|
Powercrazy posted:Also this sounds dangerously close to a mental health argument, and as we all know, mental health is 100% unrelated to anything and is only brought up to maintain the status quo. This is basically accurate. Only a small percentage of murders are mental illness-related, whereas a majority are gun related. Of course no one is against more availability for treatment for mental illness, but let's be clear that when it comes up after a mass shooting it's almost entirely a red herring to distract from firearms.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
What about suicides of the type thug lessons was referring to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
*bodies strewn everywhere* This doesn't look like a mental health issue to me!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:This is basically accurate. Only a small percentage of murders are mental illness-related, whereas a majority are gun related. Of course no one is against more availability for treatment for mental illness, but let's be clear that when it comes up after a mass shooting it's almost entirely a red herring to distract from firearms. You are never going to convince anyone that is on the fence about gun control with this type of inane bullshit. "Guns are the devil and the person behind them doesn't even matter!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
I'm not aware of any recent mass shooter who wanted to receive mental health treatment but could not find a doctor and/or afford generic antipsychotics. I'm not even aware of any recent mass shooter who was on record realizing that they were dangerously mentally ill. Can someone explain how "expanded mental healthcare" would prevent these things? It seems like to be effective we're talking about requiring everyone to get regular mental health checkups which you must go to or be punished where a doctor can declare you incompetent to own firearms against your will. Somehow I doubt gun fanboys would actually be in favor of this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:You are never going to convince anyone that is on the fence about gun control with this type of inane bullshit. I agree that many sentences are silly when they are deliberately rephrased to make no sense, by an idiot. For example, the sentence "the earth revolves around the sun" if rephrased to say "the sun is three feet tall and is mostly cabbage by volume" ceases to be scientifically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I'm not aware of any recent mass shooter who wanted to receive mental health treatment but could not find a doctor and/or afford generic antipsychotics. I'm not even aware of any recent mass shooter who was on record realizing that they were dangerously mentally ill. Can someone explain how "expanded mental healthcare" would prevent these things? It seems like to be effective we're talking about requiring everyone to get regular mental health checkups which you must go to or be punished where a doctor can declare you incompetent to own firearms against your will. Somehow I doubt gun fanboys would actually be in favor of this. Generally a good mental healthcare budget includes making people aware of when they maybe need to see a therapist and making therapists available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:What about suicides of the type thug lessons was referring to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Generally a good mental healthcare budget includes making people aware of when they maybe need to see a therapist and making therapists available. Great, but you're missing the point that none of these guys would voluntarily go to a therapist. Also that the number of murders which are related to mental illness are like two orders of magnitude less than those related to guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
http://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-healthquote:To separate the facts from the media hype, we talked to Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, and one of the leading researchers on mental health and violence. Swanson talked about the dangers of passing laws in the wake of tragedy ― and which new violence-prevention strategies might actually work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Great, but you're missing the point that none of these guys would voluntarily go to a therapist. Also that the number of murders which are related to mental illness are like two orders of magnitude less than those related to guns. They probably aren't going to voluntarily go to a therapist when they're at the point of murdering people but generally there is some buildup to that, people rarely wake up and decide to murder shitloads of people at random. Good healthcare is preventative, not reactionary. quote:"A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons. 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind ― which means 3 out of 4 did not." So many spree killers are one or multiple of: Self-isolating, self-medicating, fetishizing instruments of violence, and suffering from abuse, but comparatively few have been treated for any of these things. Does this tell you they aren't ill or does it tell you they aren't being treated? Because any one of those would be something that falls under the purview of mental healthcare to remedy. