Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

UNLV2001

Stay current on the

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Every time we have a mass shooting, the ultra NRA fans rush to the keyboard to say "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem". Well since all these crazy phuckers are using guns and ammo to carry out their madness, it only makes sense.

No, it really does not.  Of the people who need mental health funding in our country what percentage are likely to go on a shooting spree?  A person is 60,000 times more likely to OD'ing on opiates than shoot two people or more in a single episode.

Saying taxes in ammo should or could fund mental health care in the USA is patently absurd and not feasible.  Please do not tell me you came up with this idea yourself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mugtang said:

40 years ago you could walk into a sporting goods store and buy an M-16, which is an automatic weapon yet things like this didn’t happen. People didn’t indescriminately walk into a school and shoot 27 kids and teachers or sit in a hotel room and shoot into a crowd of 20,000 people or pull a fire alarm and shoot people as they walked out.  What has changed?  We can restrict access to the tool all we want and I’m fine with that but we aren’t addressing the fundamental problem.  There’s something inherently wrong with us. 

That's a very, very good question --- and one which could be researched in greater depth if we didn't hamstring the CDC, NIH, and NIMH from being able to properly research this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, retrofade said:

That's a very, very good question --- and one which could be researched in greater depth if we didn't hamstring the CDC, NIH, and NIMH from being able to properly research this. 

I’m fine with that.  I don’t think the CDC’s answer will be to “ban all weapons” because it doesn’t address the underlying cause of the disease.  They may recommend additional restrictions but I would guess the insturment won’t be the focus of their conclusions.

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

You think the federal government is immune to political bias??? LMAO

If you want to ban lobbying, you might as well turn in any libertarian card you may have ever carried. Furthermore, if you don't want those Republicans in office who take NRA money, get enough of your buddies together and vote them out.

The federal government certainly is not immune to bias, and I never claimed that it was. What I will say is that the independent organizations within the federal government, especially when it comes to pure research, have significantly less bias than outside enterprise or even other portions of the government. My sister-in-law worked for the NIH for six years as part of her post-doc before for left to run her own lab at an ivy league. She doesn't' do this type of research, but among she and her peers, the focus was always on the data, on investigating, not on trying to spin things one way or another. More true researchers are like that --- they're not interested in the spin, or making things fit their narrative. 

I never said that lobbying should be banned... but I do think that there is a problem with the system of lobbying that exists today. The organizations with the most money therefore have the most power in pushing their agendas to lawmakers. There's also a problem when a tax bill that affects every single one of us was written almost exclusively by lobbyists. The same thing went for the ACA, which was largely written by lobbyists as well. Lobbying in an of itself is an essential part of our government, but when upwards of $4B is being spent on DC lobbyists alone, perhaps we need to take a step back and evaluate just how much power they have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I’m fine with that.  I don’t think the CDC’s answer will be to “ban all weapons” because it doesn’t address the underlying cause of the disease.  They may recommend additional restrictions but I would guess the insturment won’t be the focus of their conclusions.

I can almost 100% guarantee that the result wouldn't be to ban all weapons. It needs to be a multi-pronged approach as well --- look at the issues related to availability of firearms, is there a correlation between type of weapon and type of attack, type of personality profile that would lead to this, greater studies into mental health disorders in our country in general, etc. 

I think that there are answers to be had, and neither side will likely be 100% happy with what those answers may be. I just disagree with the far left screaming that all guns need to be banned, or the far right screaming that the government is just trying to take our guns. This isn't a zero sum game, this is real life, with real consequences that a new set of kids is going to have to endure for the rest of their lives. The solution can never be complacency and fatalism, that it doesn't matter because nothing will ever be changed, or no changes will ever actually work. We're better than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AndroidAggie said:

I think it's possible to lose that right on an individual basis.

Based upon what and for how long?  Your girlfriend cheated on you with your best friend and somebody overheard you saying you wish would leave and never come back while at a party drunk?  Expulsion?  Pot charge?  Multiple drunk and dis orderlies?  Being "weird"?  Crazy redneck down the road?  What you read?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

not every gun owner has breached the non aggression principle, but every mass shooter has.

it is important to me to attempt to distinguish who will and who won't go crazy with a gun.  what do you suggest, if you are so sensitive to oversight?

How can you do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second amendment has been part of the constitution for a long time.  Yet I can't recall schools practicing "active shooter" drills before 2000.

Things that make you go, :hmmm:

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

I'll take it over living in an authoritarian police state. 

Then you should probably leave the United States. It's nowhere near the Utopia you crave even with the 2nd Amendment.  And it never has been.

How many school shootings have occurred in England since January 1st, anyhow?  

