D.M H.R. 4269, 114th Congress - Or The End of Firearms in America 2015

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > D.M H.R. 4269, 114th Congress - Or The End of Firearms in America 2015

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Stupid as gently caress.

Remember when the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment the average privately owned gun was better in a number of ways than what the US Army issued as standard. Now the AR-15 is worse than what the US Army uses standard but I can't own it?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 00:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 08:07

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Sinnlos posted:

We also had a well regulated militia and little in the way of a standing army, so having everyone show up with their guns to do some light training once a month made sense.

Some would say that model is better and we should try to turn our heading back towards that style of national security instead of the leviathan we currently use that has run awry in all sorts of ways.

-Troika- posted:

List of crimes committed with drum-fed semi-automatic shotguns in the US recently:

The Aurora Movie Theater shooter used a 100rd AR-15 magazine. It jammed 7 rounds in because high-capacity magazines are not reliable. Now Colorado has a 15-round maximum capacity law, thereby making sure the future would-be, depressed, mentally unstable, trenchcoat wearing, scheming in his apartment, but little-actual-gun-experience-or-knowledge-shooter's AR-15 will not jam.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 02:00

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Astrofig posted:

Trick question; any attempt to suggest that maybe a gun-nut finally might possibly have enough guns, maybe, or shouldn't in fact be spending every last penny scouring gun sales and flea markets for more will get met with 'WHY YOU TRYIN' TO TAKE ARE GUNZ?!?!? SOCIALISSSSMMMMMMM!!!!!!! *devolves into increasingly-racist rant about the mooslim threat and 'the blacks'*'

Probably about the same time the Star Wars nerds quit making more shelf space for their toy collections.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 04:12

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Data ain't got nothin' on my Constitutional rights. Try to solve the problem another way, I'm sure you can think of something.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 00:55

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

evilweasel posted:

if only there was a study about if your gun was far more likely to shoot a family member rather than an intruder that could resolve that

So what. It's a right. Trading rights for security is not a good thing to do.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 17:36

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Effectronica posted:

We should not trade our right to smoke a pack a day for security against lung cancer. We should not trade our right to eat whatever we want for security against mercury contamination. We should not trade our right to wear whatever we want for security against head injuries.

Actually, there is no constitutional right to smoke cigarettes, but there is one to bare arms.

botany posted:

Says who, exactly? Rights and security are both good things, and part of politics is to find a suitable balance between the two. That involves trading one for the other.

Good point. That's why we have background checks, ban felons from owning guns, and ban people who have been convicted of domestic abuse from owning guns, among others. I think we have a good balance, personally. Not ideal, but good.

A Winner is Jew posted:

Cool, I'm gonna go yell fire in a crowded theater because my rights obviously trumps public safety.

"Fire" analogy is only regarding imminent threat to life. Owning a rifle does not contribute to any imminent threat. Brandishing it or shooting it in a public place would constitute an imminent threat and that's why it's not allowed.

evilweasel posted:

i mean if you want to retreat into "well there is never any reason for people to have guns but we can no more restrict the rights of people to stockpile their own private armories than we can their right to burn crosses on their own lawns" then we can go there but i think you're going to lose a lot of your compatriots with that argument

There are lots of reasons to own guns, but mostly it's a right which trumps pretty much 90% of arguments right there. Think about limiting the 2nd Amendment. Did you think about it like you would think about limiting the 1st Amendment? Burning a cross in your yard is free speech, no matter how hateful.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 18:08

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Effectronica posted:

Thank God I have a constitutional right to wear a tank top.

This pestilential legalism speaks to the necessity of breaking the Gun Power even more thoroughly than the Slave Power. We must liberate you from the fog which has descended over your minds.

Please refrain from personal insults.

evilweasel posted:

actually i don't base my moral philosophy on what was in the constitution in 1790 or i'd be out trying to return all of these fugitive slaves i see walking around on the streets to their rightful owners and decrying the injustice of their votes counting the same as mine

So you engaged me with an analogy to free speech, did you abandon that analogy to make this point? Do you not believe in the 1st Amendment because it's so old?

