Is the violence more about mental health and less about gun control?

Salon had an interesting article about the role of the NRA in all these tragedies.

We can’t link the NRA directly to the hideous acts of alleged Aurora gunman James Holmes, 24, or to any one of the nation’s 9,000 to 10,000 annual gun murders and 338,000 rapes, robberies and other non-fatal assaults, or to the actions of the “deranged madmen” whom the NRA loves to demonize. What we can say with absolute certainty is that where there are loopholes in gun laws, laws that make it more difficult to get thugs off the streets and laws that endanger the lives of police and ordinary citizens alike, you will invariably find the fingerprints of the NRA. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s CEO and public face, may call his group “one of the largest law enforcement organizations in the country,” but under his leadership the NRA – with a 2010 budget of more than $240 million — has become the nation’s de facto lobby for street criminals, criminal gun dealers and an industry that reaps a sizable percentage of its income from criminal gun use. The NRA, says Pittsburgh police detective Joseph Bielevicz, “takes every chance it gets to stymie even reasonable efforts to combat gun violence.”

News interpretation of FBI and DOJ statistics make me weep. We pay for the gathering, the least we could do is use them.

Anyhow, violent crime in the US and how we stop it. Well all the experts were proven wrong in the past 10 years for crime, economics, foreign policy. I am waiting for the new school of criminology to come up to give the next wrong answer. I fear the new school will come out of Freakonomics.

Things the United States lacks relative to its peer nations and unions- A nationalized criminal code and police force, a system of public surveillance(cameras, patrols, reporting). Noble efforts have been made to get a more unified police presence in the US to small avail. The money to fund police forces in many large cities, suburbs, counties, and states. Our lesson from the previous 2 decades is that all the laws in the world are not worth the paper they are on if we cannot afford to train, hire, and maintain a police force. To the best of my knowledge, the largest change in police work in the US the past few years is we have more picking on Mexicans.

That is just police. We are poised thanks to the housing crisis, cuts in education funding, and a teen pregnancy rate leading the western world with many states doing everything they can to increase that. We happily create a perfect environment to breed future criminals.

And now for some controversy. African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately represented as criminals. Hispanics have shown sharp declines in these at risk factors over the years-IE fewer getting pregnant before 20, fewer dropping out of school. Our Black communities have not shown similar statistical changes. We have seen decreases, to be sure, but not at the higher national average rates. This preserves African Americans in the most at risk group. And that has not changed int he past 30-40 years.

CDC Stats on Teen Pregnancy
Dropout Rates
FBI Crime Statistics

Problematic for me is that at risk factors for Hispanics fall well above the national average, for whites at about the national average, while African Americans fall but at a much slower rate.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I've never brought up the "guns were made to kill" argument because it just sounded flimsy and honestly, it probably is. It's just one of those things that's always nibbling at the back of my mind when I try to re-evaluate my opinion of the issue with new information.

Well, the truth is that some are and some aren't, like some knives were made to kill (KA-BAR) and others aren't. Same goes for axes too, javelins, bows and arrows even. There have been combat knives around since the iron age. The Native American tomahawk was not exactly something you could cut down a tree with.

At the same time, would you look at an Anschutz Olympic .22 and think "That was made to kill people"?
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/gWDiO.jpg)

But yeah, plenty of guns were made to kill. Then again, that's what you want of a hunting rifle. It's what you'd want from a self-defense gun because sadly, the gun most likely to kill is the one most likely to stop a threat before it can do harm.

So what's the utility of the 100 round magazine this crazy f*ck used in the theater? Or the 40 round Glock magazine? The man who shot Giffords used a 30 or 33 round Glock magazine, IIRC.

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

I also haven't been able to reconcile in my mind the fact that countries with stricter gun control laws (i.e. mine and much of Europe) have substantially less gun deaths per capita. I don't know if that's because of the gun control laws or something else though, I just don't have enough data to determine that.

I do wonder how mass shootings in these countries compare by population, because we do hear about them in some of these countries. Overall crime statistics on the other hand, I think they have a root in a lot of America's sh*tty behavior in the not too distant past: slavery and segregation, with some of it no doubt coming from the opposition to welfare assistance and the irrational animosity levied at universal healthcare.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Overall crime statistics on the other hand, I think they have a root in a lot of America's sh*tty behavior in the not too distant past: slavery and segregation, with some of it no doubt coming from the opposition to welfare assistance and the irrational animosity levied at universal healthcare.

