Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

Need to stop looking crap up on the phone.  Didn't find the exact blurb I saw this morning, but THIS article had the same stat.  

firearm suicides ─ which make up more than half of all suicides in America, or nearly 23,000 in 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Need to stop looking crap up on the phone.  Didn't find the exact blurb I saw this morning, but THIS article had the same stat.  

firearm suicides ─ which make up more than half of all suicides in America, or nearly 23,000 in 2016

You're still not getting the point. Maybe reread the posts where I responded to fish, and you responded to me. He was saying that criminal issues are easier. I said, since criminal gun deaths only make up 33% of the total number of deaths. It is going to be difficult to reduce that number as much as it would if we concentrated efforts on mental health. 

I've had this discussion with SP already. I don't see the need to regulate suicide through gun control. People have a right to do as they please with their bodies. I'm concentrating on regulations that proactively prevent one person from taking another persons life. If we have better mental health systems in this country and it benefits those contemplating suicide, then that's great. But if it saves the lives of people that wanted to live all along, that's what I'm concentrating on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like we do this round and round every few months, and again it feels like the target has shifted in this complicated debate.  

Because of the various "categories" of gun violence the discussion morphs and blends into each other.  Now if we are throwing out statements like people who die by suicide made that choice and we are just going to focus on people harming other people - IMO we really need to reconcile info and stats like the following article has:

Columbia’s Paul Appelbaum and Duke’s Jeffrey Swanson concluded that “only 3%-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns.”

Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia who maintains a database of mass shooters, wrote in a 2015 article that only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, were mentally ill.

 

LINK

 

I sure a certain poster in here will be all about the last part in the article talking about drug and alcohol abuse.  IMO this just points to us needing to incorporate a lot things to tackle this problem - looking at mental illness,  abuse of substances, tendencies of anger, access to guns, types of guns we have, on and on.  I don't think its effective for the whole of "gun violence" to say it's just X and Y causing this because in encapsulates so many different types of crimes and violence.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Seems like we do this round and round every few months, and again it feels like the target has shifted in this complicated debate.  

Because of the various "categories" of gun violence the discussion morphs and blends into each other.  Now if we are throwing out statements like people who die by suicide made that choice and we are just going to focus on people harming other people - IMO we really need to reconcile info and stats like the following article has:

Columbia’s Paul Appelbaum and Duke’s Jeffrey Swanson concluded that “only 3%-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns.”

Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia who maintains a database of mass shooters, wrote in a 2015 article that only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 percent, were mentally ill.

 

LINK

 

I sure a certain poster in here will be all about the last part in the article talking about drug and alcohol abuse.  IMO this just points to us needing to incorporate a lot things to tackle this problem - looking at mental illness,  abuse of substances, tendencies of anger, access to guns, types of guns we have, on and on.  I don't think its effective for the whole of "gun violence" to say it's just X and Y causing this because in encapsulates so many different types of crimes and violence.  

 

Look at those that cause the most deaths and the factors that contribute to them.

Suicide = Mental Illness/Substance Abuse

Gang Shootings = Drug Problem/Lack of Opportunity/Breakdown of Family Structure

Mass Shootings = Mental Illness (I say this because it's a result of people not being able to cope with the problems. Whether that is bullying, being fired, or whatever. It starts will the mental make up)

Domestic Violence = Substance Abuse

Other = Anger/Jealousy/Greed

 

Investing time and money on areas other than mental health is going to yield minor results. As one of the articles pointed out, murder rates have been going down. But, suicide rates are going up. If guns were the problem, wouldn't we see both of them going up? We are seeing an increase in mass shootings. So the two areas that are rooted in mental health issues (suicide and mass shootings) are going up, while other murders are going down. It makes sense to address the cause of those two areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Investing time and money on areas other than mental health is going to yield minor results"

 

IMO in order for somebody to say that, they have to reconcile the above stats that a small fraction of the violent acts involve people with a severe mental illness.   Posting suicide doesn't do anything if you say that you are focusing on people harming other people, so take that out if you aren't going to focus on that.    In your post, the categories that make up the majority of the deaths -gangs/domestic violence you don't list mental illness, so I am not sure why you keep claiming that focusing on mental health is going to yield the best results and make the most change.  None of this factors in accidental death either.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It cracks me up that you quote me without quoting me. :lmao: (and you aren't bowing down to King Fish)

6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

"Investing time and money on areas other than mental health is going to yield minor results"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

IMO in order for somebody to say that, they have to reconcile the above stats that a small fraction of the violent acts involve people with a severe mental illness.   Posting suicide doesn't do anything if you say that you are focusing on people harming other people, so take that out if you aren't going to focus on that.    In your post, the categories that make up the majority of the deaths -gangs/domestic violence you don't list mental illness, so I am not sure why you keep claiming that focusing on mental health is going to yield the best results and make the most change.  None of this factors in accidental death either.  

