Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 24 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1329317 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 3:45:34 UTC - in response to Message 1329306.  

The internet is an amazing thing, you can find anything on it. Guy has.

I sometimes wonder though if I am getting a distorted view of America through it. From what I can gather from this thread alone, guns are people and have rights. Woman are people until they get pregnant, then they have no rights, but the bundle of cells that can't survive without them count as people.
The mentally ill are not people, they don't have rights.

So in America guns, balls of cells and corporations are people and Americans will fight to protect their constitutional rights.

Children are people, but protecting guns is more important that protecting children.

The mentally ill and woman are not people and have no constitutional rights.

..and people wonder why I wouldn't want to live there.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1329317 · Report as offensive
Profile Ex: "Socialist"
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 3433
Credit: 2,616,158
RAC: 2
United States
Message 1329326 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 4:35:19 UTC - in response to Message 1329317.  

The internet is an amazing thing, you can find anything on it. Guy has.

I sometimes wonder though if I am getting a distorted view of America through it. From what I can gather from this thread alone, guns are people and have rights. Woman are people until they get pregnant, then they have no rights, but the bundle of cells that can't survive without them count as people.
The mentally ill are not people, they don't have rights.

So in America guns, balls of cells and corporations are people and Americans will fight to protect their constitutional rights.

Children are people, but protecting guns is more important that protecting children.

The mentally ill and woman are not people and have no constitutional rights.

..and people wonder why I wouldn't want to live there.


About 51% of us see things your way. And growing.

It's a start.
#resist
ID: 1329326 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1329330 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 5:09:12 UTC

My Physiatrist brother in law pointed me to this publication. Crime is not his field. He specialises in health problems in immigrants especially those who don't learn the local language.
Mind UK - Mental health facts and statistics

Dangerousness
Introduction

This page explores the nature of dangerousness and the differing perceptions of dangerousness, how literature and the media influence these perceptions, and how these perceptions can impact different groups of people, particularly those with mental health problems. The page also provides statistics relating to dangerousness and its links with mental health problems, propensity to violence and predictors of dangerousness.
What is dangerousness?

Although “dangerousness” is an emotive term that is widely used in the mental health field and the media, there is no consensus on its meaning. [1] Dangerousness has been described as: "an unpredictable and untreatable tendency to inflict or risk serious, irreversible injury or destruction, or to induce others to do so" [2] and "a propensity to cause serious physical injury or lasting physical harm". [3]

In his article ‘Defining the terms’ in Dangerousness, psychiatric assessment and management, Gunn states that the term dangerousness is made up of three elements – destructiveness, prediction and fear. “The latter, fear, makes it at least partially subjective, therefore it can never be entirely objective." [4] Prediction is also highly subjective.

Perceptions of dangerousness vary, and literature and the media influence these perceptions. The most common perception of dangerousness is in the form of one person presenting a danger to others. More often than not, however, dangerousness presents in the form of people being a danger to themselves, through suicide or deliberate self-harm.

Public perceptions of dangerousness can impact on different groups of people, particularly people with mental health problems and people from minority ethnic groups. The effects of such stigmatisation can be extremely negative, and in some cases has even led people from these groups to become victims of violent crime.

These issues are discussed in more detail below.
Key facts about violence

Out of 1,564 people convicted for homicide in England and Wales between April 1996 and April 1999, 164 (10 per cent) were found to have had symptoms of mental health problems at the time of the offence. [5] A later study looking at homicides committed between January 1997 and December 2005 found that the same proportion, 10 per cent (510 of 5,189), were by individuals known to have had mental health problems at the time of the offence. [6]

In 2009, the total population in England and Wales aged 16 or over was just over 43 million. It has been estimated that about one in six of the adult population will have a significant mental health problem at any one time, [7], [8] which amounts to more than 7 million people. Given this number and the 50–70 cases of homicide a year involving people known to have a mental health problem at the time of the murder, [9] clearly the statistics data do not support the sensationalised media coverage about the danger that people with mental health problems present to the community.

The majority of violent crimes and homicides are committed by people who do not have mental health problems. In fact, 95 per cent of homicides are committed by people who have not been diagnosed with a mental health problem.[10]

Contrary to popular belief, the incidence of homicide committed by people diagnosed with mental health problems has stayed at a fairly constant level since the 1990s. [11]

The fear of random unprovoked attacks on strangers by people with mental health problems is unjustified. This has been highlighted by a US finding that patients with psychosis who are living in the community are 14 times more likely to be the victims of a violent crime than to be arrested for such a crime. [12]

According to the British Crime Survey, almost half (47 per cent) of the victims of violent crimes believed that their offender was under the influence of alcohol and about 17 per cent believed that the offender was under the influence of drugs. [13] Another survey suggested that about 30 per cent of victims believed that the offender attacked them because they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In contrast, only one per cent of victims believed that the violent incident happened because the offender had a mental illness. [14]

People with mental health problems are more dangerous to themselves than they are to others: 90 per cent of people who die through suicide in the UK are experiencing mental distress. [15]

People with serious mental illness are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than the perpetrator. One study found that more than one in four people with a severe mental illness had been a victim of crime in one year. [16]

It is also worth keeping in mind that many cases of violence in the community get reported three times – the event, the court case, and the inquiry report – thus greatly exaggerating the number of cases in the public’s mind.