You'd also have to look at the assault/murder rate's connection to the drug trade and how the drug trade is regulated/policed overseas. The Giffords case, Columbine, and Aurora seem shocking because they aren't connected to any goal that's rational and because the victim count was high. The more common murders we see in my state tend to involve gangs or turf wars in the drug trade, which has incentives for eliminating your competitors. Those murders seem rather ordinary in comparison to a mass shooting like this one.

I don't see how you stop this sort of thing without an outright ban on magazine-fed weapons. Even with such a ban, you're never going to stop all mass killings.

Nevin73 wrote:

I said this in the Aurora thread but I'll restate it here.

My wife is a manager of two mental health group homes in PA (called CCRs). These homes are for high-functioning people with MH and MR issues, the purpose of which is to try to teach their clients basic life skills. Over the last couple of years reductions in state funding have resulted in the gradual closing of every state mental hospital. The CRRs have been increasingly presented with people by the state who should not qualify for the services my wife's facilities are set up for. People who need to be restrained, are extremely low-functioning, and other such issues.

When these state hospital facilities close, there just aren't other accomodations for people who need those intensive levels of service. So they either end of up with relatives on or the street. That doesn't mean that they are all a danger to society, but a percentage certainly are. Hell, just look at what Castro did to Miami (probably the greatest political practical joke in history).

Nevin (and for that matter anyone else with a background in psychology), I'd like your opinion on whether the shooter could be mentally incompetent and still be able to spend months perfectly orchestrating a mass murder - ordering the weaponry and body armor, building the bombs, etc. Honestly, he seemed a lot more squared away than many of the Islamic terrorists that have been caught over the past several years.

DSGamer wrote:

This is probably for another thread, so I apologize for the derail. This has been brewing for me since E3. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I've largely been a fan of sports games and platformers, etc. So this generation has been a bit rough. I've enjoyed some shooters, but I've started to weary of them and retrench into games on handhelds. But the shooting kind of put me over the top that I consume far too much media where the solution to everything is violence, particularly gun violence. This hasn't been a conscious journey, but rather something just gnawing at me and it came to a head after the shooting and watching the trailers before the movie.

I have been at this point for years. I have never liked violent games and this generation has moved much further towards that. I play games for escapism, to do heroic things but the whole "gritty, mature" game push really to me, means violent. It's why I always stick with Nintendo because I can play a game simply for the joy of play. I don't get excited by blood, guts, and all of that. This goes all the way back to Mortal Kombat V. Street Fighter. I do think that media has hardened us as a population. Many people come home from a long hard day in the office and how they relax is by shooting, killing, maiming and all of that. That isn't relaxing to me. It's one of the reasons I enjoy "A Wheel of Time" more than "A Game of Thrones" I don't relax or enjoy ugliness. I don't escape into that. I want to escape into more of a utopia.

jdzappa wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I said this in the Aurora thread but I'll restate it here.

My wife is a manager of two mental health group homes in PA (called CCRs). These homes are for high-functioning people with MH and MR issues, the purpose of which is to try to teach their clients basic life skills. Over the last couple of years reductions in state funding have resulted in the gradual closing of every state mental hospital. The CRRs have been increasingly presented with people by the state who should not qualify for the services my wife's facilities are set up for. People who need to be restrained, are extremely low-functioning, and other such issues.

When these state hospital facilities close, there just aren't other accomodations for people who need those intensive levels of service. So they either end of up with relatives on or the street. That doesn't mean that they are all a danger to society, but a percentage certainly are. Hell, just look at what Castro did to Miami (probably the greatest political practical joke in history).

Nevin (and for that matter anyone else with a background in psychology), I'd like your opinion on whether the shooter could be mentally incompetent and still be able to spend months perfectly orchestrating a mass murder - ordering the weaponry and body armor, building the bombs, etc. Honestly, he seemed a lot more squared away than many of the Islamic terrorists that have been caught over the past several years.