 

You need to define what it is you're trying to do? I had this same conversation with SP. His answer, was to reduce the number of gun deaths in this country to be more in line with other developed countries. This is why I looked at what makes up the largest percent of gun deaths (suicide). And why I proposed a mental wellness tax on guns and alcohol. Even though I don't believe that we should have a say in whether or not someone wants to commit suicide. Pro Choice. I think gun suicide deaths should be removed from the stats. 

What we are left with is about 12,000 deaths each year. Those break down into three other categories. Gang violence, mass shootings, other. Each of those will have a different solution to reduce the numbers. I addressed these above. But, the fundamental problem is not a gun. It's mental health, or socioeconomic issues, or substance abuse. 

When you remove suicides from gun deaths, it shows the murder rate went down. How do you explain this happening? Many people's premise is that more guns equal more deaths. If this was the case, then murder rate would have gone up. The only reason gun death rate is going up is because of suicide. Why would you concentrate on the part that is already going down and ignore the part that's going up? Unless it's only about gun control and not about achieving results. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KCitons said:

What we are left with is about 12,000 deaths each year. Those break down into three other categories. Gang violence, mass shootings, other. Each of those will have a different solution to reduce the numbers. I addressed these above. But, the fundamental problem is not a gun. It's mental health, or socioeconomic issues, or substance abuse. 

 

Now, we might not agree with that first part, but at least we got somewhere with the rest.   OR is huge part of the problem.  IMO we can't say that mental health will take care of a majority of the problem, and we can't say that a guns and access to them is also not a fundamental part of the problem.   I said similar about 6-8months ago.  I just take issue with you saying that mental illness is the core solution (especially when you take out the suicide rate like you did when you said that you want to focus on things that proactively stop people from harming other people).  IF it's only accounting for 5% of the violence against others, how is that a core solution?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Now, we might not agree with that first part, but at least we got somewhere with the rest.   OR is huge part of the problem.  IMO we can't say that mental health will take care of a majority of the problem, and we can't say that a guns and access to them is also not a fundamental part of the problem.   I said similar about 6-8months ago.  I just take issue with you saying that mental illness is the core solution (especially when you take out the suicide rate like you did when you said that you want to focus on things that proactively stop people from harming other people).  IF it's only accounting for 5% of the violence against others, how is that a core solution?  

This is why I use alcohol/DUIs/automobiles as the comparison. If you recognize that 66% of gun deaths are suicide, and that we either need to address the mental health issue that causes it or accept it as being a persons choice, you are left with a much smaller number of gun deaths that crimes against another person. I see this as an acceptable level. The same way we see 10k deaths per year from duis as being acceptable. There are lots of things that we have that cause deaths. Those are just a part of having that item in society. It may be alcohol, cars, drugs, or purple dildos. You see the solution being gun regulations. I see the problem as just an acceptable part of how the world works. How many people die from crane collapse. It's unfortunate, but we aren't going to ban cranes. It's just an unfortunate byproduct that we accept. 

This is why I propose bans and look for other ways to impact the overall numbers. Background checks to prevent people that shouldn't have guns from getting them. Mental health programs to help those that passed background checks from harming other people (and possibly themselves). People here have admitted that we won't have guarantees or even the hope of getting gun deaths to zero. What we are left with is a each person deciding what number of deaths is acceptable. For me, I'm okay with the current number. The murder rate is decreasing. Others are not okay with the current numbers. I've asked over and over why we think 12k deaths from guns is worst that 10k deaths from duis? The canned response is let's do more to reduce the former. But, it's not happening. There is no 300 page thread, no main stream media coverage, no political discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine (I guess "hope" is the better term) that you in in the minority that think those leftover 10K deaths are an acceptable part of a modern society.  

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I would imagine (I guess "hope" is the better term) that you in in the minority that think those leftover 10K deaths are an acceptable part of a modern society.  

It's part of a developed nation. We accept auto related deaths as part of the benefit of having cars. We accept airplane crashes as part of having the convenience of flying. I don't see guns as being any different. It doesn't eliminate the fact that they are tragedies. But, we don't suddenly call for a ban of airplanes after a crash. How would people get from city to city?

