What's it gonna take for this to end, people?

[Pumpkin Row]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I really don’t care that law-abiding citizens own guns because it has gotten to the point where people need guns.

That is a surprising bit of honesty from you, Billy. This is actually true.

What are you planning to do, in earnest, to stop it?

Too goddamn many wind up in the hands of criminals. If the country didn’t become so gun crazy to begin with, maybe the invention of guns would have been so much more limited to simple home protection and nothing else.

And how many of the current gun laws we have already passed stopped criminals from getting these guns? Do me a favor, name them for me.

There are 100 million+ gun owners in the US. If they were all the problem, you wouldn't alive to talk about it. Simple logic, not a threat on you.

Instead, this country has 11,000 deaths per year from guns - a rate that per capita far exceeds any other developed nation.

Using your "developed nation" criteria, the Honduras is a developed nation. Their per capita gun death rate is 60 per 100,000. Ours is 12 per 100,000. That exceeds ours by a factor of FIVE TIMES. And they are significantly smaller country than we are.

In fact, more gun deaths in the US occur via suicide than homicide. Nearly double the homicide rate. DOUBLE, Billy.

Republicans love guns simply because it gives them a false sense of manliness and toughness.

Actually, that's not true and you know it. Simply untrue.

So, would you say that to any woman who owns firearms for the sake of defending herself or her family? Or is it because she wants to be tough and manly?

That is erm... incredibly sexist.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Well, except for the fact that everything you just mentioned is purely subjective. Back to the drawing boards for you!

 

[Billy000]

I really don’t care that law-abiding citizens own guns because it has gotten to the point where people need guns.

That is a surprising bit of honesty from you, Billy. This is actually true.

What are you planning to do, in earnest, to stop it?

Too goddamn many wind up in the hands of criminals. If the country didn’t become so gun crazy to begin with, maybe the invention of guns would have been so much more limited to simple home protection and nothing else.

And how many of the current gun laws we have already passed stopped criminals from getting these guns? Do me a favor, name them for me.

There are 100 million+ gun owners in the US. If they were all the problem, you wouldn't alive to talk about it. Simple logic, not a threat on you.

Instead, this country has 11,000 deaths per year from guns - a rate that per capita far exceeds any other developed nation.

Using your "developed nation" criteria, the Honduras is a developed nation. Their per capita gun death rate is 60 per 100,000. Ours is 12 per 100,000. That exceeds ours by a factor of FIVE TIMES. And they are significantly smaller country than we are.

In fact, more gun deaths in the US occur via suicide than homicide. Nearly double the homicide rate. DOUBLE, Billy.

Republicans love guns simply because it gives them a false sense of manliness and toughness.

Actually, that's not true and you know it. Simply untrue.

So, would you say that to any woman who owns firearms for the sake of defending herself or her family? Or is it because she wants to be tough and manly?

That is erm... incredibly sexist.

Gun laws barley ever get passed. The ones that do are feeble. Republicans can’t even handle a universal background check. Gun control works fine in other countries.

Honduras? Please. Barely is it developed.

Again you’re missing the point. I’m not saying guns should be outlawed. The point is that republicans are so goddamn obsessed with the amendment. If they weren’t, maybe we would have common sense gun control by now. Maybe assault rifles wouldn’t have been made for civilians to begin with. We are way past that now.

 

[Billy000]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Mental disorders are defined by being pervasive and a pattern in behavior. If the behavior causes chronic distress to the afflicted or to those around him or her long term, it is considered a disorder. That is how mental disorders are defined.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Yeah "good government" or in essence, no government.

I have a certified mental disorder that makes me prone to violent outbursts. They have been documented by all the psychologists that ever treated me.

Should I be able to go out and buy a gun? Most certainly not. Reasonably speaking, it should be the government's (if we are to have any government at all), to research the mental stability of anyone looking to purchase firearms. Keep extensive records. Fine anyone who doesn't a hefty amount.

People who own firearms are and never will be eternally mentally stable. Anything can rob you of your mental health, anything can cause some seemingly mentally stable Joe to suddenly snap, go out and get a gun, or use the gun they already own, to plan the deaths of innocent people.