A Winner is Jew posted:

Would you like to try that one again?

As I said, negligence is already illegal. Was there even a bullet in the chamber? We will never know. But idiots are not a good excuse for me to forfeit my rights.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 18:28

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

A Winner is Jew posted:

Actually yes they are because idiots abusing rights = laws being enacted to restrict them. You know, like idiots yelling fire in a theater and that now being illegal even if it infringes on my first amendment rights.

Also about negligence being illegal when applied to firearms.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/

Trabisnikof posted:

Wrong.

Florida != America. In my state and many others a negligent discharge can be a felony. States regulate these things totally differently and that's why it's important not to take away everyone's rights, some of us live in states with similar murder and violent crime rate to Scandinavia or western Europe. Even with all our guns! Some of us live in states that are hellholes of despair. Most crime is local to population centers first, places with poor education and infrastructure second, and if you add into the mix moron rednecks then that's Florida. I'd rather bring places like that up to my standards, than have to lower my quality of life to match theirs.

evilweasel posted:

I think there are legitimate reasons to consider free speech a right and support the 1st amendment on those grounds. I do not support free speech because it's an amendment. Guns are a stupid toy that are the sort of thing that a government legitimately should regulate. When people whine about guns being a right, i have no sympathy for that argument because nobody ever articulates a coherent rationale that has any sort of validity. To the extent that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguious, I favor interpreting it as narrowly as possible because the clear intent of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the rationales gun owners put forward for why they need their precious dangerous toys. To the extent that the 2nd Amendment interfered with any reasonable gun regulation, I would favor repealing it, just like I would have favored repealing any of the other dumb or malevolently evil portions of the constitution we've redone over the past two centuries.

~your rights~ is just whining over that you don't want your precious toys taken away. however, your precious toys inflict serious social ills on parties that have no interest in being shot, so they're a legitimate target of governmental regulation however unhappy it makes you. to the extent our legal system impedes that, we should use the ways to reform our legal system to remove those obstacles because those obstacles do not reflect any moral right that gun owners have to resist regulation of their dangerous toys like the legal rights people have for free speech, freedom of religion, due process, etc.

There are legitimate reasons to support the 2nd amendment. The LA riots for example was a time when the police force was overwhelmed and private citizens needed arms to protect themselves and their businesses. The Black Panthers use of guns scared the poo poo out of white people and helped spur the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court ruled recently that police officers have no duty or obligation to protect anyone except themselves, and in 2015 police killed someone every 8 hours, with about a third of them being unarmed. That's highly dependent on geographic location also and while I feel fine calling the police, in some places that just increases your chance of dying.

While the stats show that a gun in the house leads to 300% increase in the chance of a family member being shot, that doesn't mean that people don't use their gun to protect their life or someone else's, which happens all the time. This stat also does not take into account the geographic differences I was explaining above. Some areas of this country there is just no arguing with people that they need a gun to feel safe. Other places in this country is a total paradise full of happy, healthy people who also have gun accidents.

Tens of thousands of people die each year in car accidents also, how much % increase does owning a car vs. not owning a car have on your chances of dying in a car crash? Driving a car isn't a constitutional right. It's heavily regulated, and guns already are heavily regulated as well. Free speech is not heavily regulated, in fact there's only a single example of it being limited in the "Fire!" cliche.

You call guns toys because you are a mental child. Anyone who talks about guns as if they're toys is a fool. As you say guns can kill and spread waves of anguish through a community, and you call them toys. No they are killing machines designed to kill and every responsible gun owner knows this and also tries to educate the irresponsible gun owners as much as possible. You are a mental child because you haven't thought through scenarios where you might have to kill someone, you haven't honestly looked at the question from someone else's perspective, and you can't think about this subject without adding a cartoony twist.

