Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
Modulous
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 45 of 236 (668667)
07-23-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by vimesey
07-23-2012 4:41 PM


Re: Gun control question
I was going to regale you with my hazy memory of the various strangeness regarding assault weapons in the USA. Then I found that wiki had summed it for me - who needs a memory these days, eh?
quote:
There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994—2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features were stamped, "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only" as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines. The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.
Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[21] these features became legal in most states.[22] Since the expiration of the ban the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.
What rationale do the NRA and other opponents of gun control offer, in support of the public being able to buy assault rifles ?
I think, the argument goes, roughly, but they're not technically assault rifles (ie., they are only semi-automatic), in their own words:
quote:
The gun-banners did not use the term assault rifle in the proper technical sensethat is, an intermediate power combat rifle that has a selector switch so that the gun can fire either automatically or semi-automatically. Instead, the prohibitionists tricked legislatures into banning guns that could only fire as semi-autos, but which looked like selective-fire military rifles.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 4:41 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 5:07 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 128 of 236 (668766)
07-24-2012 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 9:22 PM


the danger of handguns
That said, I think we may eventually uncover some uniquely American environmental factor - something in the air or water that they don't have in other places.
Prevalence of guns is maybe not uniquely American, but it is characteristic. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I've heard there are enough to go around so that everyone could have one. That would make it more easy for both 'demonstratively dangerous people' and people who aspire become 'demonstratively dangerous', to acquire a firearm.
Granted - if I was living in such an environment, I could see the merit it owning a firearm. In the environment I'm in, with maybe 1 gun per 50 people (many of which (the legal ones) are shotguns and single shot rifles and very very few handguns), I don't feel the need quite so much.
Number of people killed per class of weapon. Handguns kill far, far more Americans than rifles.
I'm not attempting to refute you, but does that take into account that the frequency of ownership? I mean, handguns may have killed more people than TCDD, may have killed more than nitro-glycerine may even have killed more than uranium bombs. Likewise asthma has probably killed more people than ebola.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 9:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by frako, posted 07-24-2012 9:22 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 236 (668791)
07-24-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by frako
07-24-2012 9:22 AM


prevalence
Yea America 88.8 Guns per 100 people the first in the world in guns second place held by Serbia 58.2 guns per 100 people
I've heard quite the variety of figures - I'm guessing nobody knows the real number - what's your source for this particular figure? * Here is a random news report
quote:
On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.
France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.
For comparison, Karp, Aaron. 2007. ‘Completing the Count: Civilian firearms.’ Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City, suggests the UK is 6.72 firearms per 100 people.


*Actually - I just saw the 88.8 figure on the source I just linked to, so I'm guessing that's your source!
Edited by Modulous, : added footnote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by frako, posted 07-24-2012 9:22 AM frako has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 183 of 236 (668884)
07-25-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Gun control question
Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law.
Do you have any support for this claim? I found this though it does not appear to have been officially peer reviewed.
About 50% agreed with the claim:
quote:
Outlawing civilian gun ownership will result in more crime.
Only about 13% agreed with
quote:
Outlawing civilian gun ownership will result in a more civilized society
94% said they kept civillian firearms at home and a similar number that they would teach their children firearm safety.
Only 15% answered in the affirmative to:
quote:
Do you fear the possession of guns by the civilian?
as many as 29% of LEOs asked believed that if the private ownership of guns were outlawed,
quote:
citizens would be justified in revolting against the government
47% said they'd refuse an order from their superior to
quote:
participate in dynamic entry, house to house searches to seize {firearms}
if firearms were made illegal.
It seems to be a somewhat informal survey, carried out by what appears to be a competent person, made as a result of no other similar surveys having been conducted.
quote:
The general feeling was that the media took the easy way out by asking these kinds of questions only of the big police organizations such as the national union leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police or the National Association of Chiefs of Police

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 2:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 235 of 236 (669700)
08-01-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
08-01-2012 11:49 AM


Re: Psychiatric Care
Right, and it would be instructive to compare the level of psychiatric care between the US and similar countries.
I know nothing about the details of American healthcare. In Britain what tends to happen is
1) Consultation with GP
2) Referral to a specialist
3) Patient decides between drugs and therapies or both.
4) If prescribed medication, it costs about $10/month regardless of actual price. Various therapies, such as group talk therapy or CBT, if chosen, are entirely free.
In the case of something serious like some psychosis related illnesses such as schizophrenia one might lose one's driver's licence - and probably face losing their job, depending on your job and your employer. I suppose in the States there might be complications related to insurance.
But the health services are pretty good - if one can be motivated to take advantage of them. Early intervention centres in the case of illnesses like schizophrenia (and I know there are some such centres in the States, based on a quick google search on the topic). There is a certain trend of recalcitrance in schizophrenics et al, so there's always a struggle to keep them following treatment.
Here in Britain we make medication cheap, and easy to access and we try to give the 'service user' the choices in their treatment, offering CBT and other related treatments as needed/wanted.
I'm guessing America has some pretty good treatment plans for people displaying disturbing divergences from reality. Though I'm thinking that anti-psychotics are prescribed like candy, and those that refuse are pressured to do otherwise. That 'schizophrenia' (a term which is becoming questionable) counts as a 'pre-existing condition', making insurance options/premiums rise to potentially unaffordable levels. But that's just a Brit's eye view - perhaps you could fill me in?
I'm actually quite curious because my other half is currently building a training package for our workplace to raise awareness of mental health issues and tackle the associated stigma. I think Britain isn't perfect, but I think it's a passing grade.
That being said - the belief that the mentally ill are more likely to be criminally violent isn't quite so clear when the evidence is examined (it may still be true, but the effect is much smaller than public perception). It might be based on the fact that a hugely disproportionate amount of mentally ill people, especially psychotics, are either homicidal or suicidal in American film and TV. This can lead to a sort of Availability Heuristic effect going on. Especially combined with the fact that the mental health of a person is almost always mentioned in the news only when a person is mentally ill and they have committed a violent crime.
I don't think there is any healthcare system in the world which will completely prevent all mentally ill persons committing terrible crimes, and which is also a good mental healthcare system (of course, it should seek to reduce the number of such crimes as much as ethically possible). It would be a terrible system to make treatments mandatory. It would be terrible to deprive people of their liberty because they are ill (obviously for particularly bad cases these options may be necessary).
As for what a doctor should do if a patient confesses to intrusive violent thoughts and fantasies? It's difficult because these symptoms commonly appear in mentally ill people with no subsequent violent behaviour. If you force medication on them, put them in a hospital against their will etc., you just deter ill people from talking about their problems out of (justified) fear.
Intrusive thoughts occur with OCD, posttraumatic stress disorder, other anxiety disorders, eating disorders, or psychosis.
I think most people have experience intrusive violent and sexual thoughts before - even had violent or inappropriate sexual fantasies. It is not always obvious when these fantasies become 'a clear threat', until after the fact of course, see Hindsight bias.
All that said, I think there is an overwhelming public interest in those documents should the exist. That way we can analyse it, along with other similar documents by other patients to see if there is anything there that truly is indicative of a threat to harm others. One of the signs a problem is brewing, I believe, is the development of a plan. So if this guy did have a specific plan, that should have raised an alarm - but then, that's why we say hindsight is 20/20.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2012 11:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2012 5:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024