What are we going to do about it?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Mental disorders are defined by being pervasive and a pattern in behavior. If the behavior causes chronic distress to the afflicted or to those around him or her long term, it is considered a disorder. That is how mental disorders are defined.

That's incredibly arbitrary, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a perfect example of that. There's no actual basis for normal behavior, since every single individual is different. All that needs to be done is to pick out behavior loosely considered strange, then attach a label to it.

Besides, the mentally ill are only being used as scape goats, they're LESS likely to hurt anyone, and MORE likely to be victims, actually most likely to hurt themselves rather than anyone else.

 

[Billy000]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Mental disorders are defined by being pervasive and a pattern in behavior. If the behavior causes chronic distress to the afflicted or to those around him or her long term, it is considered a disorder. That is how mental disorders are defined.

That's incredibly arbitrary, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a perfect example of that. There's no actual basis for normal behavior, since every single individual is different. All that needs to be done is to pick out behavior loosely considered strange, then attach a label to it.

Besides, the mentally ill are only being used as scape goats, they're LESS likely to hurt anyone, and MORE likely to be victims, actually most likely to hurt themselves rather than anyone else.

ODD is based on a pattern of pervasive behavior that causes long term distress for the person and causes distress in the people around them. No one is suggesting that a kid simply throwing a tantrum has ODD. It’s measured by how often it happens and what sort of problems it creates.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Yeah "good government" or in essence, no government.

I have a certified mental disorder that makes me prone to violent outbursts. They have been documented by all the psychologists that ever treated me.

Should I be able to go out and buy a gun? Most certainly not. Reasonably speaking, it should be the government's (if we are to have any government at all), to research the mental stability of anyone looking to purchase firearms. Keep extensive records. Fine anyone who doesn't a hefty amount.

People who own firearms are and never will be eternally mentally stable. Anything can rob you of your mental health, anything can cause some seemingly mentally stable Joe to suddenly snap, go out and get a gun, or use the gun they already own, to plan the deaths of innocent people.

What are we going to do about it?

No Government would be optimal yes, I look forward to the collapse of every single one.

Yes, yes you should. Owning property is passive, and there is not a single situation in which merely owning that property is unethical, so you VERY MUCH should be able to own a firearm. Everyone should be able to protect themselves, and if you decide for yourself that you should not own one, that SHOULD be your choice.

Mentally ill people are less likely to commit violent crimes, acting like they are a problem is actually incredibly ignorant, especially since the data is freely available to you. There's really no excuse.

If someone DOES try to go on a shooting spree, if the potential victims armed, he will MAYBE harm single person before being gunned down himself. Most people would either reconsider or never consider it in the first place, since they would associate higher risk with hurting an armed community.

As much as I'm sure state-worshippers would love to just rely on the Road Pirates and their fifteen minute response time, it's pretty clear that they're just tax collectors for the Government. Just hire private security... oh wait, the Government forces you to fund centralized security instead. It's almost like they're a direct impediment to your ability to defend yourself.

 

[Crixus]

DISCLAIMER: This opinion in no way indicates my support or lack thereof of an assault weapons ban.

Now the opinion.

I feel that if you have an assault weapon, you should be able to keep it once a potential assault weapons ban goes into effect. However, if one were to take effect, you shouldn't be able buy any more. It seems like to me you are not being prevented from bearing the arms you purchased previously.

KEEP READING

On the other hand, the muskets and other long rifles used during the Revolutionary War were essentially what assault rifles are today: the top of the line weapons of their era. Presumably, the founders foresaw the use of even more advanced rifles for self defense by the citizenry, hence the Second Amendment.

So, two arguments. One question:

Is there a middle ground? What compromise can we reach to stop crazed mass shooters?

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

Molon Abe? Please. Come and take them? Please. Stop trying to be the tough guy/gal you aren't.

Declare the NRA (and thus all 5.5 million of its members) as a domestic terror group like the city of San Francisco just did? Please. PLEASE. What the actual f**k man? Put your fake emotions away, you aren't convincing anyone.

Be reminded that if I have an opinion of my own on this subject, I will share it. Do not apply opinions to me. If you do, you will be ignored, immediately. Thank you, kindly.

Okay, let the cage match begin.

