Message boards :
Politics :
Another Mass Shooting in the U.S.A.
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 . . . 25 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
to see how much progress is being made Well, stop looking at the symptom and focus on the the problem. The problem is how the US refuses to treat mental illness. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article52469790.html Police in Puerto Rico are holding a wake for three officers killed by a fellow policeman at their station in the island's second largest city. The problem goes back to a time when mentally ill persons could be institutionalized against their will. Facilities were terrible. Bleeding hearts did as they do and didn't consider the final result of their well intentioned action, and forced these facilities to close. They did not build any replacement system for care. The ill were literally tossed on the street. As you know the US does not have any health care. They sat and festered. Some of them may have been able to function enough to get the money to buy a gun. You would expect in a sane country that there would be a list of mental cases that gun sellers could check. Not in America because privacy of medical records is more important than the safety of the public at large. Conditions got bad rapidly; States passed three strike laws. It has taken a while but a large fraction of those mentally ill have now committed enough offenses to be in prison for life. So gun crime rates are now falling. Of course it is far more expensive to keep a person in prison than in a mental hospital; also I'm sure the conditions for the person are far worse, but I digress. Around the same time the Vietnam war ended. The vets came back with PTSD and got home to being spat on and called baby killer. The VA didn't treat, and still doesn't. A huge influx into a system that had no treatment. At the same time America declared war on drugs. This resulted in the identical rise of violent criminal gangs as prohibition did. They armed themselves in an attempt to be able to have huge profits. It has taken many years but much of America has seen that the war on drugs is a failure. It did create an issue where police have adopted criminal gang tactics to use against the populace. You see that in the killings of unarmed suspects, but I digress. America has begun the legalize drugs and the gangs have been able to put their weapons away. All the while the USA has been putting more and more guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of which are completely level headed responsible persons. So it appears as if more guns means less gun deaths. In some extreme bleeding heart states they have created open target, er gun free zones. We have seen that these places are the preferred hunting grounds for the person hell bent on suicide by mass murder. The only exception to these zones that has worked is Airports and Court Houses where strip searches are conducted. This should be expected as all bans will work as good as prohibition did; zero effectiveness. Finally if you look at the real numbers you will find that gun death by suicide is the only category which is going up. If some nut blows his own brains out to society as a whole that is not a terrible outcome. It is only if the nut decides to take others with him that society has a negative outcome. Perhaps the solution is to legalize suicide, go to the pharmacy and get your suicide pill. Yes, Ian, the US has a problem. The problem isn't the gun, the problem is the nut holding the gun. Treat the nut, not the symptom. <ed for typos> |
Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 12273 Credit: 8,569,109 RAC: 79 |
Well, stop looking at the symptom and focus on the the problem. The problem is how the US refuses to treat mental illness. In the mid-1990s, for a while, I taught at a private school for teens deemed either “emotionally disturbed†or PINS (“person in need of supervisionâ€). Certain steps could be taken when a student “posed a danger to self, others or propertyâ€. To my recollection, the rules were similar when making a decision to institutionalize someone that was mentally ill against his or her will. Facilities were terrible. Having seen not only the facilities where I taught in the mid-1990s but also having visited inside a psychiatric center associated with a nearby general hospital throughout the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, I question this statement. I would say the one I saw was a mixed bag. On the one hand, locked in a room at night, like a jail cell. Food as good or bad as one would consider hospital food. On the other hand, opportunities for entertainment and exercise. Not only were some (all?) on medication, there were also counseling sessions. My impression was that the worst thing must have been having to be around other mentally ill people. How does one fight depression when surrounded by others also depressed, for example? Also, what an “excellent†way for people who are paranoid, for example, to improve, when there’s the opportunity for hearing about the paranoid delusions of others and grafting it on to the story in one’s own mind? Your comments, now and earlier, make me wonder what you really saw. if anything, of the mental health system? It sounds as if you are describing conditions of an earlier decade. Conditions railed against by the … ahem … the Scientologists. (Why did Tom Cruise, in the early 2000s, argue against the origins of psychiatry and conditions of an earlier decade as opposed to things as they currently stood?) Gary, I’m not saying these things to attack you. Rather, let’s see if together we and others can come to a better understanding. If we can, we then have an opportunity to share our thoughts with others and politicians. Bleeding hearts did as they do and didn't consider the final result of their well intentioned action, and forced these facilities to close. They did not build any replacement system for care. The ill were literally tossed on the street. As you know the US does not have any health care. They sat and festered. Some of them may have been able to function enough to get the money to buy a gun. You would expect in a sane country that there would be a list of mental cases that gun sellers could check. Not in America because privacy of medical records is more important than the safety of the public at large. http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness I’ve commented similarly before. Did “bleeding hearts†play any role? Maybe, maybe not. I maintain what happened in the 1980s had a lot to do