Lastly, you may not put much regard on the constitution, but that doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that it says it right there, the security of this country depends on people owning guns. Probably not in my lifetime or the lifetime of my kids, but maybe one day. If you can't see that need then you haven't studied much history.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:29

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

botany posted:

Do you agree that guns are potentially deadly weapons? If so, why do you think people should be allowed to own them?

Literally anything can potentially be a deadly weapon. People should be able to own them because the 2nd Amendment grants that right.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:34

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

A Winner is Jew posted:

And just like the first amendment there can't ever be exceptions, especially when it comes to public safety, with the second amendment.

The 2nd Amendment is heavily restricted. Felons, people convicted of domestic abuse, mental health patient, background checks, etc etc. You're right and we've done it! Reasonable gun control already exists! Hooray!

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:38

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Trabisnikof posted:

So there should be no laws regulating the use or ownership of anything, because they all could be used as deadly weapons!

Again there are literally thousands of gun laws.

quote:

So why is making background checks mandatory a bridge too far?

Is it? Did I say that?

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:42

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Trabisnikof posted:

So you support Obama's actions?

They don't do much for me really. The background checks already were a thing in my state. The other actions just re-iterate existing ATF policy.

One thing I do have an issue with is the HIPAA change that now allows doctors to breach patient confidentiality in the case of gun ownership. On the one hand yes that makes sense to stop someone like the Aurora Movie Theater shooter, who had a history of mental problems. On the other hand the next time a Republican gets elected, will they insert something about drug use exceptions into HIPAA? No longer could you talk to your doctor about drugs confidentially, that's bad.

botany posted:

Amendments can and have been overturned. Why do you think the 2nd (as you interpret it) is a good amendment?

I would refer you to the post I just made in response to evilweasel.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 22:51

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

evilweasel posted:

that there are situations you might want a gun doesn't make them a right any more than there are situations where i might need a tactical nuclear warhead (as a self-warming paperweight) so those are a right too

none of this makes it a civic right that you must have a right to own guns, its nonsensical and you would never give this nonsense logic a second thought

You must have been excited when you wrote this because it's pretty bad and hard to comprehend. I'll try to engage you anyway.

Some would argue that tactical nukes should be available to private citizens that can pay for them. I don't subscribe to that, because a nuclear weapon would fall under the "imminent threat" clause that we talked about earlier when explaining the limits of the 1st amendment. Of course there are secrets, national security, and obviously the US post-WW2 is a completely different animal compared to 150 years before. All these things add even more layers to restricting a citizen from owning a nuke.

This is also why tanks, missiles, planes, etc are also not available for public purchase, though you may be surprised what types of military heavy weapons you could buy, with enough money.

Now as far as owning a firearm, as we've already established it's not a totally free and unlimited right, there are lots of hoops to jump through and lots of laws to follow. I think you were trying for a record number of the word "right" in the shortest sentence, but I only need to use it once. I have the right to own a firearm, whether I need it, whether I want it, whether it makes me feel better, or whether I use it as a sexual object.

Now I gave you 3 perfectly reasonable reasons to satisfy your question, I used good grammar, and I used proper punctuation. You wrote two lovely lines that are unintelligible garbage of the worst kind. You had been typing full sentences like a big boy before, but suddenly gave up? Are you feeling better now? Would you like to try again?

quote:

yes i play with guns all the time and they are my favorite toy. how did you find my terrible secret. why, i too dress up in tactical gear and go sit with my tactical gear buddies and talk about how keen our tactical gear will be when the negr-er, the unnamed bad people finally rise up and i'm living large with my toys prancing around as king of my block and people finally respect me

ahahahahaha youve got to be kidding me

Basically point proven there. Thanks for helping me out.

quote:

because it says it in the constitution it is factually true that nutbars with their own private guns are the foundation of the security of this country, yep, this is a reasonable argument

the day comes that nutbars with guns is the foundation of security in "this country" its because its a max-max hellscape with no relationship to present day and is such a vanishingly unlikely situation that only a complete whackjob would think that we should make guns a civic right to protect against this hellish future

I hadn't realized the likes of Benjamin Franklin and company were complete whackjobs. Thanks for setting me straight. Eastern Ukrainians probably had similar thoughts, but no guns when they needed them.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2016 06:36

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Dead Reckoning posted:

Actually, you can totally buy tanks and jet fighters in America, but it ain't a cheap hobby. There's nothing illegal about owning rocket launchers either, but the companies that make the ammunition generally don't do private sales, the storage requirements for any significant quantity of ordinance are a pain, and it's hard to find a place to shoot one.

