The Glade 4.0

But how will they discover that it IS a disease if they can't research it? It's like you don't WANT the government to be able to institutionalize people who seek out guns.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

We're going to "settle" for a bunch of regulations that make gun ownership burdensome and allow the state to seize them anyhow on any trumped-up justification the "inspectors" come up with, or just because some busybody says you have "violent tendencies" (of course you do; you have guns!)

Of course, there were plenty of opportunities to intervene here. This kid was practically served on a silver platter to local law enforcement and to the FBI and they didn't do anything; about the only thing else left to do in order to give the law a chance to be enforced would have been to hog-tie him, stuff an apple in his mouth, and drop him off at the county jail or the Miami field office. But what do we hear? "MOAR LAWZ!"

It's about taking away guns from law-abiding people. Nothing else. Criminals won't abide by these laws, and the laws won't be enforced against them. Gun grabbers do not care one bit; they know that criminals won't comply with the laws. It's about making sure that people who DO obey the law aren't allowed to make choices or live in ways gun-grabbers disapprove of.

It's the California mindset. Making sure law abiding people don't do anything you disapprove of is more important that actually preventing crime. Criminals are, after all, criminals. They're not a serious threat of anything beyond the occasional shooting. Law-abiding people are where the money and power is at.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The democrats totally controlled the executive and legislative branches 8 years ago and could easily have put through all sorts of legislation that they're now saying they want. If they really cared about human life... well, I've already made that point.

Really, this is all about crap to throw at their opponents in the next election.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

While that’s a reasonable claim on the surface, the data says otherwise.
http://cureviolence.org/results/scientific-evaluations/

Says otherwise to which part, exactly?

1. It does not address "gun violence"; it addresses "violent behavior". These are two very different things. Treating "violent behavior" generally in the same way as :

Other problems that are also not diseases


Addressing "violent behavior" is exactly what gun rights supporters want. Addressing "gun violence" as a public health issue is a cute way of focusing on the gun, rather than the violence, and excluding all other kinds of violence in order to target guns.

In fact, that's exactly what you did citing this link - you conflated a place that claims a behavior is a health issue with a claim that the presence of a specific object in the behavior is a health issue, with an obvious intent to target the object - this is exactly why Republicans oppose funding such research. Gun grabbers cannot be trusted to use any research honestly.

3. It's unclear why money for research is needed if such an effective program already exists

4. It's even more unclear why gun legislation would be needed if this program is so effective. Heck, even if these people are making exaggerated claims about their program, it's still got to have measureable effectiveness

That's why "gun violence" is not a public health issue - because the issue is "violent behavior", and "gun violence" is just intended to target guns, and **** the behavior.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I’ll respond more later but immediately addressing 3)
Because that’s how science works. Nothing is ever just taken as fact. Conclusions are always questioned and re analyzed. You repeat experiments over and over. You continue to refine. This is one reason why people who understand science are so dismissive of those who don’t. Because science deniers fail to understand that science is the antithesis of dogma. Anti-scientists somehow perceive this as a weakness of science rather than its primary strength. (And yet those same people are so fundamentally dependent on the same science they reject it’s laughable)

Just curious - is abortion “taking the life of a human being”? I’m pretty sure you’re going to go the “bunch of cells” route, but now you need to support that scientifically or all you’re doing is spouting dogma. It’s life... DNA analysis will say it’s cells from a human being...unique from anyone else, pretty much anyone ever (hard to prove that, but still...), and abortion certainly kills those cells, ending that particular combination of natural DNA forever. Go ahead, support your argument with links to scientific research, I’ll wait.

I’ll also bet you ignore the question, blinders firmly affixed.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Those who are bipolar 1, I believe should be excluded from gun ownership. If they are non-compliant and subsequently go manic, they are a danger to themselves and those around them. Current evidence says there is a genetic component to bipolar disorder. Nobody can ever be diagnosed with bipolar 1 without a manic episode though, so nobody's second amendment right should be revoked without a real bipolar diagnosis from a psychiatrist who will document specifically the DSM criteria used to make said diagnosis.

Prozac, and other anti-depressants, in the context of major depression is usually only problematic in the first few weeks before the drug is therapeutic. They tend to get the energy back before improvement of mood symptoms and that's the critical point they kill themselves. A system that temporarily suspends their right upon starting a new antidepressant might not be the worst idea due to the suicide risk but I balk a little bit at saying I'd commit to that and any such system should not have a permanent revocation for that group. Admittedly I'm a little bit sensitive on this group because I lost a friend after Thanksgiving to just this scenario and my frame of mind isn't objective enough yet.

