Another School Shooting: The Gun Violence/Mental Illness Debate Continues
The problem is that it is hard to identify who is going to carry out these attacks.
Probably the only one looking in retrospect that had no clear signs was this Stephen Paddock oddity.
Now this particular one in Florida and most all other like it have clear signs,
- No one was surprised it was him, that is a problem
- The FBI was warned, twice, nothing happened, bigger problem
- He had years worth of signs that were neon flashing signs if you will, what else can you ask for?
The attack itself is unpredictable timing and method wise as is any attack, action and reaction, but the behavior profile won't get any more overt than this kid was.
There have been other big shoot out massacres where there were no apparent warning signs.
Is it necessary to jog your memory upon those facts ?
So your only using this recent incident Freemind because it supports your position.
Another person that instilled in intellectual dishonesty. ...... good grief
You guys did learn something from being a JWS
Finkel, you are sounding like you have some anger issues
You shouldn't own a gun
From a human psychological perspective guns can evoke thoughts of violent retribution.
Sounds like projection to me. I can not think of a time I've ever held a gun and had any thoughts about violent retribution.
In all seriousness, if you actually feel this way then I agree it is a good thing if you don't own any weapons of any kind.
Since the expiration of the AWB, firearm ownership, AR-15s, and concealed carry numbers have both skyrocketed. Yet, the murder rate and violent crime rate have both continued to drop. Again, that is a correlation and not a causal link, so we cannot prove an increase in concealed carry has lowered the violent crime rate, but we can empirically show private ownership of more firearms and an increased number of citizens carrying firearms has not increased the violent crime rate.
In the 14 years since the previous AWB ban lapsed, the law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. The number of people murdered in the U.S. with any type of rifle has been less than 300 per year, nevermind the so-called “assault rifle.”
You are about 20 times more likely to be shot with a handgun, even odds with a shotgun, several times more likely to be killed with a blunt object, knife, or hands, feet, fists or being pushed, than shot with an AR15
So what your saying then guys that the Florida shooter didn't go to that school to take out retribution against other school students who had been previously physically and verbally fighting with.
Lets go over once again what it means to be intellectually dishonest .....
Maybe an example of dishonesty that's not intellectual would help clear things up? It's harder to deceive about feelings than about thoughts, although not impossible. Is this helpful?
- intellectual dishonesty often refers to lying to oneself -- it is "intellectual" in the sense of a perversion of the intellect, a violation of standards of rational evaluation.
- I suppose that makes sense if the word "intellectual" means "perversion of the intellect, a violation of standards of rational evaluation" to the reader. Otherwise it's difficult to comprehend.
- No, it's easy to comprehend, and it does not imply tany such thing about the meaning of "intellectual"; it is simply stating the role of the word "intellectual" that distinguishes from "ordinary" dishonesty.
IntellectualDishonesty doesn't necessarily mean lies or otherwise morally wrong deeds. However, in pursuing an intellectual endeavour one has to commit oneself to higher standards. That's what's IntellectualHonesty is all about: keeping those higher standards and living up to the expectations. IntellectualDishonesty is not living up to the expected standard, and this might happen because of lazyness, superficiality and other "lesser" evils. However, when these evils manifest themselves in fields such as science, engineering, etc, they are qualified as IntellectualDishonesty because in these fields everyone is expected strive for higher standards.
Finkel, you shouldn't own a gun
Or a big truck, for that matter
Since the expiration of the AWB, firearm ownership, AR-15s, and concealed carry numbers have both skyrocketed.
It's easy to pick a biased statistic isn't it along with being dismissive to the fact of what firearm these attackers used.
Could these attackers have used a hand gun or hunting rifle ? sure its happened before but the amount of deaths would have been assuring less, speaking of these recent attackers who used a AR-15 that is.
Finkel, you shouldn't own a gun
Or a big truck, for that matter
I think OrphanCrow you should take a course in Ethics, it might help you understand human social behavior and what adhering virtues are beneficial toward humanity.
It isn't rocket science to make the evaluative conclusion that when you introduce a high volume of guns into the hands of the general population that there will be an increase of those guns used in acts of violence, hence the reason the US has such a high incidences of guns used in violent acts.
Why are you lying Fink? Yea its not rocket science, its way easier than that and as usual you are patently wrong.
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates.
Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record, and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.
Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
The trend continues btw
Even Australia, the world poster child for gun control, is buying more guns than ever! look it up.
How does it feel to be soooooo bloody wrong? let me remind you what you said.
when you introduce a high volume of guns into the hands of the general population that there will be an increase of those guns used in acts of violence