with his fiscal cutbacks. Though the following is from 2 years ago, note that it refers to “the marketplaceâ€: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vko1OA_wz-8. Around the same time the Vietnam war ended. The vets came back with PTSD and got home to being spat on and called baby killer. The VA didn't treat, and still doesn't. A huge influx into a system that had no treatment. That was about 8 years earlier, though I wouldn’t be surprised vets suffered from the cutbacks in the following decade. At the same time America declared war on drugs. Yes, that was at about the same time. I know of a man, while an out-patient, that was using marijuana during that time. I wonder how well it mixed with his prescribed medication. America has begun the legalize drugs and the gangs have been able to put their weapons away. Violent gang activity continues in areas with legalized marijuana. All the while the USA has been putting more and more guns into the hands of citizens. The vast majority of which are completely level headed responsible persons. So it appears as if more guns means less gun deaths. I have anxiously awaited the follow up to Wayne La Pierre’s suggestion that we in the U.S.A. have a frank discussion about mental illness in this country. I do not see it on the horizon. Those last two paragraphs do not move it forward. There are a variety of faces to mental illness. There are also … ahem … a variety of ways to commit suicide, several of which have nothing to do with guns. Finally, http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/5695/20130320/25-percent-u-s-population-mentally-ill-40-smokes-cigarettes.htm claims 25% of the population of the U.S.A. suffers from sort type of mental illness. Is this from a source you would trust? If not, what would be a source you would trust? In any case, does that still leave “a vast majority which are level-headedâ€? Well, yes, it does. However, it says nothing about whether that statistic will go up or down, let alone that it says nothing about something crucial in understanding mental health: some stay the same, some get better, some go round-and-round (thank you, 1980s cutbacks!) and others get worse. Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes. |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19012 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
This New Yorker article would disagree with you. And that a more substansive reason to ban people from having guns would be all people with a violent background including all those that have not been convicted but investigated for aggressive behavior. Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Gun Violence? |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
I'll dispute your link Gary as I've tried to go through the statistics for your country and in reality you have to average out each against another because they're all corrupted one way or the other and ATM no one will ever know the true facts until a central register is compiled there, but in the end neither is a true gauge and blaming the "mentally ill" is just a plain cop out. We went through the same thing a decade earlier than you people over there to the "anti mental incarceration against their will" thing over here and the Martin Bryant incident brought things to a head. Plenty of people here have tried the "mental insanity" plea, but in the end few have ever received it (though Martin Bryant was one of the last to receive it and hence our stricter gun controls and his never to be released status), but many still practice trying to convince others that they are. A hell of a lot of you Yanks want to think totally differently and keep pointing at your very much out dated constitution (that was written when muzzle loading firearms were the thing of the day), but I doubt that your forefathers who wrote it ever envisaged lever or pump action firearms let alone semi & fully auto firing firearms. Constantly falling back on that old constitution of yours has turned your people into a bunch of citizens that are scared of their own shadow, let alone their own neighbours, countrymen and government (if you're so worried about government why do yous bother having them?). Handguns have never been legal here since Federation to the general public and "personal protection" has never been accepted as a good excuse for having any sort of firearm. Your average person here is allowed to apply for a single action single or double barrel firearm (category 1 license here) or a bolt action repeater (category 2 license here), so long as they pass all the tests, any other firearm must be work related (registered armed guard, feral animal eradicator, military personal, police officer or athletic sports person) where the conditions are very much stricter. Any felony offence or AVO here will result in your firearm license being instantly cancelled and your firearms confiscated or being disqualified from ever holding a license. Stupidity is not an excuse. Cheers. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
I'll dispute your link Gary as I've tried to go through the statistics for your country and in reality you have to average out each against another because they're all corrupted one way or the other and ATM no one will ever know the true facts until a central register is compiled there, but in the end neither is a true gauge and blaming the "mentally ill" is just a plain cop out. Doesn't matter how many times you tell Dumb and Dumber they will never get it . Why well wiggo you noticed the adds about the shark lift away vac before X-mas ? Fuunny how before they said it was better than a Dyson but I've noticed the adds had changed after not seeing them for a while and now they don't say there better than a Dyson and the new add also looks like it's been stopped as it to covertly suggests its the best vac out there . Wonder if it's been taken off air again for FALSE advertising . Now your asking why did I bring this up well it points to part off the problem , Americans are so used to being lied too they can't tell the truth when it's right in front of there eyes . They need there lies to keep there big ego's going . I say let more and more of the Dumb and Dumber's get there guns and hopefully they will all kill each other and the world will be a much safer place without them |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