Well, the first part was already done. Cosmetic features were banned and mag capacity reduced to ten rounds. All currently owned "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines currently owned were grandfathered in and only LE and military were allowed to buy the hi cap's. Two things happened. Colombine out in Colorado happened and gun crime died t change one bit. And the other thing that happened was the price of hi cap mags went from $8 bucks to $40. I think a better approach would be to take a look at the prescription drugs these people were taking. Anti depressants seem to be a commonality among these people. And bullying for the school shooters. Almost all the school shooters were relentlessly bullied by the peers they shot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again you’re missing the point.

How? What was the point, aside from your visible and clearly stated hatred of Republicans?

I’m not saying guns should be outlawed. The point is that republicans are so goddamn obsessed with the amendment. If they weren’t, maybe we would have common sense gun control by now

So, if we aren't outlawing guns, what are we doing? What do you define as "common sense"? What policies are "common sense"? Serious question.

Honduras? Please. Barely is it developed.

Lets not parse words, Billy.

According to the United Nations Statistics Division:

There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system.[9]

And it notes that:

The designations "developed" and "developing" are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process.[10]

Developed country - Wikipedia

 

[Pumpkin Row]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Mental disorders are defined by being pervasive and a pattern in behavior. If the behavior causes chronic distress to the afflicted or to those around him or her long term, it is considered a disorder. That is how mental disorders are defined.

That's incredibly arbitrary, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a perfect example of that. There's no actual basis for normal behavior, since every single individual is different. All that needs to be done is to pick out behavior loosely considered strange, then attach a label to it.

Besides, the mentally ill are only being used as scape goats, they're LESS likely to hurt anyone, and MORE likely to be victims, actually most likely to hurt themselves rather than anyone else.

ODD is based on a pattern of pervasive behavior that causes long term distress for the person and causes distress in the people around them. No one is suggesting that a kid simply throwing a tantrum has ODD. It’s measured by how often it happens and what sort of problems it creates.

Once again, that's completely arbitrary. Any behavior can cause distress in those around a person, or the person themselves. Since there's no basis for normal, as normal doesn't exist, anyone can pick out a pattern of behavior and attach a label for it. A good example is a person laughing when they're nervous; Since a person can get nervous at any time, people around them can find the behavior disturbing, especially when it happens at inappropriate times. Someone can arbitrarily decide that this is a mental disorder.

 

[DamnDude]

Pre-Crime? Red flag laws? Can somebody's mental health state be legislated? Can somebody's intentions be pre-determined?
When Walmart bans carrying guns in their stores, who will be bringing guns into Walmart? The good guys for protection, or the bad guys for mass murder?
No easy answers here. I can only add that taking guns away from folks who have them exclusively for self defense is not the answer.

Sadly, the biggest thing Wal-Mart will accomplish with their latest action is just make them another soft target..... across the nation.

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

At the risk of being put on ignore, there is truth in the statement. For the Midland/Odessa shooter, no, sadly, it would not have. In that matter, I would have to say a possible fix would have to include making it mandatory for any sell, private or FFL, to have a NICS check done by a FFL holder and have them be the bearer of the news to both seller and potential buyer.

To address the statement in bold...... The Sutherland Springs shooter never should have been allowed access to purchase his weapons.. The Air Force failed in making sure he was in the NICS system as a no, as did the jurisdiction where he was convicted of domestic violence. Someones(yes, plural), somewhere failed monumentally.

I myself would never sell a weapon to anyone I don't personally know.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Mentally ill people are less likely to commit violent crimes, acting like they are a problem is actually incredibly ignorant, especially since the data is freely available to you. There's really no excuse.

I'm curious, why do all the mass murderers in America seem to have a history of it? Regardless of what was used to kill?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pre-Crime? Red flag laws? Can somebody's mental health state be legislated? Can somebody's intentions be pre-determined?
When Walmart bans carrying guns in their stores, who will be bringing guns into Walmart? The good guys for protection, or the bad guys for mass murder?
No easy answers here. I can only add that taking guns away from folks who have them exclusively for self defense is not the answer.

Sadly, the biggest thing Wal-Mart will accomplish with their latest action is just make them another soft target..... across the nation.

And no "enforce the laws we already have" wont work this time. The Odessa shooter exploited a loophole to get the weapon he murdered those people with.

