Originally Posted by Guest

I read that 50% of the military personnel who made a claim of PSTD never left the states. Isn't an all volunteer military great.

Our Mental Health System is ineffective, Too many mental health workers/doctors are ineffective because they lack the skills or funds or both and/or laws prevent them from good decisions Families are forced to sit on the sidelines. Some families just kick their kids, sisters bothers, to the streets.

I read that the % of people with mental illness is much less compared to the % of people in the population who would cause harm . Indeed when you think about the cause(s) for violence gangs, robbery ,eliminating a spouse girlfriend/boyfriend etc etc

I'd be interested in reading that. I doubt it is true, but still interesting.

How many folks would consider a violent criminal to be mentally normal? Most foks would consider anyone that is by nature, violent to be abnormal. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sounds like a personal problem to me. If you can't find something on the Internet, it's your problem. Don't make it mine.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

* Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker...

* Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

* Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining (2010)

* Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

* The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: 61%

Just a summary, since I can't very well paste all the document.

Why was "minorities are responsible for 80% of killings/shootings left out? Propaganda, can't show what a problem they really are.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'd be interested in reading that. I doubt it is true, but still interesting.

How many folks would consider a violent criminal to be mentally normal? Most foks would consider anyone that is by nature, violent to be abnormal. Just my opinion.

What would we do with the minorities? Lock them ALL up as mentally ill? That would be racist...it would also be the best thing we could do for our society.

Originally Posted by Guest

Sounds like a personal problem to me. If you can't find something on the Internet, it's your problem. Don't make it mine.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

* Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker...

* Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

* Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining (2010)

* Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

* The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: 61%

Just a summary, since I can't very well paste all the document.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand - The Washington Post

Thanks for the research help.

Originally Posted by Guest

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership. The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand - The Washington Post

Thanks for the research help.

Wow, so you are saying that just by virtue of having a gun in your house, you will probably commit suicide or murder someone? I believe you are going to have a lot of people telling you that what you said is stupid.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wow, so you are saying that just by virtue of having a gun in your house, you will probably commit suicide or murder someone? I believe you are going to have a lot of people telling you that what you said is stupid.

And they wonder why we have no patience with them...some I wonder..."who cuts your meat for you"?

Originally Posted by Guest

Wow, so you are saying that just by virtue of having a gun in your house, you will probably commit suicide or murder someone? I believe you are going to have a lot of people telling you that what you said is stupid.

I didn't write the report.

Originally Posted by Guest

I didn't write the report.

NO, you linked an opinion article.

On the other hand, this is a good reason to make it easier for gun purchases. More guns, more suicides, less liberals. Kind of a post-natal abortion of sorts. Why should everyone else work hard, just to coddle the weak anyway? That's the responsibility of the family, not the whole community, state, country. Time to cut back on spending money on the weak, if they don't want it.

Originally Posted by Guest

NO, you linked an opinion article.

On the other hand, this is a good reason to make it easier for gun purchases. More guns, more suicides, less liberals. Kind of a post-natal abortion of sorts. Why should everyone else work hard, just to coddle the weak anyway? That's the responsibility of the family, not the whole community, state, country. Time to cut back on spending money on the weak, if they don't want it.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The quotes are from the report that you hold in high regard.

Originally Posted by Guest

NO, you linked an opinion article.

On the other hand, this is a good reason to make it easier for gun purchases. More guns, more suicides, less liberals. Kind of a post-natal abortion of sorts. Why should everyone else work hard, just to coddle the weak anyway? That's the responsibility of the family, not the whole community, state, country. Time to cut back on spending money on the weak, if they don't want it.

Exactly...why do we support half the country who collect some government benefit. Mostly women and minorities.

Originally Posted by Guest

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The quotes are from the report that you hold in high regard.

MOST crime goes unreported. Either because both parties are "nefarious" in nature, or they don't want to get involved in the hassles involved if they do report it.

Originally Posted by Guest

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The quotes are from the report that you hold in high regard.

The report is from the CDC, and NO, I do not hold anything related to the government in "high regard." And you can put your so-called "lower estimate" that is unfounded and not researched or verified against their study which said 500K to 3 million. It is typical of liberals to distort anything that does not fit their agenda.

It just proves that the term "liberal" is an oxymoron. There is nothing liberal about the left, other than their liberal flexibility with the truth.

Originally Posted by Guest

The report is from the CDC, and NO, I do not hold anything related to the government in "high regard." And you can put your so-called "lower estimate" that is unfounded and not researched or verified against their study which said 500K to 3 million. It is typical of liberals to distort anything that does not fit their agenda.

It just proves that the term "liberal" is an oxymoron. There is nothing liberal about the left, other than their liberal flexibility with the truth.

Liberal spending of borrowed money on idiots who will never amount to anything.

The Rs are no better...

Originally Posted by Guest

The report is from the CDC, and NO, I do not hold anything related to the government in "high regard." And you can put your so-called "lower estimate" that is unfounded and not researched or verified against their study which said 500K to 3 million. It is typical of liberals to distort anything that does not fit their agenda.

It just proves that the term "liberal" is an oxymoron. There is nothing liberal about the left, other than their liberal flexibility with the truth.

It cost $38 to download the pdf report. Can I read your copy? Otherwise how one know what's actually in the report.

Originally Posted by Guest

It cost $38 to download the pdf report. Can I read your copy? Otherwise how one know what's actually in the report.

You want me to break the copyright law by sending you a copy? Of course, I got my PDF copy free, but still......

Originally Posted by Guest

It cost $38 to download the pdf report. Can I read your copy? Otherwise how one know what's actually in the report.

Many government numbers are massaged and seasonally adjusted right out of relevance.

Unemployment is supposedly derived from 60,000 phone surveys.

Anybody ever hear of anyone getting called?

Me neither...

Originally Posted by Guest

You want me to break the copyright law by sending you a copy? Of course, I got my PDF copy free, but still......

There's no copyright on government reports. Your taxes paid for the work. No reason not to share.