https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AswaDV9q95oZdG5fVGJTS25GQXhSTDFpZXE0RHhUdkE#gid=0

Take a look at the chart. Compare the amount of incidents with automatic weapons, to the amount with prior mental health issues.

Are we focusing on the weapons when our attention should be elsewhere? This is not a NRA spreadsheet. This is Mother Jones! Even they are saying mental health is more of an issue that assault weapons!

We said mental health was an issue on page 1 of the thread. Well done for finally catching up.

But the combination of people with mental problems and easy access to deadly weapons is not as simple.as just looking at one side.

I don't need snide, Danivon. I have agreed that there needs to be better background checks for EVERY sale.

Is mental health MORE involved than assault weapons in mass shootings?

give up on trying to make a real difference, forget about getting to the root of the problem and buy into the liberal rally call to eliminate scary looking guns instead, yeah, that will cure everything!?

bbauska wrote:I don't need snide, Danivon. I have agreed that there needs to be better background checks for EVERY sale.

As I have seen. It's just I keep seeing the argument that the 'liberals' just want to ban guns. It would be nice if some (such as GMTom) took the effort to read what has been written rather than just argue against straw men.

Is mental health MORE involved than assault weapons in mass shootings?

Nope. Not all mass shootings are carried out by people with actual mental health problems, for a start (although it is prominent). Also, there are a lot of mentally ill people who don't commit mass shootings.

The spreadsheet does say that more of the mass shootings are committed by those with mental issues.

Please note that I did not say ALL mentally ill commit crimes. I am saying that the spreadsheet from Mother Jones shows a wide margin of them were committed by those who were/are mentally ill.

If you have issue with GMTom, then keep it with him. If I say something rude, then call me on it. If I am wrong, I apologize. I have done it before, and will do it again if it is warranted.

bbauska wrote:The spreadsheet does say that more of the mass shootings are committed by those with mental issues.

I know. But my point is that it is not all mass shootings. Thus, I don't think it's correct to make mental health the most important issue. I tend to think both are just as important as each other.

If you have issue with GMTom, then keep it with him. If I say something rude, then call me on it. If I am wrong, I apologize. I have done it before, and will do it again if it is warranted.

I also have issues with the same arguments being used over and over as if the 'liberals' haven't already mentioned things other than guns. In that, it's not just Tom (he's just the most bloviate).

Basically, acknowledging mental health as an issue is great. But it doesn't lessen the fact that when people with mental problems commit mass slaughter, it's more deadly when they use a gun, and in particular certain types of gun.

Then Danivon, I have a problem with you and RickyP, and Sassenach and Freeman2 saying that it is curbing rights to automatic weapons that as a solution to mass shootings. NO, it is not. The guns are not walking down the street and commencing fire on innocents.

I have been very clear on my position.

Your position is nobody can have an automatic weapon. Not that the people who are most likely to commit a mass shooting should not have them. Is that correct?

I feel the same way about cars. You can have whatever type of car you want. If you want a car capable of driving 160 mph (260 kph approx) that is fine. If you use it to break the law, then you cannot have your vehicle anymore. If you cannot pass the test due to mental/physical defect then you will be prohibited from legally acquiring a vehicle capable of violating the law.

bbauska wrote:Then Danivon, I have a problem with you and RickyP, and Sassenach and Freeman2 saying that it is curbing rights to automatic weapons that as a solution to mass shootings. NO, it is not. The guns are not walking down the street and commencing fire on innocents.

And yet the number of mass shootings (and the number of people killed and injured in them) went down during the assault weapons ban, even including Columbine.

Other countries, even with similar outlooks to America, introduced bans specifically to reduce mass killings, and it appears to have worked there, as we've already discussed.

So what is it, in an evidence-based manner, that makes you so sure with your "No, it is not"?

It is indeed a solution. While we'll never find a way to 100% eliminate mass killings, it does seem that the main means used to carry them out is part of the key to reducing them. Why would it not be?

I have been very clear on my position.

Indeed. The refusal to see guns as part of the problem is very clear.

Your position is nobody can have an automatic weapon. Not that the people who are most likely to commit a mass shooting should not have them. Is that correct?

I thought that fully automatic weapons were already pretty much banned. I do agree that semi-automatic weapons should also be banned for the public. I would agree with Sass on handguns too, but that's probably down to us living in a country where guns are more severely restricted and we don't see a problem with it.

You are right that most people who own assault rifles do not commit murder with them. But what is the purpose of having them, really? I can't see them being much more effective than other kinds of gun for personal or home defence, really. If it comes down to paranoia about your own government, well, that's different (although if they really wanted to do something, they'd choose a method that guns could not defend against anyway).

I feel the same way about cars. You can have whatever type of car you want. If you want a car capable of driving 160 mph (260 kph approx) that is fine. If you use it to break the law, then you cannot have your vehicle anymore. If you cannot pass the test due to mental/physical defect then you will be prohibited from legally acquiring a vehicle capable of violating the law.

I'm sorry, but I just do not see the equivalence.