From my wife:
The short answer is yes...the shooter could plan something out in the grip of a schizophrenic delusion.

Someone with schizophrenia could experience delusions (not just voices) that repeat incessantly. If a schizophrenic episode was kicked off by something like the Dark Knight Rises trailers, the delusion could take hold that the people in the theater were evil. He then could plan out an attack, within the delusion. My wife then posited that the booby traps in his apartment could indicate paranioa. That he told the cops about it shows that, in his delusion, the cops weren't the ones that were after him. My wife then went on to say that, in her mind, despite his mental health issues, that he is still responsible for his actions.

And then the situation could have resulted from a psychotic break from school pressure or whatnot. We won't know until the state shrinks get a crack at him.

Ulairi wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This is probably for another thread, so I apologize for the derail. This has been brewing for me since E3. I'm sure I'm not alone in that. I've largely been a fan of sports games and platformers, etc. So this generation has been a bit rough. I've enjoyed some shooters, but I've started to weary of them and retrench into games on handhelds. But the shooting kind of put me over the top that I consume far too much media where the solution to everything is violence, particularly gun violence. This hasn't been a conscious journey, but rather something just gnawing at me and it came to a head after the shooting and watching the trailers before the movie.

I have been at this point for years. I have never liked violent games and this generation has moved much further towards that. I play games for escapism, to do heroic things but the whole "gritty, mature" game push really to me, means violent. It's why I always stick with Nintendo because I can play a game simply for the joy of play. I don't get excited by blood, guts, and all of that. This goes all the way back to Mortal Kombat V. Street Fighter. I do think that media has hardened us as a population. Many people come home from a long hard day in the office and how they relax is by shooting, killing, maiming and all of that. That isn't relaxing to me. It's one of the reasons I enjoy "A Wheel of Time" more than "A Game of Thrones" I don't relax or enjoy ugliness. I don't escape into that. I want to escape into more of a utopia.

For a while, my issue with 'violent' games is the lack of response you can relate to. Go play your average 'violent' shooter, and then go play something a little more simulator-like such as RO2/ArmA. The thing I don't like about the average shooter is that 99% of the time they are just shooting galleries, and you might as well be shooting wooden targets for all the human response they make to getting shot, there's little or no pain and suffering involved, so I can see how it's possible for people to not make the link that fighting someone by whatever means will produce pain they can emphasise with.

I guess it comes down to having violent combat as part of entertainment (which has been going on for thousands of years), and the modern entertainment producers just want the nice warm fuzzy bits of violence and none of the repulsive bits.

jdzappa wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

I said this in the Aurora thread but I'll restate it here.

My wife is a manager of two mental health group homes in PA (called CCRs). These homes are for high-functioning people with MH and MR issues, the purpose of which is to try to teach their clients basic life skills. Over the last couple of years reductions in state funding have resulted in the gradual closing of every state mental hospital. The CRRs have been increasingly presented with people by the state who should not qualify for the services my wife's facilities are set up for. People who need to be restrained, are extremely low-functioning, and other such issues.

When these state hospital facilities close, there just aren't other accomodations for people who need those intensive levels of service. So they either end of up with relatives on or the street. That doesn't mean that they are all a danger to society, but a percentage certainly are. Hell, just look at what Castro did to Miami (probably the greatest political practical joke in history).

Nevin (and for that matter anyone else with a background in psychology), I'd like your opinion on whether the shooter could be mentally incompetent and still be able to spend months perfectly orchestrating a mass murder - ordering the weaponry and body armor, building the bombs, etc. Honestly, he seemed a lot more squared away than many of the Islamic terrorists that have been caught over the past several years.

The ideas from Nevin were pretty much right on. Also consider that severe depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideations don't leave a person incapable of thought. Oftentimes they lead the subject to engage in more risky behaviors, or show other warning signs of unstable behavior. If the person's cries for help aren't spotted, they can feel like they have no choice but to do something drastic. Often that is suicide, and men use firearms much more than women. Sometimes people try to take down someone they feel wronged them on their way out, their boss, an ex-wife, other family members, or anyone else. This is the classic murder-suicide scene. If the person felt that everyone was out to get him, then he would have targeted as many people as he could.

Short answer: mentally unstable does not mean mentally incompetent.

