"Intentional homicides" is slightly misleading because it includes justified homicides by both police and private citizens. According to the FBI's data, there were 617 justified firearm homicides in 2010 (about 5.5% of all firearm homicides).
I just did the math on the FBI's murder statistics for 2010 and came up with a firearms murder rate of 32.5 per 1 million. (The overall murder rate is 48 per 1 million, and 67.5% of all murders are committed with firearms.) Coming up with exactly what the chart says is probably just an odd coincidence, though, because the murder rate has been steadily declining for years. The figure from 2002 should have been significantly higher, especially if it's supposed to be intentional homicides and not just murders.
You'd think with all the paperwork a psych. Check would be included. And I can agree with this sentiment. I live in a state that is really tough on guns but I still feel like I spent more time getting my driving lisence than my Ltc. Meanwhile for the first time in 6 or 7 years I'm finally on insurance that actually covers mental health care specifically.
This is the most honest/true comment I have read in this whole thing...and that's including the stats.
Why do people insist upon going to a piece of writing to justify keeping/banning certain things? Instead of looking at modern day and the figures which suggest things need to change.
Can someone change the meaning of the right to bear arms and make it something to do with healthcare? That would be better, if you ask me.
While I don't think gun violence is necessarily linked to mental illness (mental illness is an over applied term), I think the main point is made
( ... )
I see, so if we increase gun control, then health care will go down!
The only irony here is that there is a law in the US that prevents infringement on the right to bear arms, so it's a lot harder to bottle neck the market with legislation. But, there are mountains of laws that make the health care market an artificial market, thus increasing costs. And somehow subsidizing the costs is the solution.
I don't know why comparing the security/ outdoor recreation market to health care makes any sense at all. I guess I would have to indulge myself into the left/right paradigm to go along with these straw man arguments.
The constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is a part of the right to maintain a militia. There is no indication that everyone has the right to own arms.
That's because it's implied. Take away the right for ordinary citizen to own arms and you contradict the clause. And, it would be redundant to spell it out the way you assume it should.
Oh, and I suppose it was "implied" that slavery was constitutional as well.
Banning guns for ordinary citizens would in no way contradict the clause, which specifies the right to maintain a militia. In other words, those citizens who are members of the militia would have the right to bear arms. This is as clear as crystal to anyone who knows proper English.
Comments 117
( ... )
Reply
I just did the math on the FBI's murder statistics for 2010 and came up with a firearms murder rate of 32.5 per 1 million. (The overall murder rate is 48 per 1 million, and 67.5% of all murders are committed with firearms.) Coming up with exactly what the chart says is probably just an odd coincidence, though, because the murder rate has been steadily declining for years. The figure from 2002 should have been significantly higher, especially if it's supposed to be intentional homicides and not just murders.
Reply
Thanks for the tip on "intentional".
Reply
Reply
And I can agree with this sentiment. I live in a state that is really tough on guns but I still feel like I spent more time getting my driving lisence than my Ltc. Meanwhile for the first time in 6 or 7 years I'm finally on insurance that actually covers mental health care specifically.
Reply
A mentally ill person is no more likely to shoot someone than any other person is. The true vector for violence is alcohol.
Reply
Oh shut up.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Why do people insist upon going to a piece of writing to justify keeping/banning certain things? Instead of looking at modern day and the figures which suggest things need to change.
Can someone change the meaning of the right to bear arms and make it something to do with healthcare? That would be better, if you ask me.
Reply
Reply
I'm wary of government run healthcare for other reasons. But the fact it is not in the constitution does not mean it isn't a desirable goal.
Reply
Reply
The only irony here is that there is a law in the US that prevents infringement on the right to bear arms, so it's a lot harder to bottle neck the market with legislation. But, there are mountains of laws that make the health care market an artificial market, thus increasing costs. And somehow subsidizing the costs is the solution.
I don't know why comparing the security/ outdoor recreation market to health care makes any sense at all. I guess I would have to indulge myself into the left/right paradigm to go along with these straw man arguments.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Banning guns for ordinary citizens would in no way contradict the clause, which specifies the right to maintain a militia. In other words, those citizens who are members of the militia would have the right to bear arms. This is as clear as crystal to anyone who knows proper English.
Reply
Leave a comment