Ben Carson: "Gun control doesn't work for the crazies"

Post Reply New Topic

I have no idea what the law is or procedure is for handguns here now. I got mine when I was 21 as a gift from my mother. A birthday gift. I went down to the police station downtown and filled out my permit form and paid my money (I think it cost, I don't remember) and showed me ID and then they mailed me something later on. They had told me until I got my permit in the mail, if I carried it somewhere to make sure it was unloaded and in the box it came in. That would be ok. You could carry here like that if it's unloaded in the box in your car. My mother did that for years.

As others have said the focus on guns is detracting from the real problem with violent crime. Crime has other primary factors like poverty, corruption, cultures of crime, etc. Guns are secondary factor. They do change the nature of crime somewhat, arguably capability, but doesn't change the reasons for crime as much as the primary factors do.

I'm skeptical that guns are either the solution nor the primary problem. In fact it is fairly obvious this is a blind alley, to anyone with common sense.

Spree killings are rare, less rare in the US by much rarer than the under reported homicides. They aren't the best basis to making law as it is. It might be a good time to reflect on why people are so self-absorbed, and narcissistic that they could wish to do that.

I think both sides need do be more rational, instead to making a correlation that has never been established. There is no proven rule of thumb that has been established with crime and guns. There are coincidental results at best, which run both ways and in any scientific sense have to be deemed inconclusive. There is no correlation, which is obviously not a primary factor.

So there are fools on both sides that hopelessly try to expound something that has no conclusive relationship to overall crime. They love to cite individual cases, none of which prove anything, but show that things aren't correlated or conclusive as an actual trend.

Those that claim that gun rights decrease crime are just as illogical as those that claim the gun regulation does this. This is the classic first person hypothetical "scenario" fallacy, which leads incorrect generalisation. Access one way or another may be a reassurance, but personal safety and overall crime are different things.

The grammar is clear in the Second Amendment. It is talking about the people's rights that shouldn't be impeded. Those say the comma is a pregnant pause, aren't making sense becuase the sentence would be ungrammatical without the comma. Having said that that says nothing of whether it is right or wrong. Personally as a non-citizen I don't care that much. I do care when people make assumptions about other systems in other countries, as quite frankly when it come to crime US can't really talk, although what causes it is still a bone of contention. There is no reason to assume without evidence that other systems are better or worse for that country.

There are common false perceptions. Overall trend of crime long term, including violence, is downward. People's perception of crime is not a good marker. Someone might be unlucky that they are in a demographic with high crime, but that is not the full picture.

The fact that we are so dissatisfied with the way things are is a good thing. Far from being a sign of moral decline it is the opposite. Violence was tolerated and taken for granted more in centuries past, now our standards are higher.

One thing about the nature of homicide: Much of it is by people known to the victim, there is a degree of premeditation, which can be exploiting that trust or relationship, no matter what you do, that risk is going to be there. Still people must do what the have to feel secure. I get that.

Reducing the issue purely down to guns is simplistic, because social attitudes matter just as much and would have more long term impact.

On an unrelated note: This Ben Carson fellow is a crazy. Seriously, some of the crap he comes up with as trained surgeon is surprising. So, if he makes one obvious political statement, it still doesn't inspire much confidence. Then again most of the candidates aren't much to write home about, so a dime a dozen.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 03 Oct 2015, 2:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

We would be because it's far easier to just say people with asd(or any other disorder) anyone with asd(or any other disorder) can't have guns then to do what we currently do which is case by case based of facts and evidence which protects our right to be innocent until proven otherwise. But as you see legal and protection of rights takes time where as just lumping everyone together and saying all of them can't have guns would be quick sure you get 5 possible mass shooters but then you also violated hundreds of millions of innocents.

We locked up all Japanese Americans to prevent supposed spies . This is now seen as wrong yet here we are with the left cryin out to repeat it. The system is how it is to protect people and prevent stuff like that.

Freedom comes at a cost . For those Antigun people just remember one day your be put on a list too no one is safe so maybe you should fight to protect the bill of rights and freedom rather then support destroying it because right now doing so only effects others. Why do you think they'd stop here?

Though some on the left call for putting us in camps. I'll never understand how people can fight for gay right but then prescute another group of people and not see how wrong they are. I'd thought having seen the prescution of others they'd be against all prescution.

Who exactly is calling for putting us in camps? Who says this, where did you read or hear it, and can I get a credible source for this?

I don't believe anyone is.

I also don't think we are being persecuted. As far as I know, AS isn't a reason to deny someone a gun. If you have symptoms to such an extent that you need to actually put it down because it's obvious, then it might not be good to get a gun. Also we have plenty of people here who have ASD's and own guns. Where did you get that we can't get a gun and are being persecuted? Was it by chance from the same place you heard that the left wants to put us in camps?