Well, yes. I guess I should have added another sentence to say that you can buy obsolete equipment, tanks, missiles, mortars etc, but you cannot buy a brand new M1 Abrams because it's got classified equipment and armor. Also most tanks have their barrels filled with concrete or welded closed when sold to private individuals.

You can buy an old 70s or 80s fighter jet also, but you cannot buy an F-18 for example.

stealie72 posted:

They were white men, many of whom owned slaves. They were terrible humans and their founding of this country is to be mourned, not celebrated.

Who What Now posted:

lol if you don't know enough about American history to realize the Founding Fathers were garbage human beings.

Compared to modern day western people, yes the founding fathers were not very good people. At the time? They were a golden standard of civilization and humanity. That's the problem with liberals these days, they have no historical context and they require a 100% match on moral views from other people or dismiss them as "garbage human beings." This infighting is why liberals have no power in America. Surely you can find redeeming qualities to their pursuits of science and invention. Surely you can find redeeming qualities to their political thought and ideas to create a checked and balanced democracy. Surely you can accept that if you lived in the 1700s in the colonies and were successful in any way, you would have been a slave owner as well.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2016 20:04

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Chomskyan posted:

Hmm, yes, I'm sure evading existing anti-slavery laws or raping/impregnating your slaves and then enslaving your own bastard children was perfectly normal and socially acceptable practice at the time.

Yeah, unfortunately it was pretty normal at the time. It shows a lot that you quote just one sentence of that paragraph and don't confront the realities I presented you with.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 05:00

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Boogaleeboo posted:

If you ever find a time machine, never go to the past. It smells horrific and the people are loving terrible.

Panzeh posted:

Things like "checks and balances" were checks against populism, not checks against 'unlimited power'. These guys were entirely willing to crown Washington a king as long as he didn't upset the wealthiest class.

The Founding Fathers were the ideal of Edmund Burke, an elitist through-and-through.

V. Illych L. posted:

is 'slavery was not that bad at the time' a hill you're willing to die on

Chomskyan posted:

I assure you these particular examples were not considered "normal" or socially acceptable at the time.

Reminder, this is the sentence that has led us here.

quote:

I hadn't realized the likes of Benjamin Franklin and company were complete whackjobs.

Can we move on? Anyone want to take on one of my points about guns?

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 05:28

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Chomskyan posted:

Actually I was responding to this:

The founding fathers were products of their time, sure, but you cant use that as a blanket excuse for all of their crimes. Slavery was not universally accepted as a good thing, and even in the 18th century there was a significant movement for abolition. Presumably thats why George Washington had to evade the existing anti-slavery laws of the time to maintain his ownership of slaves. You're the one who needs historical context.

e: You're right though that this is a derail (which you started). I'm willing to drop it if you want to go back to being wrong about guns.

Sure whatever. I think rich people using loopholes to maintain their lifestyle is pretty normal. I would like to hear how wrong I am on guns, thanks.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 05:51

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Chomskyan posted:

Anyways, having read the discussion of the study myself, about as much emphasis is placed on drug use/drinking/domestic violence as guns. The reason guns are emphasized despite their "low" correlation to homicide, is because it's often claimed that guns increase personal safety. If that was the case there should be a negative correlation, not a statistically significant positive one. That's what the authors of the study are pointing out. Not that owning a gun is a better predictor of homicide than alcoholism/etc, but that owning a gun increases, not decreases, the risk of a homicide occurring in your home.