So if these figures are similar in the US, those that want to lock up the "crazies" want to lock up 1 in 6 or 50 Million Americans, to stop ~350 violent crimes committed by people with mental health problems, out of about 1.2 million violent crimes committed each year in the US.
ID: 1329330 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1329334 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 5:17:32 UTC - in response to Message 1329277.  

If they allow a drunk person to drive away in that vehicle they are breaking the law.

Cite please.

ID: 1329334 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1329338 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 5:31:08 UTC - in response to Message 1329330.  

More often than not, however, dangerousness presents in the form of people being a danger to themselves, through suicide or deliberate self-harm.

e.g. Suicide by cop.

In fact, 95 per cent of homicides are committed by people who have not been diagnosed with a mental health problem.[10]

Isn't a person who would commit homicide by definition mentally ill? Or have these 95% been misdiagnosed?


ID: 1329338 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1329451 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 16:03:40 UTC - in response to Message 1329303.  

We currently have legislation (proposed or otherwise) to ban all guys?

(If we did I might have my over your button)


How many times does a screen name need to be changed anyway, right?
ID: 1329451 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1329484 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 17:43:07 UTC - in response to Message 1329395.  

Isn't a person who would commit homicide by definition mentally ill?


No, not if the victim is a conservative, a republican, or an unborn child.


Cite, please? LOL!
ID: 1329484 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1329488 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 17:51:06 UTC - in response to Message 1329460.  
Last modified: 20 Jan 2013, 17:53:32 UTC

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations, such as ad hominem attacks by people ...


Yeah? Find one. Red X me. Your posts have been demonstrably hostile to ALL people from several months.

... like "Sarge the Pro..tagonist" (name change number .... 4 or 5?) who project on people who spread the truth.


You have a problem with "using absurdity to demonstrate the absurd"?
Whose line is that? Hint: initials R.L.

History shows us that ...
... it was the Weimar Republic that passed the gun laws in Germany, before the Nazis rose to power.

BTW, find out what your current hero, Alex Jones, really believes: Alex Jones discusses Area 51 with "Tim".
"Project" them holograms. Mmmm, bacon holograms, hot and tasty, fer shur hair parted and more lampoony posts on the way!
ID: 1329488 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1329491 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 17:55:12 UTC

As stated before, his cuff buttons clack against the podium almost every time he speaks. It is hard to find him a "charming" speaker, leading us to the world's end, when there's that constant distraction.
ID: 1329491 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1329524 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 18:56:05 UTC

Another multiple shooting, no details at moment so no speculating.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435
ID: 1329524 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1329528 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 19:04:11 UTC - in response to Message 1329524.  

Another multiple shooting, no details at moment so no speculating.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21110435


It was a 15 year old kid, the only Democrat in a 6 member family. He heard Obama's voice in his head telling him to shoot the rest of his family, so Obama would have more cause to take away the guns.
ID: 1329528 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1329538 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 19:32:57 UTC - in response to Message 1329460.  

...

History shows us that as free nations become complacent, they become vulnerable to manipulation. Most dictatorships rise gradually -- a step at a time. Smooth talking politicians make each incremental step seem reasonable, because the masses are blind to the tides of change. The wisdom of Wendell Phillips fades away: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Austria illustrates the power of gradualism. In 1933, it was a free nation. In 1934, its government began to centralize its power and welcome the influence of Nazi sympathizers. By 1938, it had become a Nazi dictatorship .

The downward slide began with one crisis after another. A third of the people were out of work, inflation rose to 25%, and political turmoil caused civil unrest. People longed for a leader to rescue them. Adolf Hitler campaigned in Austria, promising to solve their problems if they were annexed to Germany. A persuasive speaker, he gave them hope and won their hearts. The Austrian people voted him in.


You slipped over a major component of how he won their sympathies. He found a scapegoat for all Germany's problems. He picked on one group of people, demonised them and blamed them for everything that was wrong. He was the ultimate conspiracy theorist.

He then picked on that group and forced them to identify themselves to start with. He then insisted that they carry papers proving their identity at all times. By picking an easy to blame scapegoat he was able to promise an easy fix to the German populace.

There are tactics like this going on in the US, but they seem to be going on at state level, rather than federal level.

Some groups I have noticed being demonised and blamed for the current problems in the US, even though they actually have nothing to do with them are:

Immigrants.
Unions.
Non-Christians.

Arizona even went as far as forcing immigrants to have to carry papers all the time. I didn't hear you crying "Nazi" at that point.

...

Gun control came in two stages. First there was gun registration, and then the people were required to give up their guns. Once the people were unarmed, they had no way of defending themselves against the Nazis. After that, political correctness replaced freedom of speech; taxes were increased to eighty percent (i.e., four fifths of income); the nation was filled with informers; anybody who spoke against the government was arrested; and the people lived in constant fear.