At the risk of being put on ignore, there is truth in the statement. For the Midland/Odessa shooter, no, sadly, it would not have. In that matter, I would have to say a possible fix would have to include making it mandatory for any sell, private or FFL, to have a NICS check done by a FFL holder and have them be the bearer of the news to both seller and potential buyer.

To address the statement in bold...... The Sutherland Springs shooter never should have been allowed access to purchase his weapons.. The Air Force failed in making sure he was in the NICS system as a no, as did the jurisdiction where he was convicted of domestic violence. Someones(yes, plural), somewhere failed monumentally.

I myself would never sell a weapon to anyone I don't personally know.

Yours was a perfectly reasonable response. No need for drastic measures.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What determines a mental illness?

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Giving a government that kind of control will be the end of free society. I vote no.

Did I suggest such?

 

[Bush92]

“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There it is folks. Pure and simple.

 

[Billy000]

Again you’re missing the point.

How? What was the point, aside from your visible and clearly stated hatred of Republicans?

I’m not saying guns should be outlawed. The point is that republicans are so goddamn obsessed with the amendment. If they weren’t, maybe we would have common sense gun control by now

So, if we aren't outlawing guns, what are we doing? What do you define as "common sense"? What policies are "common sense"? Serious question.

Honduras? Please. Barely is it developed.

Lets not parse words, Billy.

According to the United Nations Statistics Division:

There is no established convention for the designation of "developed" and "developing" countries or areas in the United Nations system.[9]

And it notes that:

The designations "developed" and "developing" are intended for statistical convenience and do not necessarily express a judgement about the stage reached by a particular country or area in the development process.[10]

Developed country - Wikipedia

Oh please. Honduras is politically unstable. The point is, Australia, Japan, England, France, and Scandinavian countries etc do not even come close to our gun violence.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Mentally ill people are less likely to commit violent crimes, acting like they are a problem is actually incredibly ignorant, especially since the data is freely available to you. There's really no excuse.

I'm curious, why do all the mass murderers in America seem to have a history of it? Regardless of what was used to kill?

I'm going to pretend that you didn't just cut out the vast majority of my response, choosing not to respond to it. Usually when someone does that, it gives me the feeling that they're not actually interested in honest discussion.

Because mental illness is completely arbitrary, as I've been explaining to Billy. Being depressed is a mental illness, not wanting to follow the directions of an "authority figure" is considered a mental illness, etc. Besides that, when anything is covered in the state-run media, it's to push the agenda of the Government, so in many cases it'll either be a false flag, or misinformation will be attached. A good example is the recent Walmart shooting, where the guy apparently changed clothes before being caught, and managed to shoot 30 people, with a 30 round gun, with no spare ammo on him.

 

[Billy000]

Provable, peer reviewed and relevant science. Data and observation. Good governments use science in situations like these, not baseless rhetoric or political motives.

Any kind of behavior can be considered a mental illness, like Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

There's no such thing as a "Good Government", that's an oxymoron.

Mental disorders are defined by being pervasive and a pattern in behavior. If the behavior causes chronic distress to the afflicted or to those around him or her long term, it is considered a disorder. That is how mental disorders are defined.

That's incredibly arbitrary, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a perfect example of that. There's no actual basis for normal behavior, since every single individual is different. All that needs to be done is to pick out behavior loosely considered strange, then attach a label to it.

Besides, the mentally ill are only being used as scape goats, they're LESS likely to hurt anyone, and MORE likely to be victims, actually most likely to hurt themselves rather than anyone else.

ODD is based on a pattern of pervasive behavior that causes long term distress for the person and causes distress in the people around them. No one is suggesting that a kid simply throwing a tantrum has ODD. It’s measured by how often it happens and what sort of problems it creates.

Once again, that's completely arbitrary. Any behavior can cause distress in those around a person, or the person themselves. Since there's no basis for normal, as normal doesn't exist, anyone can pick out a pattern of behavior and attach a label for it. A good example is a person laughing when they're nervous; Since a person can get nervous at any time, people around them can find the behavior disturbing, especially when it happens at inappropriate times. Someone can arbitrarily decide that this is a mental disorder.

Disorders are defined as pervasive, long term, and create distress in those afflicted and/or those around them. You can define “normal” however you want beyond that I guess.