New York State’s tough new SAFE Act gun control law has flagged 278 gun owners who could lose their weapons because they have been deemed mentally unstable, a new report shows.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo urged lawmakers to pass the SAFE Act quickly after the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
The Syracuse Post-Standard reported last week that since the law’s enactment, the state has collected 38,718 names in a database of individuals who have been found at-risk for owning guns by psychiatrists and other health professionals.
The paper said when the database was checked against a list of pistol permit holders in the state, there were 278 matches, less than 1 percent.
I wonder what that percentage would be in Louisiana or Mississippi?
I wonder what that percentage would be in Louisiana or Mississippi?
ReplyDeleteAre you ever going to explain how racial bigotry is reprehensible, while regional bigotry is just dandy?
One might also call it racial bigotry as Mike called out the top two states in percent black population.
Deletehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population
Great point, as usual, TS.
DeleteThere's no bigotry of any kind in that statement. Where there are more guns per capita, there would be more mentally ill gun owners. It's that simple.
Delete"Where there are more guns per capita, there would be more mentally ill gun owners. It's that simple." Mike can you provide any data to back this statement up or are you just pulling it out of your exhaust pipe..
ReplyDeleteMBIAC.......
Here's a good example of your tedious bullshit. A simple proposition which requires only honesty and reason, and you demand data to back it up.
DeleteLet's assume the percentage of mentally ill people in Mississippi and Alabama is the same as in New York, something I highly doubt, but for argument's sake, let's say it is. If you take all the mentally ill people in those southern states and figure what percentage are gun owners, that percentage would be higher than in NY for the simple and obvious reason that the percentage of gun owners in the general population is higher.
Do you dispute this? Why would you, other than to be a pain-in-the-ass contentious commenter who wants to belabor everything possible? You know, when you do that you take away from the real discussions we might have.
Let's assume the percentage of mentally ill people in Mississippi and Alabama is the same as in New York, something I highly doubt . . .
DeleteYou "highly doubt" it, but we're supposed to assume it? Your entire "theory" falls apart if the mental illness rate is vastly lower in Mississippi and Alabama than in New York.
Kurt, you're missing the point, in this case, I think you really are, instead of just faking it to make things difficult like you usually do.
DeleteThe percentage of mentally ill doesn't enter into it. Only the percentage of gun owners does. If they take all the mentally ill people in NY the percentage of them who are gun owners and need to be disarmed will necessarily be lower than if they did the same thing in AL. Get it?
I have a hypothesis that mental illness is very significantly less common among gun owners than among the general population. I believe that making the choice to be not effectively armed is itself indicative of something being not quite right in the old noggin.
DeleteNice dodge, Kurt. You misunderstood my point and when I clarified it you went right past it to put forth an unproveable hypothesis.
Delete. . . you went right past it to put forth an unproveable hypothesis.
DeleteAh, so now you don't like "unproveable hypothes[es]"?
And I get your "point"--I just think it's bullshit.
Let's remember that according to MikeB honest people don't need evidence or measurable results and only have to use their imagination a bit
ReplyDeleteI never said that. What I said is in cases where there is no evidence, one can use honesty and make a good judgment. The fact that there is no evidence for something is no reason to refrain from having an opinion. Example: are some people who claim to have shot someone defensively lying in order to justify what they'd done? Answer: yes absolutely in spite of no evidence.
DeleteExample: are some people who claim to have shot someone defensively lying in order to justify what they'd done? Answer: yes absolutely in spite of no evidence.
DeleteSure, some illegitimate shootings are presented as necessary self-defense, but that fact can not, must not, be used to justify the presumption of guilt pending proof of innocence in any particular case, because the person claiming self-defense now is in no way legitimately implicated by the behavior of others.
You should have stopped at "sure."
DeleteYou should have stopped at "sure."
DeleteNah--I'm not willing to fail to point out the reprehensible evil of presuming guilt pending proof of evidence. Such a failure on my part could be said to make me something of an accomplice to that evil. I won't have that on my conscience.
An honest and unbiased person would not need "measurable" results or evidence to see that. MikeB March 7 2014 837 am
ReplyDeleteMikeB, correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that we should assume that people are lying about a shooting being in self defense even though there is no evdidence to indicate that they are lying? From the way your comment is phrased it very much appears that way. So as to avoid making an assumptions or assertions I want to clarify what you mean.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
I thought I already clarified this. Shooting an unarmed person dead must require overwhelming evidence that lethal threat was indeed operative in order to justify the shooting as legitimate.
DeleteShooting an unarmed person dead must require overwhelming evidence that lethal threat was indeed operative in order to justify the shooting as legitimate.
DeleteOne of the myriad fatal problems with this approach: in many self-defense shootings, the shooter is the only surviving witness. How the hell is the accused (because "accused" is clearly what every self-defense shooter will be, if you get your way) going to present "overwhelming evidence" of the need for lethal force to prevent death or great bodily harm.?
That proves the old saying, dead men tell no tales, so make sure he's dead, kill him.
DeleteAgain I ask, what to your mind is overwhelming evidence? Must their be video of the assailant posing a deadly threat ie shooting at or trying to stab the shooter? Must the assailant be a certain percentage bigger/stronger/faster to justify the shooting? What evidence, to your way of thinking is considered acceptable and overwhelming?
DeleteMikeZ
Why are you so willing to take the word of the person who killed without evidence?
DeleteMikeZ, each case is unique and must be judged on its own merits. Common sense and honesty are required. Sometimes those are lacking.
DeleteI will agree with you on the honesty aspect and partially on the common sense aspect, largely because it has been my experience that common sense is an uncommon virtue. Some resort to "common sense" as a means of ignoring logic and evidence and it simply becomes a euphemism for bias and agenda. And I agree that each case is unique and has to be judged on its merits and that's the hard part. We make dangerous assumptions about guilt or innocence or justifiability not based on the evidence but on bias. Racism is assumed, excessive force can be assumed.
DeleteMikeZ
And the only way anything can be stated as absolutely is if there is evidence, otherwise it's simply a biased wishful thinking assumption.
ReplyDeleteMikeZ
Just use your imagination a bit. MikeB November 18 2014 7:22 am
ReplyDelete