No, I understood it. I read that some Texans who happened to black want to be able to carry guns like so many Texans do, but they are also aware that being black makes it more likely that they will be harassed if they do because of the colour of their skin, so they asked that the law make sure they can be as Texan as anyone else. - Most Now Oppose an Assault Weapons Ban; I have heard about that claim and also read that its not actually founded on anything more that hearsay and wishful thinking. The Democrats, and The Left, are on the losing side. Regarding peoples wants and wishes. They also happen to be on the side of the American majority when it comes to gun control. If they are losing its because special interest groups such as the NRA want them to. Reality Internet Personality |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Oregon militia threatens showdown with US agents at wildlife refuge I have a few questions about this. 1) Wild life refuge? Really? 2) Is it really ok to defend your right to burn down public land with assault weapons? 3) What would the reaction be if these people were black or muslim? Reality Internet Personality |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
Hearing the word militia always give me the creeps. Self appointed "law" enforcements using brute force that most countries consider is a crime. |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Hearing the word militia always give me the creeps. Agreed. Who are these thugs accountable to? Reality Internet Personality |
Mark Stevenson Send message Joined: 8 Sep 11 Posts: 1736 Credit: 174,899,165 RAC: 91 |
Hearing the word militia always give me the creeps. To God of course it's in their God dam constitution int it (Being f-ing sarcastic if you can't work it out !!) |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
More Socialism equals more misery. It’s really that simple You Americans are full off it really. Your constitution is based partly on what document which I believe you have a copy of in one of your national history museum. It gives people the right to bare arms against the authorities can you tell me what document I'm talking about , here is a clue it's about 800 years old now and is the basis for modern democracy's . Your 2nd is not as you say James Madison pointed out that this right was a unique historical protection when he said that the Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." Ever herd of the Magna Carta maybe you should read it first and not listen to silly people whom seem to have forgotten that document. Oh right you lot had a war against England is that why you now try to recreate history and forget all other history as the only history you need to know about is what you have created in the last 300 years . Keep telling yourself lies so you can feed that over the top EGO trip you are so in love with and the rest of the world will continue to see you lot as a bunch of hot head Cowboys with nuts so big your brain chokes for lack of blood . 135,000 plus killed or injured every year because of guns in your country and now more of you have them that figure will increase So much for the land of the free when everyone is so scared that they feel they need a gun just in case you say the wrong thing and someone pulls out a weapon and shoots you so much for free speech as well Wake up you dumb ..... for god sake |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
And one more thing your 2nd is a AMENDMENT so your founding fathers did not see it as you say otherwise it would not have had to be AMENDED . AMENDING your constitution is a attempt to change the conditions of the original document buy people with vested interests in the subject and I will also remind you lot of what happened in 1920 that was a mistake and yet it prove the above statement |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". To me a "well regulated militia" doesn't exist. Just a mob. |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and others was also thugs. Whats the difference between them and american thugs? All of them had one thing in common: only the government had guns. Nonsense. |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Some excerpts out of Donald Trump's latest book: Now I read your whole post I must say that it's very well written pity it is full off holes . We in our country have more control over our politicains than you lot do as the sacking of Tony Abbott has shown and to think we didn't even need the election to take place to remove him as that will occur some time this year . Under you thinking it's ok to own a nuke as that also is a Armament so are you now saying it's ok to allow every person to have them as well . The NRA need to stop over exaggerate things and stop being Hippocrates there is a big difference to owning a side arm and a Automatic assault rifle just as there is a big difference between owning a nuke and a assault rifle. protect your right to own a gun yes but don't play into the hands of the criminals and make those weapons so easerly to get that all a crim has to do is break into any house to steal the weapons they wish to have if only 1 in 100 homes has a gun then it's far harder for them to steal them but if every second or every home has them well that just playing into there hands as it wont matter witch home they break into they are shore there will be a gun there to steal . Get rid off all Automatic weapons designed for the military and assault rifles are made for military not personal protection and you don't need one to hunt either |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and others was also thugs. +1 Reality Internet Personality |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
Who was Adolf Hitler accountable to? why don't read up on Hitler he was elected first and his brown coats did not have weapons that's why Hitler was jailed when he try'd to take power the first time but it didn't stop him becoming there leader . Stalin's people had weapons otherwise they would not have had to fight the Casers soldiers as they would have lost . Moa also had weapons and fought many battles against the leaders Pol pot well that one I give you. Stop making up your own version of history and actually find out how things happened |
Mark Stevenson Send message Joined: 8 Sep 11 Posts: 1736 Credit: 174,899,165 RAC: 91 |
Just watched a report about that militia in America on a BBC 4 program was called " world news "and it will be available on BBC iPlayer or sure it will appear on you tube soon enough easy enough to Google if you want to see it. Just watching the report shows how much you need stronger gun control laws , then again from some in that report you could do with looking at birth control laws to ! |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.