This just happened yesterday near my neck of the woods.

link

PALMER PARK, Md. -- A week after the Colorado movie theater massacre, a Maryland man was taken into custody when police said he made a "joker" reference and threatened to shoot up a business he was being fired from.

Neil E. Prescott, 28, had an arsenal of guns, though it wasn't clear how serious he was about threats he made to his boss over the telephone, authorities said. When police questioned Prescott at his apartment, authorities said he was wearing a T-shirt that said "Guns don't kill people. I do."

Prescott told a supervisor at software and mailroom supplier Pitney Bowes that he wanted to see his boss' "brain splatter all over the sidewalk," according to police and an application for a search warrant.

"I'm a joker and I'm gonna load my guns and blow everybody up," Prescott said, according to the document.

The threats were made in two separate phone calls this week, and investigators who searched Prescott's apartment Friday morning found several thousand rounds of ammunition and about two dozen semi-automatic rifles and pistols. The weapons so far appear to have been acquired legally but are still being examined, said Mike Campbell, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Prescott was taken into custody at his apartment Friday and was receiving a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital. He has not yet been charged.

I used to box out in Palmer Park and I applied to join the police department in PG County where that is. I drive by his Bowie home on my way to meetings with the Chesapeake Technology Council.

This problem appears to be growing.

Paleocon wrote:

This problem appears to be growing.

I'm guessing this is the kind of story that typically doesn't go national, but will for a while now due to the Colorado shootings. This is the USA, lots of people have arsenals, and they are usually legal.

And it looks like another one in Florida.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/florida-man-kills-door-to-door-salesman-i%E2%80%99ll-kill-anybody-that-steps-on-my-property/#.UBIHQtV334E.reddit

A man in Cape Coral, Florida on Wednesday was arrested for shooting and killing an unarmed door-to-door salesman on his property.

Kenneth Bailey Roop, 52, has been charged with second-degree murder for killing 30-year-old Nicholas Rainey.

A co-worker who witnessed the shooting said Rainey had knocked on Roop’s door, but received no answer. While Rainey was walking down the drive-way, Roop pulled up in his pickup truck and asked why Rainey was at his house. Rainey explained that he was selling steak and seafood. The witness said Roop then pulled out a black handgun and shot Rainey. As Rainey lay on the ground, Roop fired another bullet into the back of his head.

Roop later told police that he shot Rainey in the head “for effect” and that he had three no trespassing signs on his property. Roop said he feared for his life.

“I’m not going to give him the chance to do something to me,” he told police. “I was in fear.”

And he looks like he's getting ready to use the "Stand Your Ground" nonsense with that last part.

Stand your ground law won't help him. You still need a reasonable threat. Why this guy decided it was a good time to put himself in jail is the psychological question.

He might actually have gotten away with it if he killed the other salesman.

Lesson in Florida: Kill the witnesses.

Funkenpants wrote:

Stand your ground law won't help him. You still need a reasonable threat. Why this guy decided it was a good time to put himself in jail is the psychological question.

I hope he gets the electric chair. What a f*cking lunatic.

Paleocon wrote:

He might actually have gotten away with it if he killed the other salesman.

Lesson in Florida: Kill the witnesses.

That's the lesson you will hear in every gun (read: conservative) form when conversation turns to this whole "HD" thing -- "kill the intruder, so that there is only one side of the story". I see it repeated practically every day.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

He might actually have gotten away with it if he killed the other salesman.

Lesson in Florida: Kill the witnesses.

That's the lesson you will hear in every gun (read: conservative) form when conversation turns to this whole "HD" thing -- "kill the intruder, so that there is only one side of the story". I see it repeated practically every day.

When you need to worry about silencing the other side of the story, you're doing something wrong.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

He might actually have gotten away with it if he killed the other salesman.

Lesson in Florida: Kill the witnesses.

That's the lesson you will hear in every gun (read: conservative) form when conversation turns to this whole "HD" thing -- "kill the intruder, so that there is only one side of the story". I see it repeated practically every day.

