And then you see another poll or study that says otherwise. I'm sure I've seen plenty of studies where people with mental illnesses are less dangerous to others, and mostly only to themselves.

(October 6, 2015 at 9:19 pm)Evie Wrote: And then you see another poll or study that says otherwise. I'm sure I've seen plenty of studies where people with mental illnesses are less dangerous to others, and mostly only to themselves.

I agree. The mentally ill are more often victims than offenders.

Absolutely. And I'm sick of hearing this bullshit in newspapers where the term "paranoid schizophrenic" is used to mean "serial killer" they are NOT the same thing. Even psychopaths are not all serial killers for fucks sake. In fact a very small percentage are. And schizophrenics in particular are often very shy and probably on average extra harmless to others, they are more of a danger to themselves.

(October 5, 2015 at 5:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 5, 2015 at 9:16 am)Losty Wrote: Again, the argument is that only law abiding citizens will turn in their guns. Why would a criminal turn in a gun just because it's banned?

You have armed police officers in the US, I gather?  You don't wait for people you turn in illegal items.  You go out and get them.

Boru

Indeed. That's what we did in the UK when we tightened up laws on handguns a short while back but amnesty came first, was more successful and less costly. In Australia, the government bought the guns from their citizens, law-abiding or otherwise. It was a phenomenally successful approach as demonstrated by the dramatic & rapid decrease in gun-related crime. I think the US would have to use a variety of well-thought-through, clever methods as their gun owners seem very attached to their weaponry.

But as others have said, parting people from their guns is only part of the solution. There are many social facets to address.

Wow Australia's gun policy sounds awesome. I know what to suggest in the 'gun debates' in future.

In order for the U.S military to be as capable, it needs armed citezens who are used to gun. God bless modern culture that allowed video games to train young children on "American Jihad" too; the kid reaches 9 years old and yet pro with the revolver to shoot his whole school down.

You actually can't see it yet, the big picture ?

It's so ironic and funny, to see people, who are waiting for "studies on gun violence" when their government is the only government in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD that deployed nukes killing 100K children, women. The biggest massacre in the history of mankind.

How ironic ?

I just laugh my ass off when I see people opening such topics & discussing for real..this government and this congress are drenched in blood to their foreheads since the civil war; GET OVER IT.

"The American Jihad"..Nobody will ban guns in that country. Get over it.

I don't like guns. They suck.

(October 7, 2015 at 9:28 am)Evie Wrote: Wow Australia's gun policy sounds awesome. I know what to suggest in the 'gun debates' in future.

I agree! More interesting to me is that the Australian politician who was behind the idea was a conservative who had simply had enough, and he knew that the average Australian in his party would be furious at him for enacting the program. He described it as "political suicide", and he was right. But in an amazing interview that John Oliver did with Rob Borbidge, for The Daily Show, he acknowledged that he felt his own political career was a small price to pay for doing the right thing. 

It's a degree of honor and decency that has long been missing from American politics, unfortunately.

(October 7, 2015 at 10:26 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: In order for the U.S military to be as capable, it needs armed citezens who are used to gun. God bless modern culture that allowed video games to train young children on "American Jihad" too; the kid reaches 9 years old and yet pro with the revolver to shoot his whole school down.

You actually can't see it yet, the big picture ?

It's so ironic and funny, to see people, who are waiting for "studies on gun violence" when their government is the only government in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD that deployed nukes killing 100K children, women. The biggest massacre in the history of mankind.

How ironic ?

I just laugh my ass off when I see people opening such topics & discussing for real..this government and this congress are drenched in blood to their foreheads since the civil war; GET OVER IT.

"The American Jihad"..Nobody will ban guns in that country. Get over it.

What does the government's history of violence have to do with this? We're disucssing civillians killing civillians.

(October 7, 2015 at 12:02 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 7, 2015 at 10:26 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

---

In order for the U.S military to be as capable, it needs armed citezens who are used to gun. God bless modern culture that allowed video games to train young children on "American Jihad" too; the kid reaches 9 years old and yet pro with the revolver to shoot his whole school down.

You actually can't see it yet, the big picture ?

It's so ironic and funny, to see people, who are waiting for "studies on gun violence" when their government is the only government in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD that deployed nukes killing 100K children, women. The biggest massacre in the history of mankind.

How ironic ?

I just laugh my ass off when I see people opening such topics & discussing for real..this government and this congress are drenched in blood to their foreheads since the civil war; GET OVER IT.

"The American Jihad"..Nobody will ban guns in that country. Get over it.

---

What does the government's history of violence have to do with this?  We're disucssing civillians killing civillians.

I think he made the case that having a well-armed civilian populace is useful  to politicians who use American military might to maintain our economic hegemony, so the politicians (who would have to be the ones to enact genuine gun reform laws) have little motivation to ban civilian guns, regardless of the consequences to those civilians.