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Prav posted:the english banned knives and now they live in a dystopic hellhole It's pretty nice outside the cities. We're not very good at making the cities livable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They probably aren't going to voluntarily go to a therapist when they're at the point of murdering people but generally there is some buildup to that, people rarely wake up and decide to murder shitloads of people at random. Actually they won't go to the doctor at all because they believe they are fine, and as they are loners with no social group there is little or no outside pressure to push them. I'm glad you've solved the problem of how to make the severely mentally ill regularly go to the psychiatrist by the way, but a) this still will present a negligible difference in violent crime, and b) why are you posting here instead of publishing your groundbreaking findings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Actually they won't go to the doctor at all because they believe they are fine, and as they are loners with no social group there is little or no outside pressure to push them. I'm glad you've solved the problem of how to make the mentally ill go to the psychiatrist by the way, but why are you posting here instead of publishing your groundbreaking findings? It might be different in America but where I live people do not spring from the ground as adults, fully independent of society, and choose to integrate only afterwards. Nobody is immune from social pressure, or at least do not start immune to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Talking about it is either a silent taboo or an overblown joke. If you ban weapons how are people going to kill themselves? Parks everywhere would become the new japanese suicide forest. firearms are the most popular method of suicide because it's quick, effective, and relatively painless - all useful qualities when a more complicated or scary suicide method may cause one to rethink one's actions. this is why we need to encourage gun ownership as much as possible, so as to prevent people from having to second guess their dedication to freedom
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It might be different in America but where I live people do not spring from the ground as adults, fully independent of society, and choose to integrate only afterwards. Like everyone else, I'm not opposed to better mental health accessibility, and said so clearly up-front. The problem is that when gun advocates cry about it they don't mean it, and it's just another way to deflect criticism from their toys. And even if they were serious, which again they are not, the difference in violent crime would be minimal compared to that from reducing the number and availability of firearms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:It's pretty nice outside the cities. We're not very good at making the cities livable. All knives really should have blunt tips like this one:  I can say from experience that it is practically impossible to stab anyone with that knife. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
http://abc7ny.com/news/oregon-gunman-ranted-in-manifesto-not-having-girlfriend/1018467/quote:Harper-Mercer complained in the manifesto about not having a girlfriend, and he seemed to feel like he was very rational while others around him were not, the official said.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Here's a question I have to posters that think that Gun Control is dumb: If it's a bad policy for the government to ban, limit or regulate the ownership of firearms, then why is it okay for private businesses or entities, especially ones that operates a publicly used space, to deny you the ability to bring firearms into that space, particularly if said entities do not take steps to reasonably assure your safety? If the idea of widespread gun ownership is to deter violence, doesn't it defeat the purpose if the places you frequent every day don't allow you to act on that deterrence?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Here's a question I have to posters that think that Gun Control is dumb: If it's a bad policy for the government to ban, limit or regulate the ownership of firearms, then why is it okay for private businesses or entities, especially ones that operates a publicly used space, to deny you the ability to bring firearms into that space, particularly if said entities do not take steps to reasonably assure your safety? If the idea of widespread gun ownership is to deter violence, doesn't it defeat the purpose if the places you frequent every day don't allow you to act on that deterrence? I think people who believe gun control is dumb also tend to believe they should be allowed to carry guns everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Here's a question I have to posters that think that Gun Control is dumb: If it's a bad policy for the government to ban, limit or regulate the ownership of firearms, then why is it okay for private businesses or entities, especially ones that operates a publicly used space, to deny you the ability to bring firearms into that space, particularly if said entities do not take steps to reasonably assure your safety? If the idea of widespread gun ownership is to deter violence, doesn't it defeat the purpose if the places you frequent every day don't allow you to act on that deterrence? There was someone arguing for pages and pages in a gun thread that property owners be liable for murders that occur on their property because they refused to let someone bring a gun to protect themselves. So there you go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
That would be funny if they were also liable for murders caused by allowing people to bring guns on the property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Here's a question I have to posters that think that Gun Control is dumb: If it's a bad policy for the government to ban, limit or regulate the ownership of firearms, then why is it okay for private businesses or entities, especially ones that operates a publicly used space, to deny you the ability to bring firearms into that space, particularly if said entities do not take steps to reasonably assure your safety? If the idea of widespread gun ownership is to deter violence, doesn't it defeat the purpose if the places you frequent every day don't allow you to act on that deterrence? It's not actually constitutional for business to ban you from carrying within their premises, however it's untested. Starbucks' policy isn't a law, and has no impact on the legal status of carrying firearms. Hope this primer on the difference between the government and private industry has been informative, and helpful in your quest to understand society. Also there are no laws preventing anyone from carrying legal knives anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