What it comes down to is whether or not a person thinks that firearms are as beneficial to their society as cars or planes. There are probably people out their that own a dozen guns and use them on a regular basis. But have never flown on an airplane. Which do you think is more important to their society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KCitons said:

It's part of a developed nation.

If this was true, we wouldn't be alone in the world with these stats.  

As far as rest, I dont disagree.  It's odd that you are in here arguing about it so much if you think it's an acceptable part of life.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

If this was true, we wouldn't be alone in the world with these stats.  

As far as rest, I dont disagree.  It's odd that you are in here arguing about it so much if you think it's an acceptable part of life.  

Then why are people trying to get into this country. It's the freedoms that set this country apart from the others. Some things we lead in are good, some are bad. 

I'm arguing to make sure the anti gun side makes informed decisions and not decisions based on emotion or misrepresented stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Freedoms, sure.  Not sure how many things we lead the world in that would be good things though, but that's not for this thread.  

Well based on the opinions of some of the people here, I'm not sure why immigrants would want to come to this country. Sounds like they would be a victim of gun violence as soon as they cross the border. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 6:34 PM, KCitons said:

Well based on the opinions of some of the people here, I'm not sure why immigrants would want to come to this country. Sounds like they would be a victim of gun violence as soon as they cross the border. 

 

To be fair, how many choices to they have?  Not sure if floating across the Atlantic to European countries is a feasible option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The study cataloged recent road rage disputes, bar fights, police shootings of armed civilians, and everyday vitriol that turned into shootings in right-to-carry states, to suggest mechanisms that explain how the increases might happen.

 

Imagine that - tempers flair and out come the guns.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

This needs to be highlighted;

Quote

However, Duke University criminologist Philip Cook told BuzzFeed News that a new study with better methods and data toppling an old, incorrect theory is just an example of how science works.

“The scientific process does not always get the right answer the first time, but if it’s working well, then important findings are reviewed and tested and the truth becomes clearer,” said Cook, in the case of the newer, better study of 33 states. Regardless, he added, advocates for the “more guns, less crime” idea will likely continue beating the drum for right-to-carry laws.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

To be fair, how many choices to they have?  Not sure if floating across the Atlantic to European countries is a feasible option.  

Then you're saying things aren't that bad here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

The study cataloged recent road rage disputes, bar fights, police shootings of armed civilians, and everyday vitriol that turned into shootings in right-to-carry states, to suggest mechanisms that explain how the increases might happen.

 

Imagine that - tempers flair and out come the guns.  

 

I said this 200 pages ago. It's the reason I am not a fan of conceal carry for people without a good reason. And the reason I don't conceal carry myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

To be fair, how many choices to they have?  Not sure if floating across the Atlantic to European countries is a feasible option.  

Quote

Weak gun laws in the United States, and especially in border states like Arizona, make it easier for weapons to be smuggled into neighboring countries where they're used to commit crimes, according to a new report from a progressive think tank.

The report, published this month by the Center for American Progress, analyzed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms data on weapons recovered at crime scenes in neighboring countries that were traced back to the United States. 

Eugenio Weigend, who co-authored the report, said it was intended to counter a "narrative of President Trump, that we need to secure the border because crime is coming from Mexico, from the Central American countries."

That narrative ignores "the fact that the United States is fueling the violence abroad with illegal gun trafficking," he said.

According to the analysis, the U.S. was the primary source of weapons used to commit crimes in Canada and Mexico, and U.S. weapons make up a significant portion of those used in crimesin all seven Central American nations. 

The problem is most pronounced in Mexico, the report states. Nearly 70 percent of the 106,000 recovered weapons submitted to ATF from 2011 to 2016 were traced to the United States.

The report calls on federal and state governments to implement universal background checks, strengthen federal laws against gun trafficking, and improve reporting on gun sales and exports. Weigend said such measures are widely supported by voters.

Huh.   If we tightened our gun laws, other countries would be safer too.  While some of the above is opinion, the 70% figure is documented fact.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, -fish- said:

Huh.   If we tightened our gun laws, other countries would be safer too.  While some of the above is opinion, the 70% figure is documented fact.

If other countries have more guns because of the United States, then those countries are safer, because as we all know, more guns makes a country safer. 

So I think we should tax those other countries for the benefit they are receiving from us.

[/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I dont think I said things were bad here.  

I didn't say you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

If other countries have more guns because of the United States, then those countries are safer, because as we all know, more guns makes a country safer. 

So I think we should tax those other countries for the benefit they are receiving from us.

[/sarcasm]

Trafficking guns to other countries should be left to the CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   1 member