Well according to http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_02_01.html_mfd

Pedestrians have roughly 100 times less chance of dying in transport accidents than car drivers.

Bus riders have roughly 1000 times less chance of dying in transport accidents than car drivers.

Clearly car owners don't care about personal safety.

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 17:55

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Dead Reckoning posted:

That's sort of a stupid comparison though, because very few people drive because they think it's safer thank taking the bus.

I was mostly pointing out that ownership of a "thing" will obviously lead to a greater chance of that "thing" leading to your untimely death. If you never owned that "thing" then that "thing" could never hurt you in the first place. That doesn't mean there aren't very good reasons to own the "thing" in question. When you tell me I am 100 times more likely to kill myself accidentally with my gun than being mugged and need my gun to defend myself, I say "yeah, I know. I live in a pretty safe place and guns need to be respected."

# ¿ Jan 20, 2016 18:28

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

It's telling that these two jackasses are the only anti-gunners still posting in this thread. The other anti-gun posters with real arguments have given up so it's just the riff raff left.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 16:50

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

You would never be receptive of the argument. Nothing is more important to you than gun ownership. All the facts and logic in the world won't change that, so what's the point in even trying? Better to just point and laugh at the psychopaths that love objects more than innocent life.

Guns are #2 in my list of importance. #1 is my Freedom of Speech.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 20:28

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

stealie72 posted:

Good news for you then, if we go for beers in my state, it's illegal to carry in a bar, so there will be no idiots with guns. I'll even pick up the first round.

Gun laws usually stop criminals, you're right.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 20:29

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

I own and shoot guns regularly. However, unlike you gun nuts I have no illusions about using my guns to kill ~~blacks~~ burglars who try and break in, or for fighting off the usurper in the White Hut. I don't even keep my guns in our house, it's proven that just having guns vastly increases the chances of gun-related death of family members, I keep them stored in a safe in a storage locker. So no need to try and induct me into you're weird death cult, I'm well aware of it already.

I showed on the last page that owning a car increases your chance of dying on the way to work by 1000x.

And just because you don't believe it doesn't matter. The 2nd Amendment was created to protect against tyranny. It's good that you don't have illusions abut fighting tyranny, that means our society is doing pretty good at the moment.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 20:32

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

Why the second amendment was written doesn't matter. It has no place in today's society and should be abolished.

Hey, can you please back up the things you say with like facts or figures. Hell even a 2nd sentence with more information would be great!

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 22:24

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Butch Cassidy posted:

I don't care how you store you firearms or if you own any at all. I am curious how a secured firearm owned by a person with zero intent to use one defensively could possibly accidently be taken from a safe, accidentally find the cable locl removed, be reassembled by accident, before someone accidentally unlocks the ammo to accidentally load the gun and then accidentally aim and be fired unintentionally at another person. That fear is not realistic. Not trusting yourself is fine and you can admit it. Not trusting your housemates also fine. Not wantimg them in the house is fine. But insisting that a secured firearm is a risk because of statistics is phobic.

My girlfriend's mom has this type of superstition of guns.

She once said "Satan puts the bullets in the gun when you're not looking."

It's just fear. It's because guns have no use for most people in modern life, people don't grow up with guns anymore, and guns on TV are basically violence porn. I can't have a gun for target shooting but goddamn Jessica Jones is such a strong female role model she can use a gun.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 22:29

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

But a secured firearm is a risk. Precisely because of other people and the chance for human errors. You seem to only believe that active malevolent intentions can result in a gun death. That's dumb as poo poo and ignores the countless accidental gun deaths that happen every single year.

Ok so now we're only worried about accidents? Well I hope you start a new thread asking for the end of automobiles in America. Gotta stop accidental death no matter what!! Hell, there's no constitutional right to own a car! It'll be easy as hell to ban those comparatively!