Do you actually have any idea of the real causes of the 2nd world war? From this paragraph, you have ignored the real issues that were going on in Germany at the time. I don't understand your argument that guns were why the German people didn't defend themselves against the Nazis.

The Nazi's sold them a lie and they went along with it. They were the Nazi's. That is why it worked.

It worked because people like you believed the lie. Just like you believe the NRA lies...and the Fox propaganda lies..and the Glen Beck lies.



http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/010/incremental.htm

What a load of propaganda bullsh*t. What you just posted is so misinformed, deliberately emotive...it is worthy of Goebbels himself (while we're on the Nazi theme). I love the bit at the end about being a Christian. You are being nicely set up there to start to otherise anyone who is non-christian.

I look forward to your future pamphlets on how Athiests (or whatever non-Christian group gets chosen here) eat babies and the are stealing jobs and controlling the banks.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1329538 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1329597 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 21:30:22 UTC - in response to Message 1329538.  

There is no measurable difference between a fundamentalist christian and a fundamentalist Islamist. Both seek to return to rules and life 2000 years ago. That is a dangerous person who should be locked up and not permitted access to guns or society.

ID: 1329597 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1329604 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 21:51:33 UTC - in response to Message 1329597.  

There is no measurable difference between a fundamentalist christian and a fundamentalist Islamist. Both seek to return to rules and life 2000 years ago. That is a dangerous person who should be locked up and not permitted access to guns or society.

Since neither religion existed 2000 years ago you are contending both religions want to return to a time where neither existed?
I do agree with your statement that ideologues are dangerous.
ID: 1329604 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1329606 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 21:59:41 UTC - in response to Message 1329604.  

There is no measurable difference between a fundamentalist christian and a fundamentalist Islamist. Both seek to return to rules and life 2000 years ago. That is a dangerous person who should be locked up and not permitted access to guns or society.

Since neither religion existed 2000 years ago you are contending both religions want to return to a time where neither existed?
I do agree with your statement that ideologues are dangerous.

They do wish to return to a rule set from then, perhaps even earlier.

ID: 1329606 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1329612 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 22:13:23 UTC

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/010/incremental.htm
Kitty Werthmann told us how Hitler nationalized the education system. Christian symbols were removed and prayer was banned. Through their government-run child care program, the Nazis would indoctrinate the children with politically correct ideology and absolute loyalty to Hitler. Hitler worship became part of the new structure. The daycare workers were trained in Marxist psychology, not motherly love, for Hitler was fascinated with communist mind-control.

Really? Guess the commies were quick to organize, research and disseminate after their Bloody Revolution, then, right?

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luria/works/1979/mind/intro.htm
All of these ideas, which are to be found in Luria's writings as early as the 1920s, render him a prematurely modern psychologist who happened to begin life before his ideas could find confirmation in existing technologies or data. But it is not possible or appropriate to locate Luria's ideas only in terms of world psychology and neurophysiology. The fact that he was a Russian intellectual actively involved in the building of Soviet science and psychology shaped his career from its earliest days.

For approximately a decade following the Revolution there was a great deal of experimentation and improvization in the conduct of Soviet science, education, and economic policy. Less well known than the political struggles after Lenin's death are the experiments with new forms of schooling, free market agriculture, modern means of expression in the arts, and new branches of science. During the 1920s, virtually every psychological movement existing in western Europe and the United States found adherents in the Soviet Union. Perhaps because psychology as an academic discipline was embryonic at the end of the tsarist era, with only a single institute devoted to what was then recognized as psychology proper, an unusual variety of viewpoints and activities competed actively for the right to determine what the new Soviet psychology should be like. Educators, doctors, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, neurologists. and physiologists often contributed to national meetings devoted to discussions of research and theory.

As the decade progressed, three issues came to dominate these discussions. First, there was increasing concern that Soviet psychology should be self-consciously Marxist. No-one was certain what this meant, but everyone joined in the discussion with their own proposals. Second, psychology must be a materialist discipline; all psychologists were obliged to search for the material basis of mind. And third, psychology should have relevance to the building of a socialist society. Lenin's exhortation that theory be tested in practice was a matter of both economic and social urgency.

Toward the end of the 1920s this discussion had progressed to a point where there was agreement on some general principles, but the major conclusions did not single out any existing approach as a model for others. At the same time, the country experienced new economic and social upheavals with the advent of the rapid collectivization of agriculture and a greatly accelerated pace of heavy industrial development. Existing psychological schools were found to be wanting in their practical contributions to these new social demands as well.

A major result of these ideological and performance deficiencies was a deliberate reorganization of psychological research in the mid-1930s. While the specific events associated with this reorganization grew out of dissatisfaction with the use of psychological tests in education and industry, the result was a general decline in the authority and prestige of psychology as a whole.
ID: 1329612 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1329626 - Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 22:53:06 UTC - in response to Message 1329612.  

I do not know where people get this notion that the nazi's closed christian schools ar had their symbols removed. They in fact closed secular schools, because of their belief that secular schools could not teach morals.
ID: 1329626 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 . . . 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?


 
©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.