella spp.)
Leprosy (Hansen’s disease) (Mycobacterium leprae)
Leptospirosis (Leptospira interrogans)
Listeriosis (Listeria monocytogenes)
Lyme disease (Borrelia burgdorferi)


Malaria (Plasmodium spp.)
Measles (rubeola)
Meningitis (caused by viral agents)
Meningococcal disease (Neisseria meningitidis)
Mumps


Neonatal sepsis, less than 7 days after birth


Orthopox virus


Pertussis (Bordetella pertussis)
Plague (Yersinia pestis)
Poliomyelitis
Psittacosis (Chlamydophila psittaci)


Q fever (Coxiella burnetii)


Rabies
Retrovirus infection
Reye syndrome
Rheumatic fever
Rocky Mountain spotted fever (Rickettsia rickettsii, R. canada)
Rubella and congenital rubella syndrome


Salmonellosis, including typhoid (Salmonella spp.)
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
Shigellosis (Shigella spp.)
Shingles (via Varicella-zoster disease)
Smallpox (variola)
St. Louis encephalitis (via Arboviral disease)
Staphylococcus aureus (death or critical illness due to community associated S. aureus in a previously healthy individual; also VISA and VRSA)
Streptococcal disease
Syphilis (Treponema pallidum)


Tetanus (Clostridium tetani)
Toxic shock syndrome
Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma gondii)
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy
Trichinosis (Trichinella spiralis)
Tuberculosis (Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex)
Tularemia (Francisella tularensis)
Typhoid (via salmonellosis)
Typhus (Rickettsia spp.)


Unexplained deaths and unexplained critical illness (possibly due to infectious cause)
Unusual or increased case incidence of any illness


Vancomycin-intermediate S. aureus (VISA) (via Staphylococcus aureus)
Vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA) (via Staphylococcus aureus)
Varicella-zoster disease
Vibrio spp.


West Nile virus (via Arboviral disease)
Western equine encephalitis (via Arboviral disease)


Yellow fever
Yersiniosis, enteric (Yersinia spp.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lindsey 0]

You left out when a person poses a threat to him-/herself or others.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

Kawasaki disease

I knew there was a technical term for wanting to get on my bike and ride fast.....

[Andy9o8 0]

Got a little time on your hands there, John?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What does bug me though is when people twist the truth to their agenda. And that comes on both sides of the fence. The righties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iraq. The lefties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iran. And when there is a clear example of cause and effect coming from the UK in terms of passing a gun control law and having no mass shootings for 10 years afterwards, we just see more of the same.

I was trying to be polite about this, but if we're supposed to take this at face value, you're either 'twisting the truth' or very ignorant on that subject of statistics.

The crime data for England since the ban shows an increase in gun crime, not a decrease. It's too small a delta and sample size to make the kind of conclusions John does, but it's even more outrageous for you to claim the data shows success. Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect.

[quade 3]

Quote

It's too small a delta and sample size to make the kind of conclusions John does . . . Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect.

So, the sample size is too small to come to a conclusion, but at the same time it is "Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect."

Huh . . . interesting.

On one hand, you can't draw a conclusion, but on the other it absolutely supports your position.

Very interesting.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It's too small a delta and sample size to make the kind of conclusions John does . . . Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect.

So, the sample size is too small to come to a conclusion, but at the same time it is "Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect."

Huh . . . interesting.

On one hand, you can't draw a conclusion, but on the other it absolutely supports your position.

Very interesting.

The conclusion is that there is no statistical significance. Lacking a large data set and/or an actual change in the numbers, that's always going to be the case.

Believe me, that helps you. Otherwise I think John would be right - the UK fucked their citizens by removing their right to defense while coddling the criminals.

And to point out again how you abuse the English language - "much more likely" has little ressemblence to "absolutely supports your position."

I don't know why you can't be honest about all this? You can't prove any absolutes in social science. While I believe gun ownership is better, I know that gun control hasn't proven to be better, and in a case of unknowns, you always side with civil liberties over government regulation.

The only time gun grabbers had statistical evidence on their side for anything was Arming America. Unfortunately, the numbers were made up and the author disgraced.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

We can have another 10, 20, even 50 years of peace in the UK while enduring sporadic Virginia Techs over here. From what you say, it won't make a difference to you. So tell me then, what exactly would it take to show you that a gun control law can have an effect on the frequency of mass shootings?

Here is the most comprehensive study ever done on this subject:

THIS month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership.

The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents...

Source: New York Post

From the National Academy of Sciences:

Current research and data on firearms, violent crime, and suicide are too weak to support strong conclusions about the effects of various violence-prevention, deterrence and control measures, says a new report from the National Academies' National Research Council.

Source: N.A.S.

After all these decades of trying numerous different gun-control schemes, they still can't say that any gun control law actually works!

So, we can believe your fairy tale, or we can believe research that studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures.

I think I'll choose to believe the research.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>> So, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for
>> the sake of a new gun control law that won't work?