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 22:32

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

SedanChair posted:

I'm just saying, you can't casually drop "I don't keep guns in the house because I don't want to end up capping my wife" and not expect to raise a few eyebrows.

You didn't say that. You said something more like "hey guys, I'm a gun owner too. You can listen to me when I say that you shouldn't even own a gun. I'm a self-loathing gun owner and hide mine away in a storage locker because otherwise it might kill my wife. Just heads up, don't want any of my fellow gun owners to have something like that happen! Also remember that only hunting rifles and .22 target rifles have any use in the world."

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 22:36

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Effectronica posted:

Let's be clear here. The regular statements of TFR geeks that all people who are pro-control are ignorant and afraid and need to be reeducated makes it clear that there can be no compromise and no coexistence. You will continue to try to convert the entire nation, and will not accept anyone who will not submit to your cult. That is why guns are and remain a problem for the collective sanity and health of this country.

Ummm actually there are tons of gun laws that gun owners support. You can find us presenting them a few pages back. Remember the 2nd amendment is heavily regulated already and millions of Americans and barred from owning guns.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 00:25

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

I only support gun-control in theory. In reality the discussion is done and over with, and guns won hands down. No amount of mass shootings will ever get meaningful gun laws passed in this country and I don't want politicians to waste time pursuing it when they could be trying but to pass legislation that actually has a chance. So take heart, I'm not coming for your guns.

Yes, you got that right. It's a waste of time to try and enact weapons bans. Firstly because someone's misuse of their rights is never a good reason to restrict everyone's rights and secondly because every time a politician talks about gun control, people buy more guns.

Now let's talk about real things we can do to stop mass shootings in America. We could talk about why some states have murder and violent crime rates similar to Scandinavia and western Europe while other states have rates paralleling war zones and the socioeconomic and legal reasons behind those stats instead of treating the USA as if it were a small, European country that you can drive across in an afternoon.

We could talk about how every mass shooter in the past 10 years were suffering from mental health issues and were medicated.

We could talk about how every mass shooter is paraded all over TV and they become famous for their acts.

We could talk about how our schools treat victims the same as their bullies in altercations at school. Punishing kids for defending themselves and making them feel helpless and mad at their school administrators.

We could talk about inner city gangs and institutional racism.

Lots of things to spend our resources and efforts on that would be far more productive than talking about guns, as we just agreed.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 19:32

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

*gasp* Medical treatment?! Horror of horrors anything but that.

Medical treatment and medication are different. Doctors in America are heavily financially incentivized to prescribe drugs and this leads to doctors prescribing drugs when they may not be needed or alternate treatments can be given. Drugs are also being administered more and more for off-label uses. Lots of these drugs are doing all sorts of things to pleasure centers, emotion centers, and apathy centers of the brain that aren't understood well.

SedanChair posted:

Mental health issues, well, that's kind of true by definition, but I think any number of them were never diagnosed or medicated, Loughner for example.

Loughner is a perfect example of what I'm talking about because he had 5 interactions with police while in community college that lead to his suspension and the staff and people around him said they feared for their safety and required him to get a mental health evaluation before starting school again and specifically cited fears of him perpetrating a shooting. There was no clear pathway for him to get help at this point, and any help that he could have gotten would have been paid for by him or his family. There was also no mechanism to force him to get help even with all the red flags that were thrown.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 20:19

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

If you say that they aren't well understood then why do you feel confident enough to blame mass shootings on them? So either we do have enough data to make a claim of a causal link, in which case I'd like to see this data for myself and we need to discuss why you believe doctors care more about getting a few hundred bucks extra a year is worth endangering people's lives, or there isn't enough data to make that claim in which case you're talking out of your rear end. The former is conspiracy thinking, the latter is bullshit.

It's rich that you're asking me for more info, as you give one sentence responses to everything thrown at you. You ignored 90% of my post for instance and threw out a one-line contradiction like you're god just now, actually. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why the 2nd amendment doesn't fit in today's world but I doubt you'll ever expand on that opinion.

