Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There it is folks. Pure and simple.
Riveting, you've told me the same thing three times. You really should read a person's post instead of repeating yourself over and over.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.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.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.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.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.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.
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.
We will always have mentally ill people who are fully functioning living within our society. They will also have access to firearms because the right to do so cannot be taken away, no more than can the right to religious freedom. Some of these people will snap. Part of life.“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There it is folks. Pure and simple.
Alright then.
This is what I am getting:
Do nothing about gun violence, because "muh rights". And if we do something, let's take it completely too far.
Thank you to those who offered reasonable responses to my thread. And also, thanks to all of you who made the point of my thread.
My conclusion:
There is no solution. Neither side wants one.
See, you’re rambling on about “normal” being arbitrary. I’m not talking about “normal”. Normal is arbitrary of course, but a mental disorder has a specific definition and criteria. It doesn’t get simpler than that.Riveting, you've told me the same thing three times. You really should read a person's post instead of repeating yourself over and over.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.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.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.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.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.
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.
Regardless of how many times you repeat to me what you've been told, that's STILL completely arbitrary and can be said for any behavior, I even gave you a goddamn example. I swear, if you keep ignoring my posts and repeating yourself, I'll just start screenshotting my messages and reposting them.Nobody likes how you just talk at people instead of to them, it defeats the purpose of talking on a message board. Go start a damn blog or something.
Good God. No, I'm saying that PERVASIVE and LONG-TERM are completely arbitrary, because anyone can call any behavior both of those things. Of course, this isn't unexpected, since you seem to think calling something "Common Sense" isn't arbitrary, just because politicians keep saying it.See, you’re rambling on about “normal” being arbitrary. I’m not talking about “normal”. Normal is arbitrary of course, but a mental disorder has a specific definition and criteria. It doesn’t get simpler than that.Riveting, you've told me the same thing three times. You really should read a person's post instead of repeating yourself over and over.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.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.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.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.
Regardless of how many times you repeat to me what you've been told, that's STILL completely arbitrary and can be said for any behavior, I even gave you a goddamn example. I swear, if you keep ignoring my posts and repeating yourself, I'll just start screenshotting my messages and reposting them.Nobody likes how you just talk at people instead of to them, it defeats the purpose of talking on a message board. Go start a damn blog or something.
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.
Maybe they don't force-feed their kids Ridalin and Zoloft for interrupting 7th grade history by blowing spitballs behind the teachers back.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.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
Christ this isn’t hard to figure out. Pervasive and long term have pretty clear cut definitions. I gave you a specific definition and you want to pretend everything thing I am saying is arbitrary. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. Timeframe matters. The criteria is defined with a timeframe. It just depends on the disorder. For instance, in order to be diagnosed as clinically depressed, one feels the symptoms every day for two weeks. If such a person remains chronically depressed with the defined symptoms, they are depressed LONG TERM with no foreseeable end. A person without clinical depression does not have this behavior. Lol you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.Good God. No, I'm saying that PERVASIVE and LONG-TERM are completely arbitrary, because anyone can call any behavior both of those things. Of course, this isn't unexpected, since you seem to think calling something "Common Sense" isn't arbitrary, just because politicians keep saying it.See, you’re rambling on about “normal” being arbitrary. I’m not talking about “normal”. Normal is arbitrary of course, but a mental disorder has a specific definition and criteria. It doesn’t get simpler than that.Riveting, you've told me the same thing three times. You really should read a person's post instead of repeating yourself over and over.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.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.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.
Regardless of how many times you repeat to me what you've been told, that's STILL completely arbitrary and can be said for any behavior, I even gave you a goddamn example. I swear, if you keep ignoring my posts and repeating yourself, I'll just start screenshotting my messages and reposting them.Nobody likes how you just talk at people instead of to them, it defeats the purpose of talking on a message board. Go start a damn blog or something.
The action didn't offend me, it met my expectations, since nobody here is here for honest discussion. It does annoy me, though.I focus directly on cogent points. I saw the quoted as such. Sorry for being offensive. If you would reference my posts to Billy, I quoted his entire post.