> When keeping such a secret puts other people in danger - yes.
>
> No new laws BTW. They're already on the books. Some of the
> bureaucracy just doesn't work well; that allows errors like this
> one.

Oh my. So you think that no new laws regarding mental health records are necessary as a result of the Va. Tech shooting, and that the existing laws should just be enforced.

Don't look now, billvon, but you sound like a gun-owning, NRA card-carrying, Conservative...

Here's a related thought I'll throw out here. It's not aimed at you, billvon.

I find it ironic that the same people here who argue so vehemently in favor of now turning over doctor-patient records to the government, are the same ones who argue so vehemently against the narrow intrusions upon personal privacy from the Patriot Act.

So I guess that those people think that gun-owners must be more dangerous than suspected terrorists...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How do you figure? They had at least two mass shootings within 10 years. As a result, they passed the law in 1997 and there haven't been any mass shootings since.

Someone tried to murder me in 1987. So then I bought a handgun and have kept it handy in my car ever since. No one has tried to murder me in the 20 years since that day.

Therefore, according to your logic, this is proof positive that buying a handgun and keeping it in your car will prevent bad guys from trying to kill you!

Woohoo! I should have done it sooner!

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

What does bug me though is when people twist the truth to their agenda. And that comes on both sides of the fence. The righties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iraq. The lefties with their willful disregard of the truth concerning Iran. And when there is a clear example of cause and effect coming from the UK in terms of passing a gun control law and having no mass shootings for 10 years afterwards, we just see more of the same.

I was trying to be polite about this, but if we're supposed to take this at face value, you're either 'twisting the truth' or very ignorant on that subject of statistics.

The crime data for England since the ban shows an increase in gun crime, not a decrease. It's too small a delta and sample size to make the kind of conclusions John does, but it's even more outrageous for you to claim the data shows success. Much more likely is that like nearly all gun laws in the US, the ban had no significant effect.

All of which continues to beg the question. What would it take, what evidence would you require that would persuade you that there might be some truth to the claim that the UK law was showing some measure of success? Why is that so hard to answer?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The crime data for England since the ban shows an increase in gun crime, not a decrease.

All of which continues to beg the question. What would it take, what evidence would you require that would persuade you that there might be some truth to the claim that the UK law was showing some measure of success? Why is that so hard to answer?

For starters, a decrease in gun crime and in the supply of guns in the criminal world.

And no more Beatles getting stabbed in their own home, perhaps.

BTW, are you sure you want to give that ban all the credit for any potential successes, instead of the millions (thousands?) of CCTV cams all over the place?

[vortexring 0]

You know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

You know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status.

As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

For decades, the doctrine in place in regards to hijackings was - don't escalate the situation, don't confront the hijackers, be compliant and wait for help.

Sept 11th changed that. Do you really think that there's going to be another hijacking that ISN'T resisted in some way? I don't.

Police doctrine for decades was to contain the situation and wait for help (SWAT/negotiators).

Columbine changed that. Police departments are more proactive now and 'go to the shooter'.

Don't you think it's time to change the doctrine that is telling the public that they're helpless against violence? It seems obvious that "giving them what they want" didn't help 32 kids at Virginia Tech.

Let's give them a different choice than "Dial 911 and die".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

billvon:
Correct. Americans will no longer have any expectation of privacy

There is very little privacy in this country as it is. There is the rhetoric that the administration tosses around. Somedays its about protecting your rights, the other days its about being patriotic and allowing laws to bend to the will of the White House to protect you. In reality, it all comes down to who is looking to make money and will it benefit someone that is in good will of this admin.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

Quote

You know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status.

As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime?

Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them?

No so whats your point?

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[DFWAJG 4]

Unfortunately, what is so sad about this case is that no one has addressed how mentally illthis individual was. While I haven't evaluated this person, I have surmised by the information available, that this person was a Paranoid Schizophrenic in need of treatment. apparently, he had just recently been released from a psych ward and supposedly stopped taking his medication. These types of situations should emphasize the need for parity and better resources for the mentally ill. When Reagan closed down all of the state institutions, he didn't open any althernatives for those in need of treatment. Most of those people died, the others cross-institutuinalized into the prison system. the others are wondering on the streets, homeless and suffering from their illness. Most schizophrenics are not violent. In fact, you are more likely to be violent with a diagnosis of depression than with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. but the signs this young man demonstrated clearly indicated that he had the potential for violence. Unfortunately, due to apathy, no one brought this to the attention of those who could help. And what is further sad, is that societies like the American Psychiatric Society does not step up and educated the public about mental illness, signs to watch out for and the need for parity and resources to treat people like the shooter. I'm disgruntled about my profession and my professional affiliation for things like this.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You know what fucks me off about your opinions John? You're so commited to your opinion you completly fuck off everybody else who disagree's with you, like some fat selfish cnut in the play ground, protecting his sweeties and status.

As you do, when people put out opinions you don't like.. such as keeping their LEGAL guns that have NEVER been used in a crime?

Do you think Cho Seung-Hui's guns had been used in a crime prior to his killing 32 people with them?

No so whats your point?

It's clearer in context.