I never blamed shootings on prescription drugs, in fact I brought the topic up in an effort to learn more about it. What we do know is that every mass shooting (except Giffords' shooting and Bernardino maybe a few others) has been perpetrated by someone diagnosed with mental issues who is taking or was taking medication for their mental health issues. That's far more correlation that you need to ban guns when it comes to accidents in the house going by your posts so I'm not sure why you have trouble with me bringing it up.

I target mental health because we know that 100% of people who commit mass murder have some sort of mental problem whether generally like SedarChair alludes to, or proven health problems that they are medicated for, or in other cases recently stopped taking their meds. Obama's recent Executive Action attempts to help this issue by allowing doctors to breach HIPAA privacy to report gun owners they think are a danger to others. That's a meaningful change that will lead to a reduction in gun deaths.

We know that cash incentives can lead to unethical behavior throughout all walks of life, so expecting doctors to be immune is silly.

This study finds that doctor incentives leads to patients getting more treatments and paying more money than otherwise, and certain types of operations are now performed more often than in the past:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144420/

This article shows how incentives drive up health care costs and leads to doctors' not explaining the patient's options fully in order to make the most profitable option seem like the patients only option:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/08/22/how-financial-incentives-for-doctors-drive-up-health-care-costs

This story is about a pharmacist who sold counterfeit drugs going to prison and two doctors who knowingly bought them also going to jail.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/october/internet-pharmacy-operator-gets-jail-time

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 20:53

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Dr Ozziemandius posted:

Still one of the biggest bullshit lies ever pushed. Been a practicing physician for over a decade; still waiting on my big pharma shill bucks. Hell, we don't even get lovely pens and post-it notes anymore.

Well someone is, even if it's not you. In 2013 $3.5 billion was spent this way with 19% of that directly as gifts.
https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2014-Press-releases-items/2014-09-30.html

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 21:14

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Dr Ozziemandius posted:

It is something for it's own thread; it's just that the "all doctors are in the pocket of big pharma" thing is a pet peeve. It's a multifactoral problem, really. Psychiatric issues are very, very difficult to pigeonhole into the nice, neat little checkboxes that modern insurance wants for coding and billing purposes, coupled with the fact that insurance also tries very hard to ignore the reality that mental illness is, in fact, a form of illness. Mental health issues are very hard to successfully diagnose and treat, and real treatment depends on lifelong support with both medical and social factors involved. Which is super expensive, and therefore not gonna get approved very often.

I admit I didn't phrase it the best but when I said that doctors are incentivized to make these decisions, only part of that incentive is financial. Like you say these issues don't fit in a check box and take time so when a doctor takes the easy route and checks the box anyway and sends the patient out the door with a bottle of pills, that's also an incentive problem that's institutional.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 21:39

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

I, huh? I made a snarky comment and then called bullshit on your assertion that mis-prescribed medications are a cause of gun violence/mass shootings, and now I think I'm a god? How exactly does that follow?

It wasn't an assertion. In fact what I said was "we can talk about..." as in, let's open the discussion up which has happened. I also made about 5 or 6 other points in the same post but you didn't bother quoting them (because you agree with me?). I said you think you are god because you have had a pattern of replying to full paragraph posts with many levels of detail with a single sentence reply without any follow up. Like you've done below.

quote:

Because it's been proven that first-world developed nations survive just fine without firearms.

Well, first of all please provide some back up for that position. For instance, Ukraine a modern developed European country, right now is undergoing a form of tyranny for which the 2nd amendment was specifically written. We have seen in Louisiana during hurricane Katrina law and order break down. Storms are predicted to get worse with climate change. In the past few years we've seen riots in the streets all over the country not before seen since 1992 LA riots or the Civil Rights Movement. The Supreme Court has ruled that police officers have no duty to protect anyone except themselves. There are lots of reasons that I see for the 2nd amendment existing in today's world.

quote:

First, I don't agree that 100% of mass shootings were committed by the mentally ill, and I'm going to need better stats on whether or not they were currently medicated during the time of the attack than your say-so. Being "recently" medicated is horseshit, because of course someone off their meds isn't going to act rationally, that's why they were on the meds in the first place, dipshit. This is also literally conspiracy thinking, as in actual conspiracy theorists look for "takes SSRIs" as an indication that a shooting was a false flag or something.