Playing devil's advocate, it isn't necessarily a case of "more" legislation, but better legislation. For example, mass murders have been hugely reduced since Australia brought in their own strict gun control laws, though this didn't bring down the murder rate and there might not have been a causal link.

Saying "the current law doesn't fix this problem, so we shouldn't make any new laws" is ridiculous. By that logic, we should never pass a new law at all.

the crazies is who it works for. those guys buy their weapons legally.

the criminals illegally buy weapons while completely sane.

I was talking about what people want to happen not how it is. For now we can own guns but don't forget the media and lots of people think as is a mental illness . I've seen people who have worked with as and asd people and say we are violent and shouldn't have guns , lots of doctors say we shouldn't. Google as perverse and guns and there's one medical site will a doctor tells a guy its dangerous and he should give his guns to family immediately only based on the guy having as nothing else. It's why aspies can't join the military they think we're dangerous and would kill other soldiers.

I don't keep records of every comment or things people say in person I'm not a reporter or work for a news company. Go on YouTube,Google,Facebook etc and see people say stuff about locking gun owners up in camps or just executing them. Gun owners are presicuted. It's ok to hate gun owners to say horrible things to them, to threaten them or their kids. As one youtuber said "we(gun owners) are the only group left that is politically correct to hate"

The most recent shooting seems to be very similar to the Sandy Hook shooting from what I have read. The mother of a deeply troubled individual has encouraged and enabled easy access to firearms. There should be an investigation whether the mother of the Oregon shooter can be held partly responsible.

I would say that she had a duty to society that she neglected, as she must have known that he was disturbed and had access to firearms. However, seeing as how he was technically an adult, she probably will get a pass on this ( my guess). This doesn't stop victims and their families from filing civil cases against her though.

This may sound crazy but.......

Is there any reason why we can't have BOTH an improved mental health system and comprehensive gun control legislation?

Gun nuts like to deflect the argument by blaming the crazies which is just about the most illogical and flimsy argument one could make. Treating a complex issue like it's a zero sum game with only one answer or solution shows just how fundementally out of touch with reality (and thus potentially dangerous) your average gun fanatic is.

Anybody with a lick of sense ought to be able to see that both mental health issues and easy access to guns contribute to the problem and should be addressed.

Mental health care is getting better but will never be a cure-all. Not everyone who is nutz will even seek it if it is available to them.
"Comprehensive gun control" isnt going to happen and if it did nothing helpful would come of it. Well, actually the firearms industry would make a killing off of sales like they did for a year and change after Sandy Hook.


Gun nut/fanatic here.
What we gun nuts are talking about is potential involvement on the back side of it AFTER healthcare has failed or not been utilised. When we're about to be shot is not the time to think about the failings of the system, real or imagined.

Gun laws: We've got gun laws coming out the wazoo. There is nothing more regulated in this country than firearms. If the stupid (?) crooked (?) lazy (?)????XX@#&&* people in state and local government would just do their jobs properly and follow the laws as written we would have not had several mass killings. But all you hear after a killing is excuses for why they didn't do their job. More laws will not cure this.

It's hard for me to conceive of a person doing mass killings as not mentally unbalanced. Is there anyone who feels otherwise????? It's a no-brainer. Why not try mental health for all.??? It's a win/win situation for everyone. I personally believe rotten politicians like you-know-who are only interested in lining their own pockets and getting TV exposure instead of supplying relief to the citizenry. They're just not willing to allow some of OUR kept tax dollars to do us some good.....they's rather use OUR money for their special projects, trips, and retirement (no doubt) and just allow this mess to continue.

Disgusting.....just like any and every other government/political operation......here or elsewhere.

John Oliver goes after politicians who talk about mental illness to avoid talking about gun control after these shootings, suggesting that those are the worst times to talk about mental illness:



Only 5% of gun violence is committed by people with mental illness and people with mental illness are much more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

John Oliver is a good comedian....that's all. This doesn't give him standing in a serious discussion.

You quote: "Only 5% of gun violence is committed by people with mental illness..." But this is not an valid argument as it stands. Almost all the overall "gun violence" (in this country) described, is of the criminal variety, especially street gangs and cartels. No one denies this; many young lives are lost. But if you speak of school killings, etc. (which ignited this conversation) then I don't believe anyone would argue against mental illness (tendencies which could cause the subject to either harm themselves or other) being involved.

But I still think he's funny. But his being funny should not do a disservice to the people who need medical assistance with mental issues.

I agree.