_________________
The Dude abides.

I’ll be happy to engage in a discussion of abortion at some later point. But not in the context of a debate about gun control. And not on your terms. You can claim blinders all you want, in not going to dignify or pretend to entertain your rediculous premise with a further response.

Call it what you like. The fact of the matter is that guns are the weapon of choice in something like 67% of all murders and 64% of suicides. The primary purpose of most guns is to end a human life. The primary purpose of weapons with a large clip is to kill a large number of human beings. That's the reason we give them to soldiers; we want them to kill our enemies, preferably without being killed in return, so we give them weapons with long ranges.

Its not unfair to say that if you're addressing violence, you're addressing guns.




Ahh. so if someone has a particular point of view, they can't possibly be objective? Then who would do any research at all?

addressed already.

Effective does not mean it ends a problem. It just reduces it.

"we killed 80% of your cancer. This sure was effective.... you're still going to die of course...."



Poor, poor maligned guns. They really get the short end of the stick. How silly of us to feel that the private ownership of weapons specifically designed to kill lots of people might lead to the killing of lots of people.

We bar people who are legally blind from driving, and it doesn't require a trial. We bar people who are intoxicated (not physically or mentally competent) to drive. Health reasons are perfectly valid for proscription of the ability to perform an act that may endanger themselves or others. Just because its a mental heath as opposed to a physical reason, why would it be different?

https://www.ama.org/publications/Market ... issue.aspx

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207245/

There is good reason consider this a public health issue and use disease methodologies to do so.

In the case of bipolar, I do not see it as different. Even though some patients achieve permanent remission of manic episodes, many do not. Matter of fact, one of the patients in the group therapy session today on the inpatient unit said she had a manic episode and went 2-3 years without another until the one that landed her in the hospital. She even began to doubt the diagnosis was correct prior to the recent episode and stopped her depakote. Shortly thereafter it hit her.

Major Depression Disorder, however, is not a diagnosis that requires indefinite treatment. There are no violent externalities to MDD. If there are, then it's a different diagnosis with depressed mood symptoms and they need to be reevaluated. Usually the worst time there is a risk to attempting and completing suicide is during the ramp-up of the new medication. That time is measured in weeks to days. I don't see that someone's rights should be taken away on a permanent basis for that. We don't permanently take away guns from widows/widowers in the middle of terrible bereavement that borders on the suicidal.

In the case of my friend, his mom took his guns out of his house, but he still got his hands on another one (I haven't learned how). If he acquired one legally, I suppose a temporary hold that shows in a background check could have staved off tragedy. But then I worry about how that kind of information on a permanent record could be abused by agencies in the future.

_________________
The Dude abides.

What's "laughable" is that you are actually attempting to defend this based on "how science works". Sorry, but the question of what questions we spend public funds on are not part of "how science works". It is especially not science when the issue is "gun violence", not a scientific concept in the first place. "Violence" as a psychological phenomenon can be studied, but there is no reason to study it in the context of guns especially, and every reason to think that the left has foregone conclusions they are determined to get from this "research" and to use "public health" as a way to make an end run around the 2nd Amendment.



1) 2/3 of the cases is woefully inadequate to equate the two things; that strongly indicates that the violent behavior is not tied to the gun, and the gun is only chosen because it is effective.
2) Larger magazines are not there to kill a lot of people; they are there to minimize reloading while being shot back at. When no one is shooting back, reloads are nearly irrelevant. Magazine size is a red herring.
3) Long range is totally irrelevant in almost all criminal situations, and the range of our rifles is not significantly better than anything the adversary has - and the battlefield has plenty of weapons with ranges much, much longer than a rifles. Don't be ridiculous.

It is in fact completely unfair. 2/3 is not even close to an equivalence; it's closer to the halfway point than to equivalence. 67% is a 'D' in school; a 'D' level equivalence is a **** equivalence. That's just bullshit.



Since what you want researched is the unscientific question of "gun violence", which is inherently a special-pleading case, we can see pretty clearly that objectivity is impossible in this case. The desire for a foregone conclusion isn't even well-concealed.

Science can turn out to be garbage, especially in psychological fields where reproducability is at crisis levels. But since liberals have taken dumpster-fire science and used it to push complete bullshit agendas on sexual assault and implicit bias, yeah, we can be sure in advance that they will pervert any "gun violence" study as well. No "scientist" has any business researching a concept like "gun violence" (as opposed to "violence") but if you insist on pushing your agenda by slapping a coat of "science" paint on it you're going to have to pay yourself.



You have not even begun to present a case why the public should fund research intended to draw a foregone conclusion.



We don't care about 100% ending any sort of crime. This is not like cancer. We are not going to die as a society because of shootings or criminal violence.