You must be positively knackered trying to avoid all the government imposed restrictions on your freedoms over there.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

How can you do that?

i would start with funding the CDC and getting the data.

getting expelled while having guns, or having been expelled for disciplinary issues when applying to buy them, seem like a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Based upon what and for how long?  Your girlfriend cheated on you with your best friend and somebody overheard you saying you wish would leave and never come back while at a party drunk?  Expulsion?  Pot charge?  Multiple drunk and dis orderlies?  Being "weird"?  Crazy redneck down the road?  What you read?

see above post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

i would start with funding the CDC and getting the data.

getting expelled while having guns, or having been expelled for disciplinary issues when applying to buy them, seem like a good start.

I was expelled for giving a kid $20 worth of pot.  My grandfather had just died and left me his guns.  Confiscate family heirlooms, private property and revoke my second amendment right.  Keep in mind I also beat up a kid the day after called my mom and grandmother ugly bitches during a track meat as a Freshmen so I was a violent drug dealer (lol).  Or are we doing this on a discretionary sliding scale?  Will I get my rights and property back when I turn 18?  If so what If I still held a grudge?  

Common sense gun laws should be rooted in common sense.  JMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I was expelled for giving a kid $20 worth of pot.  My grandfather had just died and left me his guns.  Confiscate family heirlooms, private property and revoke my second amendment right.  Keep in mind I also beat up a kid the day after called my mom and grandmother ugly bitches during a track meat as a Freshmen so I was a violent drug dealer (lol).  Or are we doing this on a discretionary sliding scale?  Will I get my rights and property back when I turn 18?  If so what If I still held a grudge?  

Common sense gun laws should be rooted in common sense.  JMHO.

yeah, you'd've raised red flags for me, as well.  

i'd rather remove family heirlooms and get it wrong and deny someone with problems the 2nd amendment right to own guns than risk having someone who does those things go and shoot up a school

between 17 dead people and you getting to own your guns -- provided the data could back me up on this -- i'd be ok with you not owning guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AndroidAggie said:

i would start with funding the CDC and getting the data.

getting expelled while having guns, or having been expelled for disciplinary issues when applying to buy them, seem like a good start.

Agree completely with removing the restrictions on the CDC.  Hell, give it to the FBI instead if need be, but have some organization conduct a thorough study.

While it's easy to look at a mass shooter and say, "They have mental problems", the fact is that many of them would commit their crimes regardless of if they received treatment.  And I honestly believe that a good number of these people are simply evil.  Psychopaths who have no regard for anyone but themselves.  It takes a narcissistic personality to "go postal" in my opinion.  Everyday folks who suffer injustices or perceived injustices don't resort to a mass shooting.

And the gun lobby would just illustrate things as they do with world figures regarding gun violence.  The number of mental health patients who do not commit mass shootings is astronomical compared to the percentage (per capita) that commit mass shootings.  So there isn't really a problem.

It's a rabbit hole that will never bring true solutions.

The only thing in today's world that makes real sense is to tell the NRA to shut the hell up, and force honest studies to figure out commonalities that can help us understand how to address this down the line.  Anything else will just be rabbit hole back and forth squabbling and nothing will get done again.  And we'll just have this conversation again in a month or two when the next tragedy strikes.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Not on this issue. When any of you, no matter who you are, start taking about having the government tell me what I can and cannot own, what I can and cannot say, what it is that I should think, etc. ... as well as red flagging and monitoring the public ... I get pretty pissed off. These things mean EVERYTHING to me. 

Lots of people seem to be too emotionally invested to debate the issue at all. This seems like a clear admission of that.

We all have beliefs that we will personally die for. I am conflicted when people who may not share those beliefs are dying for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

yeah, you'd've raised red flags for me, as well.  

i'd rather remove family heirlooms and get it wrong and deny someone with problems the 2nd amendment right to own guns than risk having someone who does those things go and shoot up a school

between 17 dead people and you getting to own your guns -- provided the data could back me up on this -- i'd be ok with you not owning guns.

Will you be comfortable that a bar like expulsion will disproportionately target minorities?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AndroidAggie said:

yeah, you'd've raised red flags for me, as well.  

i'd rather remove family heirlooms and get it wrong and deny someone with problems the 2nd amendment right to own guns than risk having someone who does those things go and shoot up a school

between 17 dead people and you getting to own your guns -- provided the data could back me up on this -- i'd be ok with you not owning guns.

Yikes.  The amount of rights you would trample. First and second amendments, legal due process.  Do I get a trial to determine if I can have my first two God given rights stripped?  So a bowl worth weed and a fist fight two years prior...get a grip. 

Yes, studies should be done.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...