Not necessarily careless. People act in their own interests, and it's in the interest of the Government for people to rely on it. If everyone is disarmed, they are left to rely in centralized security for protection. One easy way to accomplish said disarming is, just for an example, to convince everyone that people with a mental illness are dangerous, then make it really easy to assign mental illness labels to people, then to pass Red Flag Laws at the state level, just like what has been happening while everyone was distracted by the Epstein reports.If one is careless, yes, it can be arbitrary. But what if it is a proven fact that one has a mental disorder that causes them to be a risk to others around them? In this case, are they to be allowed to present such a risk with a firearm in their hands?
It was a joke in reference to the fact that he entered in BDUs, then a man in kakies was arrested.Hm. And how does him changing clothes prove this was a false flag by the US Government? And if he were close to being caught how was he not stopped beforehand? Surely our law enforcement isn't that inept? If he changes clothes and doesn't conceal his face, he gets caught. If he changes clothes and does cover his face, that automatically raises suspicion, and he will be detained.
The fact that he injured or killed thirty people with thirty shots and no spare ammo, the fact that the man that was arrested was wearing different clothes, despite not having a chance to change, and the fact that he looked almost exactly like two previous shooters should rouse suspicion, especially after the Borderline and Church Christ false flags.I mean this with all due sincerity: I am totally willing to listen to any more evidence you may have to make your case. I need more than he simply "changed clothes before he was caught".
A soldier must change clothes before he goes to battle. A law enforcement officer must change clothes before he goes on the beat. A murderer with adequate skill and knowledge of firearms and tactical gear will change clothes before he goes out and murders innocent people. Good law enforcement will ensure he doesn't get the gun in the first place and won't get that far. Closing any loopholes in gun ownership laws will do the same (eh, and FYI, the gun show loophole isn't a valid excuse either, what is government gonna do? Take the guns away from everyone in there? Ha, good luck).
I am looking at both sides here. One was hoping that one or the other would at least suggest a solution.
But I asked for the impossible. A solution to this issue is impossible.
I give up.
Apparently it IS difficult for you to figure out. Any behavior can be long term and pervasive, I gave examples. Whether or not such behavior is a disorder is completely up to "authorities", and they can just decide this as it fits a narrative.Christ this isn’t hard to figure out. Pervasive and long term have pretty clear cut definitions. I gave you a specific definition and you want to pretend everything thing I am saying is arbitrary. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. Timeframe matters. The criteria is defined with a timeframe. It just depends on the disorder. For instance, in order to be diagnosed as clinically depressed, one feels the symptoms every day for two weeks. If such a person remains chronically depressed with the defined symptoms, they are depressed LONG TERM with no foreseeable end. A person without clinical depression does not have this behavior. Lol you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.Good God. No, I'm saying that PERVASIVE and LONG-TERM are completely arbitrary, because anyone can call any behavior both of those things. Of course, this isn't unexpected, since you seem to think calling something "Common Sense" isn't arbitrary, just because politicians keep saying it.See, you’re rambling on about “normal” being arbitrary. I’m not talking about “normal”. Normal is arbitrary of course, but a mental disorder has a specific definition and criteria. It doesn’t get simpler than that.Riveting, you've told me the same thing three times. You really should read a person's post instead of repeating yourself over and over.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.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.
Regardless of how many times you repeat to me what you've been told, that's STILL completely arbitrary and can be said for any behavior, I even gave you a goddamn example. I swear, if you keep ignoring my posts and repeating yourself, I'll just start screenshotting my messages and reposting them.Nobody likes how you just talk at people instead of to them, it defeats the purpose of talking on a message board. Go start a damn blog or something.
Any takers? Or are we all too dug in with our respective positions to do anything about this?
Ah, cliched talking points. What would we do without them?I could give you a lot of solutions, but folks that stand with the state don't want to hear it, they just want government to have the right to take freedom away, they don't want to hear anything else.
Yet other economically advanced countries demonstrate the solution everyday. 'No solution'!My conclusion:
There is no solution. Neither side wants one.
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.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.
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.
Pretend an arcane point has relevance to mass shootings with assault style rifles.I guess you're too stupid to know that the AR platform was licensed for sale to civilians a full 4 years before the military widely adopted it.
If some of these women in Europe had concealed carry they wouldn’t be getting raped by immigrants.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.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