They do, indeed, get lied about regularly - including in your quote. Most killings with guns are done with guns intended to kill one or two people. Guns "intended to kill many people" (lol) are used very rarely in crimes and kill very few people. Mass shootings are actually not a significant cause of deaths and are a small portion of even shooting deaths.



The combination of much clearer objective criteria and far less political incentive to exploit the laws.



These address "violence", not "gun violence".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That doesn't fix the moral issue however. Women can still unilaterally absolve themselves of responsibility through safe havens. Those will probably be used less than abortion but the moral quandary remains. Do we have to get rid of those too, and now deal with the consequences of back alley abortions and infanticide?

The comparison between guns and abortion is apt here because just like how the gun control lobby will never stop, neither will the abortion lobby. The gun control lobby isn't even going to stop at guns, if they got a gun ban they'd go after knives and bats, then toy guns/paintball guns, and after that they'd even start targeting the ability of parents to expose their children to the mere idea of killing and violence. This is already happening in Germany and the UK.

Similarly, I really don't see the abortion lobby stopping at abortion. Safe havens would be the next to go, under the battlecry of government spending and personal responsibility. Then we'd start hearing about the need to address the scourge of single motherhood and to preserve nuclear families, putting divorce in the crosshairs. After that, it would be working mothers, telling them they need to stay home and raise the children.

Just like the NRA has to defend some really dumb **** because they know if they give an inch, a mile will be taken, the pro-choice lobby also has to defend some dumb ****. I'm not a huge fan of abortion but "viability" definitely seems like a pretty reasoned and non-arbitrary place to draw the line.

The topic of this thread is specifically about the liberal narrative that gun control is necessary to prevent the killing of innocent lives but the topic of abortion is pushed aside... even in light of the fact that abortion takes over 1000 times as many innocent lives.

You had a chance to clear up the impression of hypocrisy in that position, but instead pushed it aside, ignoring the hundred of thousands of lives being taken to instead focus on a tiny fraction in comparison, and continue to claim intent to prevent the taking of innocent lives.

Thanks, you've proven my point better than I ever could.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You mean a 3 month old?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Well it isn't. The Dickey Amendment didn't do that. You're free to go to wikipedia and read it's actual text from the omnibus spending bill - or go see the studies the CDC and other agencies have performed and comissioned since it was passed.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This is really pretty silly. Being anti-abortion isn't primarily about either government spending or personal responsibility; it's about not allowing people to kill babies for trivial reasons. Anti-gun people turn into anti-knife people because it's the same cause; just to a greater degree. People aren't anti-abortion because they want women back in the kitchen, it's because they don't want babies dying. There is a segment of the pro-life viewpoint that objects to birth control and so forth, but it's actually quite small. You're comparing a movement that simply changes degree with one hypothetically changing almost completely in kind.



Almost nothing the NRA defends is actually dumb, although it may be trivial.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

https://www.wnyc.org/story/understanding-what-gun-control-works-and-what-doesnt/

The Takeaway is in no way neutral on this issue of firearms. It's rhetorical devices are obviously slanted. However, the person he's interviewing actually has a pretty balanced position on most things.

_________________

(unrelated to topic) The stats for children the from single-mother house holds are not good. I think removing divorce as an option is not the answer, but nuclear families are shown to be a pretty good indicator of success across race/gender. Obviously, this is a very nuanced issue that has a lot of factors to consider. My point is that you are ignoring facts and simplifying those things far beyond how simple they really are. YMMV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJFgyqs0sM&t=1811s

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I don't think divorce is necessarily the problem. Myself and several friends of mine come from broken homes. We all went through our teens in a home with only a mother and none of us became psychopaths. The large number of single mother households is directly related to a change in the welfare system singed into law by Johnson. It increased the payments to households without a father figure. Those that game the system saw this as a way to increase their income. What it caused is an increasing number of single parent families with no father figure to instill discipline in young men who see sports and drugs as their only options to success.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

They had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for only four months out of that 8 years, and it was used to pass the ACA and stimulus bills. There's not much you can do with just a slim majority in the Senate unless it's got bipartisan support (case in point: today's GOP).

_________________
When he's underwater does he get wet? Or does the water get him instead?

The threat of a filibuster doesn't mean they can't introduce and pass legislation, it means the outcome isn't assured. They had a majority and the assertion that "there's not much you can do with just a slim majority" is a really weak argument for a topic that folks are now posturing and declaring themselves as being passionate about.

If you'd like, I can amend my statement to "they lacked the will to try what wasn't easy even while they held a majority". In my opinion, that's even a greater indication of weakness, but mileage may vary.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Assuming there's no money to be maid by handing out DSM prescriptions all day for all citizens. A brave new world indeed. I wouldn't trust every psychiatrist.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn