Does anyone actually want a gun ban?

Post Reply New Topic

Right, so wanting to defend yourself against an aggressor in an armored vehicle or gunship means you're paranoid and/or a bully.

The aggressor is the bully, and it's smart to be prepared to defend yourself from all means of attack. Just 'cause your country is somewhat stable, doesn't mean it won't be unstable tomorrow.

Anyway, ordinary citizens do have access to "weapons" to fight a standing army to a stalemate in any country.

Given that there is no "aggressor in an armoured vehicle or gunship", yes, that makes you paranoid.

I merely pointed out that if fire arms disappeared there would be plenty of ways for people to kill other people. Look what happened when Pol Pot was in charge. Millions of people where hacked or clubbed to death.

ruveyn

Jacoby, Feinstein is talking about banning 'assault weapons,' (I haven't seen how this is being defined this time), not about banning all guns, and about banning large-capacity magazines. Lots of people are talking about banning, or limiting access to, certain types of weapons, but I have yet to see anyone actually say that they want to see all guns banned.

My stepmother carries a pistol when she and her friends go horseback riding in the mountains. It's partly in case they get attacked by a mountain lion (which has happened once or twice to horseback riders in the hills), and partly so that she can shoot a horse if it breaks its leg. I do not want to see any laws that would prevent her from carrying that gun.

However, I don't think that she (or anyone else) needs to be armed to the point that she could take on a battalion of US Marines gone wild.

Yes, this is true - but if you want to kill lots and lots of people very quickly, and you're working by yourself, you need a gun. If, for example, you want to break into a school and kill lots of kids, you might not be able to kill as many with a knife before the police get there as you would with a semi-automatic gun with multiple 30-round magazines. Yes?

Move to Somalia.

I'm really more in favor or fewer gun-free zones. Think about where massacres as such happen - ie. schools, movie theatres, Ft. Hood, etc..

When people make the argument of private armed citizens never taking on the US army or they're talking about good samaritans being dangerous who would try to shoot an armed shooter in a theatre or school who's intent on a massacre they're forgetting a very big thing - the expedience factor. Read Sun Tzu's Art of War, you'll get that the better half of preventing violence is preventing the very first violent act without violence itself. That comes from the possible perpetrator having a certain kind of understanding, just like a US military being forced to fight a very bloody war against its own family members rather than simply rounding up and directing unarmed civilians are very different kinds of proposals.

Very few, if any people here, responding on this site from the US, have suggested they want all guns banned in the US; and there is a nationwide "epidemic" of support against the ban of handguns since 1959, that is at it's current peak at this point in the US. A recent gallup poll makes those points clear.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/ameri ... -bans.aspx



With a republican led House of Representatives, and public opinion behind them the chances of any ban of any guns including so called "assault weapons" happening is close to zero.

So anyone here that likes their gun rights has close to zero chance of losing them, because of the general ban of sales of any type of weapon, in the near future.

But, for those diagnosed with Asperger's the potential implications in gun restrictions and mental health and a report on HFASD regarding the justice system in the link below, may not be quite the same, particularly with what one finds first on the internet with a Google search on "Asperger's and Violence" and what the "experts" are saying about a special interest in guns, Asperger's, and the potential for violent crimes in the WebMD link below. Kristiansson, one of the few research scientists that has done research in this area, is a professor of forensic psychiatry in Sweden, quoted in the article.

While she is not explicitly stating that the Sandy Hook Killer's interest in guns, is the main causal factor in the incident, she is definitely making a potential association known, in her "expert" opinion.

I don't agree with her assessment in it's accuracy or as a potential determining factor for legislation, but never the less, she is considered one of the few experts in this area of study.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebMD

Also if anyone doesn't understand the significance of this issue being reported in WebMD, it is considered one of the highest rated and used sources for individuals to receive health related information, reaching over 86 million people a month, or close to a billion people every year.

This statement below by this "expert" is the only statement I have heard in the media, by an 'expert" from a reputable source basically profiling a subgroup of individuals with Asperger's as potential rampage killer's, above and beyond what could be expected for an individual with psychopathic tendencies. This is nothing compared to what Joe Scarborough said, and will likely reach many more people as a respected source of information, than what Joe Scarborough who has no medical credentials said on a TV show, last Summer.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/2/177.full.pdf+html

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/ ... nce?page=2



Public opinion in the recent Gallup poll lists public support for better mental health screening right underneath the considered top effective method of police officer's at school for the solution to prevent another horrific school massacre.

As one can clearly see having at least one school official or the prevention of printing the names of the individuals in the media, is considered the least effective means of preventing these type of horrific events, in this recent Gallup poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop- ... ealth.aspx

Syria? Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Yemen? Somalia?

All within the last decade, and all have an aggressor.

I'll rephrase that better:



I agree that special interests can be a factor in the means of how people go about things, but it's not the actual cause. Someone interested in firearms will probably use such if they feel the need to kill lots of people.

I agree, but in her line quoted below she doesn't pull the punch that the special interest in the weapons can lead to violence, specific to people with Asperger's. What she is saying here is that variable A can lead to variable B. In this case people with Aspergers fixated on weapons is variable A and violence is variable B.



Obviously when people become fixated on weapons violence is a potential associated factor, but the statement when people become fixated on weapons, it can lead to violence, is an assertion of a potential causal factor of the fixation on weapons leading to violence, that at least in the general population has not been evidenced, from what I have seen.

I don't have access to her full research as I can only gain assess to an abstract, but I haven't seen where she has provided evidence for her statement in any actual study, other than that one individual she seems like she is attempting to use as an example for the causal associations provided in the article.

I don't see that as even the worst part, as she seems to be suggesting in the case that is referenced that serial killing was a type of non-verbal communication for an individual with Asperger's that could not effectively verbally communicate offense and verbal frustrations to authorities.

There have been some that have suggested that temper tantrums are a type of non-verbal communication for some individuals impacted by autism that cannot communicate their frustration and/or emotions to others through other means of non-verbal or verbal communication.

But, it seems like she is extending that analogy out to a non-verbal behavior of serial killing, as far as I can see in her statement. I would be interested in seeing how she reached that conclusion as she is a respected research scientist. I have no idea how she could, at this point, other than miscommunication.

But never the less, millions of people have access to her "expert" opinion, that don't know much about Asperger's syndrome. A problem I see is that while the general media and this article is not suggesting a general association of autism and violence, it is driving a potential causal association between Asperger's and rare "unfathomable" crimes, per the one that has gained media attention over the last several weeks. I have seen no other "reputable" source do this, at this level of direct communication, until this "expert" made this statement, as reported in the WebMD source. Have you?

I think if she had made the statement that people with apserger's becoming fixated on weapons can lead to a lot of target practice at the shooting range, would have been a much more reasonable factual statement of potential causation, but of course that would also apply to the general population, and is not something worth mentioning, as far as I can see.

Last edited by aghogday on 31 Dec 2012, 1:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

If you ban guns for law abiding citizens, you simply ensure guns are only in the hands of criminals.

You also end up expanding the firearms black market.

Your reasons for supporting strict gun control are starting to sound like they are more about politics than violent crime.

I bet the AWB will pass no matter public opinion. The powers that be seem to have already made up their minds on the matter, so all they need to do is work on some of the various senators that don't support it to get the votes needed.

It reminds me of when a criminal justice lecturer told the class that QLD wasn't going to pass a similar ban after Bryant's little massacre (goddamn insane "aspies" making it bad for everyone else), but the Federal government threatened them with funding cuts. I never heard that anywhere else.

You are forgetting one wildcard, the GOP controlled House.

Most of the GOP Representatives would be slitting their own political throats if they voted for this proposed ban.

Don't forget that some democrats from conservative areas would have a lot of explaining to do if they voted for gun control. All that's needed to stop any gun bills is a filibuster from house republicans. The democrats could then try to pass lesser measures as riders, but even if they passed, the house budget committee could defund their implementation and enforcement like they did with operation fast and furious.