Guns - particularly assault weapons - have a designed purpose of causing damage. So when they cause damage, it's intrinsically linked to the gun. Card have a designed purpose of carrying people and things around. So when they cause damage it is not intrinsically linked to the car.

bbauska

The guns are not walking down the street and commencing fire on innocents.

No. But people with guns are...

Those same people do a lot less damage with other less convenient means of mayhem. Perhaps, with the convenience of a semi-automatic taken away, they are less likely to choose a less convenient means for the mayhem and pass on the idea altogether...

Australia had great effect in banning semi automatic weapons. They have eliminated mass shootings. The same people are walking down the same streets ... however they don't have access to semi-automatics...

All that logic aside. Is there any answer to the question Danivon asked? Just because there is a right to bear arms... what is the reason that "these particular kinds of arms" should be included in that right? Must people retain the right to kill a great many people quickly in order for Liberty to thrive?

You are right that most people who own assault rifles do not commit murder with them. But what is the purpose of having them, really? I can't see them being much more effective than other kinds of gun for personal or home defence, really. If it comes

down to paranoia about your own government, well, that's different (although if they really wanted to do something, they'd choose a method that guns could not defend against anyway

Lockheed Martin shooting Meridian, Mississippi 7/8/2003
Navistar shooting Melrose Park, Illinois 2/5/2001
Wakefield massacre Wakefield, Massachusetts 12/26/2000
Hotel shooting Tampa, Florida 12/30/1999
Xerox killings Honolulu, Hawaii 11/2/1999
Wedgwood Baptist Church shooting Fort Worth, Texas 9/15/1999
Atlanta day trading spree killings Atlanta, Georgia 7/29/1999
Columbine High School massacre Littleton, Colorado 4/20/1999
Thurston High School shooting Springfield, Oregon 5/21/1998
Westside Middle School killings Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/1998
Connecticut Lottery shooting Newington, Connecticut 3/6/1998
Caltrans maintenance yard shooting Orange, California 12/18/1997
R.E. Phelon Company shooting Aiken, South Carolina 9/15/1997
Fort Lauderdale revenge shooting Fort Lauderdale, Florida 2/9/1996
Walter Rossler Company massacre Corpus Christi, Texas 4/3/1995


All of these took place during the Federal weapons ban. Effective? Not for 98 people it wasn't.
Of these shootings 66% of them were committed by people who had prior signs of mental health issues.

I am not saying that guns are not being used to commit these horrendous acts. The point I am making is that the evil that is being perpetrated is being done by the person committing the crime, and that is where the focus needs to be placed.

To answer your point about what purpose is there to owning an assault weapon. There are fun as fun can be to shoot them. I love shooting. I have been shooting since I was a wee lad (6 years old). I do not see myself as a threat to society if I have a semi-automatic/assault weapon/handgun/pea shooter/knife/club. Reason I am not a threat you may ask? Because I am not mentally unstable (although some here might debate that ).

Let's bring the cars back in to it. You do not see similarity. That is why I mentioned a car capable of breaking the law. We could all have Yugo hatchbacks, or covered wagons, or bicycles. They all are designed to carry people and things around. There were 36,233 traffic fatalities in 1994 alone. Compare that 10 year stretch and round down.

Mass Shootings 98
Traffic deaths 362,000

Where is the focus? <wait for it...> the 98.

I see some issues with the legislation of guns as a problem, and have stated it before.
All guns should be licensed
All shooters MUST pass training
All purchasers MUST pass background check

Please note that all of these of focused on the qualification of the shooter. This leaves the right to own arms as it is. You must qualify for that right to own a weapon. Just like you must qualify for the right to drive a vehicle.

It is unethical to punish someone for something they have not done. I have done nothing wrong, can pass a background check, qualify, and show proficiency. Why should I not be allowed to own a semi-automatic pistol, rifle or otherwise?

Why do some want to take away that based upon evil others have done?

And to answer Danivon's question... Yes it must.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." (see above post) Where have I heard that before....

It was true back then, and is true now.

Show me a weapon indicted for murder. Show me a rifle that is on death row for a conviction. (you can't)

I on the other hand, can show evidence that people have indeed killed people. There are plenty of court cases showing that.

oh that's just rich...

As I have seen. It's just I keep seeing the argument that the 'liberals' just want to ban guns. It would be nice if some (such as GMTom) took the effort to read what has been written rather than just argue against straw men.

Yet the liberals continue to hammer away at banning scary looking guns,
so let me get this correct, we should do a better job at keeping them away from the mentally ill (I agree) but we should also ban them from everyone? What part am I missing? why mention the mentally ill if you want to keep them from EVERYONE?

You, GMTom are the one who keeps going on about how scary the guns look. It's inconsequential to me, whereas the actual properties of guns relating to how they work and what they are designed and used for is the main issue.

I want to restrict them because it is not just the mentally ill. Also because mental illness is not always apparent or even present. Also because if someone wants to obtain a gun they can simply steal it from a 'legal' owner.

So, when you next argue against me, try to resist the temptation to misrepresent my position and then call it 'rich' that I rankle at your behaviour.