By that logic non disclosure agreements are unconstitutional because they impede your first amendment rights but I don't believe anyone has successfully argued against them on that basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:By that logic non disclosure agreements are unconstitutional because they impede your first amendment rights but I don't believe anyone has successfully argued against them on that basis. They are unenforced, because if you violate NDAs you typically lose the contract (money) tied to that agreement. You won't end up in jail, nor even fined by violating them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:They are unenforced, because if you violate NDAs you typically lose the contract (money) tied to that agreement. You won't end up in jail, nor even fined by violating them. Which means that presumably starbucks is legally allowed to deny you entry on the basis of your not assenting to the conditions of occupancy of their property, and can call the police to book you for trespassing if you don't gently caress off? I mean, your work doesn't have to keep letting you in the building if you break an NDA, for example. Also I'm pretty sure you can end up with a civil suit for breaching an NDA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Just 'cause it's always fun to bring facts to a slap fight : https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...n_2009-2013.xls code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which means that presumably starbucks is legally allowed to deny you entry on the basis of your not assenting to the conditions of occupancy of their property, and can call the police to book you for trespassing if you don't gently caress off? This part is untested. You could argue it either way, and stay consistent. But afaik, there is no consensus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
It's pretty easily tested? Practicing the first amendment is grounds for termination of employment and denial of access to property. Why would the second be different?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just 'cause it's always fun to bring facts to a slap fight : And pistols are over three times as likely as knives what's your point
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just 'cause it's always fun to bring facts to a slap fight : Wow, I'm flummoxed. I'm glad handguns weren't invented, who knows how many deaths related to those you'd have! They could have potentially undermined your whole point!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:
but why exclude handguns which are used most frequently in homicides and sucicides and, last i checked, were firearms (guns) also lol that firearms of unstated type still used used more often than knives
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
You're being stupid powercrazy. You can be barred from private property for virtually any reason
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
you cannot bar me from private property, it is an unconstitutional restriction on my right to freedom to travel the land and walk the earth
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:You're being stupid powercrazy. You can be barred from private property for virtually any reason Fully private property, like say a private residence, yes. For a quasi-public property like starbucks, it's not so cut-and-dry. There are loads of cases about people being kicked out of businesses for various reasons, some of those are justified (too drunk, disorderly, etc), some of them, the people kicked out actually got reimbursed. That isn't even counting protected classes etc. Just saying it isn't a 100% "solved" issue. Popular Thug Drink posted:but why exclude handguns which are used most frequently in homicides and sucicides and, last i checked, were firearms (guns) Ask the democrats next time the propose gun control that targets "scary" long arms instead of handguns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Ask the democrats next time the propose gun control that targets "scary" long arms instead of handguns. What would be your response if they proposed gun control that targets pistols?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:some of them, the people kicked out actually got reimbursed. That isn't even counting protected classes etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:What would be your response if they proposed gun control that targets pistols? If it were about standardizing the laws across all states, it would be a cool+good thing. If it were about pistol grip aesthetics or caliber sizes, i'd roll my eyes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:If it were about standardizing the laws across all states, it would be a cool+good thing. If it were about pistol grip aesthetics or caliber sizes, i'd roll my eyes. So you're for gun control. e: unless by standardize you mean make them all equally loose
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
twodot posted:What's an example of someone being kicked out of a business, getting reimbursed (for what damages?), and weren't a protected class? Most likely protected conduct, e.g., free speech (or bearing arms)
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