I'm of two minds on this front. The first is that it is morally, ethically and legally repugnant. The second is that our legal system has gotten so messed up that it does make sense in some ways. I like to think that reality makes sense, but then I go back to the (over-hyped?/fabricated?) cases of burglars and attackers having success in suing their victims following accidents and self-defense incidents. I don't really have enough info to make a real decision on how to feel about it.

What I am unsure of is what exactly people want to do to prevent things like this for happening. Yes you in theory could take away all legally obtained guns, but there are mountains of guns already here so the only people you are really preventing is folks following the law. You could say if you buy a gun you have to go through x, y and z to buy it but again this only affects those who are following the law.

I dont think anyone would argue that some laws will affect some people and prevent some crime but bottom line is if someone wants to do something terrible then they can find a way. So I kinda dont understand why some think gun control is the answer, what kind of gun control? How exactly is this going to help and how much? I am not trying to be snarky, just a serious question if we give up this right then how do we see this affecting things?

I have to say that if a lot of these folks who are doing this have mental issues (and I have no idea if they do) then perhaps we need to look there. I know when I worked for a hospital it was common to play games with the number of available beds so we didnt have to treat mental patients. And in the major city I live in its very hard to find treatment for mental issues. The reason why the hospital did this was not because they were evil its because its VERY hard to get payment on those type of issues. Even if they have insurance primary payers really fight those bills more than say an average hospital viist. And they fight hard enough not to pay those too....

mcdonis wrote:

What I am unsure of is what exactly people want to do to prevent things like this for happening. Yes you in theory could take away all legally obtained guns, but there are mountains of guns already here so the only people you are really preventing is folks following the law. You could say if you buy a gun you have to go through x, y and z to buy it but again this only affects those who are following the law.

I dont think anyone would argue that some laws will affect some people and prevent some crime but bottom line is if someone wants to do something terrible then they can find a way. So I kinda dont understand why some think gun control is the answer, what kind of gun control? How exactly is this going to help and how much? I am not trying to be snarky, just a serious question if we give up this right then how do we see this affecting things?

I have to say that if a lot of these folks who are doing this have mental issues (and I have no idea if they do) then perhaps we need to look there. I know when I worked for a hospital it was common to play games with the number of available beds so we didnt have to treat mental patients. And in the major city I live in its very hard to find treatment for mental issues. The reason why the hospital did this was not because they were evil its because its VERY hard to get payment on those type of issues. Even if they have insurance primary payers really fight those bills more than say an average hospital viist. And they fight hard enough not to pay those too....

This is the core problem as I see it. ^

Treating public mental health issues more seriously would likely reduce violence, homelessness and drug addiction. It would cure many ills, I think.

mcdonis wrote:

I have to say that if a lot of these folks who are doing this have mental issues (and I have no idea if they do) then perhaps we need to look there. I know when I worked for a hospital it was common to play games with the number of available beds so we didnt have to treat mental patients. And in the major city I live in its very hard to find treatment for mental issues. The reason why the hospital did this was not because they were evil its because its VERY hard to get payment on those type of issues. Even if they have insurance primary payers really fight those bills more than say an average hospital viist. And they fight hard enough not to pay those too....

I have to admit, I have trouble seeing how that reasoning means it was not an 'evil' thing to do. But I may be biased.

As much as I enjoy owning guns, I have to admit that what is emerging (or has fully emerged) out of the whole gun advocacy lobby is pretty frightening. I'm a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but the plain and simple fact that we now have a political movement that expresses itself through the threat of force and political intimidation means that we have to live with a deeply corrosive effect on the free speech of others. And when folks take the rhetoric seriously and do crap like shoot up buildings, burn down mosques, or murder doctors, we take one more step toward Latin American style death squad politics.

Call the problem mental illness if you want, but it is more than that. It is the natural outcome of an armed culture that consistently screams about "watering the tree of liberty" against imagined tyranny.

Maq wrote:

Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than people without mental illness.

In instances of violent crime in which a mentally ill person is involved - 90% of the time the mentally ill person will be the victim, not the perpetrator.

Mentally ill people who do commit violent acts are far more likely to commit them against themselves.

Substance abuse accounts for around 8 times more violence in the community than mental illness.

sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-171...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/res...

Paul Mullen, an australian expert on mass killings talking about this issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGzKX...

Salient points are that this is largely a problem of poor socialisation and isolation of individuals and not a mental health issue. Only around 10% of the perpetrators have a prior history of serious mental illness, no different from the ratio of other perpetrators of violent crime.

To me that suggests that the notion of that wide spread psychological screening will greatly reducing the incidence is somewhat unfounded.

What if guns were made compulsory? Everyone walked about all the time tooled up.

1Dgaf wrote:

What if guns were made compulsory? Everyone walked about all the time tooled up.

A tremendous number of people would die needlessly (or be horribly wounded).

Any minor incident, whether it was a fender bender or bar disagreement, would instantly become a life or death situation for the parties involved as well as anyone that's not behind solid cover. Remember Black Friday a couple of years back when those people at Walmart got trampled? Now imagine what would happen if everyone was packing heat.

Yeah, arming everyone is a really bad and dumb idea (not that you are dumb for suggesting it).

Edwin wrote:

Yeah, arming everyone is a really bad and dumb idea (not that you are dumb for suggesting it).

I dont think its fair to say its a dumb idea. If that solution would indeed lower violence because of the preceived threat that it would be countered with deadly force then on the surface its worth considering. Granted our society especially in areas where guns are abnomral (I.e. you havent used them or lived with them all your life) would have a terrible reaction to this because of its current behavior issues.

I grew up in a part of the us where guns mounted in vehicles (even at school) were common place and never noticed. Everyone I grew up with had at least one firearm and everyone used them and knew how to use them. In this society darn near everyone was trained to use a firearm by age 6 or 7 and thus learned to respect them. So how did this affect our society....

On the positive side personal theft crime was rare because folks knew violence against someone would be returned in kind. For some families who's dad was unemployed hunting allowed some food to be put on the table in lean times. Because of the rural nature of my birthplace police, fire, and EMS are a distant feature of life. If something happens the authorites wont show up until its LONG over. (1-2 hours) Thus down in that region its understood if the crap hits the fan its up to you to protect your family, thats hard to do without a gun. Military service was extremely common in my area (prob about 40-60% of all males serve in the US military) so weapon training wasnt an issue for us.

On the negative side you understood that every once in a while someone was going to accidently kill themselves or commit a crime that took multiple lives. In the 25 years I lived there I can think of at least one child who died to an accident and at least 4 incidents of murder where multiple folks died. (community size is about 5000) Tresspassing can be a touch dangerous in that region, while getting shot is rare having someone point a gun at you isnt as much rare.

I think you can take my very small slice of american life and take several lessons from it. In my book the area I am from benefits from guns by and large, but it still pays a price. Do I think that would work in large cities, I dont know honestly. My main fear is that while I grew up with guns and know them about as good as anyone I dont fear me making a stupid mistake with one. However the person who hasnt and is only carrying one in fear does scare me. Perhaps if our country was more mature in general or widespread respect for firearm safety and use was common then yes it would possibly be a good solution.

In my experience, whenever someone suggests that everyone be armed, they're usually suggesting that everyone carry a pistol at all times. I'm in no way opposed to people having hunting rifles or shotguns in their homes/trucks (I grew up in a rural area where it was common as well, though they weren't allowed on school property as it was post-Columbine). I would not be comfortable with everyone walking around with a loaded weapon on their person, though. It just seems to be begging for a situation that would normally end up in a fist-fight turning into a shoot-out. Especially if either party had been drinking.

Stengah wrote:

In my experience, whenever someone suggests that everyone be armed, they're usually suggesting that everyone carry a pistol at all times. I'm in no way opposed to people having hunting rifles or shotguns in their homes/trucks (I grew up in a rural area where it was common as well, though they weren't allowed on school property as it was post-Columbine). I would not be comfortable with everyone walking around with a loaded weapon on their person, though. It just seems to be begging for a situation that would normally end up in a fist-fight turning into a shoot-out. Especially if either party had been drinking.

Aside from the serious issues involved with taking this model and mapping it onto a dense urban landscape, does everyone really think it's a great idea to essentially give every hormonally challenged teenage boy essentially unfettered access to firearms?

If you drop guns into everyone's hands then ya you'll have chaos, but i dont think that would happen if you gave them out and had mandatory training and tougher laws against folks who use them counter to that training.