I believe that if someone commits mass murder, or even just plain old murder then they have mental issues. I think most people think that way. I also think that if a medication produces suicidal or murderous tendencies when someone stops taking it, then prescriptions of that medication should be scaled back and the people who do need it should have a way to be checked up on. Maybe we need to add another line to a 4473 that asks if a person is taking xxx type of drugs or undergoing mental health treatment and maybe restrict that class of people from firearm ownership.

I mean, that's a realistic form of gun control but it takes more than 2 seconds to explain...

quote:

Plus, by shifting the blame to "mental illness" all you do is put forward the idea that only the mentally ill can be violent. And I don't see any reason to believe that and I especially see no reason to accept armchair diagnosis of shooters. There is already a lot of stigma about being mentally ill that prevents people from seeking treatment, and trying to paint all mass shooters as instantly being in that same group just makes it all the harder for people to justify seeking treatment than it already is. Additionally, I do know that the mentally ill are [url= https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us/our-blog/69-no-state/2030-new-study-mentally-ill-are-often-targets-of-violence]more likely to be victims of violence[/url].

I am putting the blame on people who commit mass murder, whereas you place the blame on firearms. I am not blaming someone for having an illness. I don't blame someone for having Ebola, but I would blame a doctor who let that person out of quarantine early. Mentally ill being more likely to be victims of violence just proves my assertion that we aren't doing enough to care for these people in the US.

quote:

I can agree that it lead to a decrease in suicides, but not mass shootings.

Why not? Especially considering lots of mass shootings involve suicide by the shooter and often times a suicide note or manifesto left behind, I think suicide and mass shooting sometimes overlap. Therefore it makes no sense that you separate them. Of course you only gave me a single one sentence reply so who knows what you think.

quote:

Two of those have nothing to do with the kind of situations we're talking about and the third is a guy acting as a drug dealer, not doctors prescribing supposedly dangerous medications.

You said that doctors wouldn't alter their recommendations or act unethically just to make a buck, I showed they would. Ask for something different next time.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 22:07

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

MariusLecter posted:

Because that is literally what people end up doing.

Actually mostly black people shoot other black people. This thread is about banning assault style weapons and high capacity magazines like what California did.

Unfortunately black people kill other black people with pistols. So this law wouldn't affect them.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 22:09

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

Who What Now posted:

A hue portion of them, yes, absolutely. There's a reason NRA conventions are white as gently caress.

Because white people are statistically and historically land owners and more wealthy which makes them more likely to be firearm owners? Or because NRA members are racist? Please use your words to make yourself better understood.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 22:10

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

SedanChair posted:

Fantasies of killing are built in to the entire firearms industry, and the nature of white American discourse ensures that the imagined foe is a minority.

Can you demonstrate this assertion by posting evidence?

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 22:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 08:07

NathanScottPhillips: Jul 23, 2009

SedanChair posted:

No, we're dealing in the world of ordinary citizens who carry pistols and spare magazines concealed because they think they're going to get in a firefight and need 30 rounds of ammunition. I don't feel any need to provide evidence for the structure of their fantasy world any more than they've done.

Can you please demonstrate your assertions by posting evidence?

Just last week a man used his concealed carry gun to save lives and stop a criminal, without firing a shot:
http://www.adn.com/article/20160119/armed-man-who-helped-stop-anchorage-mall-robbery-i-carry-so-i-m-ready

Also, most people carry an extra magazine to clear a jam, not because they need the bullets. Most carry guns have only 6 or 7 rounds.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 22:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > D.M H.R. 4269, 114th Congress - Or The End of Firearms in America 2015