[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232428]Why is mental health always brought up every time a gun debate is started? Yeah, mentally unstable people getting their hands on guns is a problem, but I'm ready to wager (without looking up statistics) that they're involved in a relatively small percentage of gun crime. The bigger problem is probably criminals just being criminals, and also normal people who happen to have access to guns snapping and shooting someone on impulse. Mental health does need more attention, but solving that problem is not the panacea for gun crime that it's often touted to be.[/QUOTE]
Mentally unstable people getting guns is hardly a problem, too. But you are right that a super-small percentage of mentally ill people engage in gun crime. It's the opposite, mentally ill folks are much more likely to become victims of violent crime instead of becoming the criminals. It's so fucked up that mental health is brought up during these things to handwave serious, in-depth discussion of mass shootings in America.
That would be the building in Redlands
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232481]I found a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/"]review article[/url] that says that most gun crime, and indeed violent crime in general, is not linked to any form of mental illness.[/QUOTE]
Most gun crime is gang related and/or done by people who involved in other criminal activity. So this doesn't surprise me.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49232442]If the U.S. was having a revolt, you can bet someone, somewhere would fund the "rebels"[/QUOTE]
US Land is far too valuable to not have foreign investors choosing a side.
Wow jeeze this thread got bad.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232401]That's exactly the point.
To insinuate that the government could ever in any situation, regardless of gun ownership, become some tyrannical ruler that just wants to enslave every US citizen is a worrying sign of clinical dissociation.
That sort of "us vs them" mentality that people have with the government is so unhealthy and is what's rotting away at this country.[/QUOTE]
I could see why you would find it unlikely, but don't rule it out as being entirely impossible. The National Guard fired at a group of anti-war protesters in May 4, 1970.
The gun debate is so split for two reasons that I can see:
1) Neither side agrees on common facts. There's no way anyone can come to a consensus if we don't even have that. An example would be the simple fact of whether gun control has positive effects.
2) A lot of the argument rests on axiomatic assumptions that can't really be argued. One example would be the idea that owning a gun should be a right. You either agree or disagree with this, and no amount of argumentations can really sway it.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232469]I don't think calling people who say the government is planning to enslave the American people detached from reality is misrepresenting.[/QUOTE]
Don't even try to play it off like that.
[quote]Which is a problem.
The government is trying to ensure that all its citizens can go to the hospital if they have medical problems: "Obummer is trying to take over the country!"
The government trying to make sure that all citizens can get married: "The jews are taking over and legalizing gay marriage to make our children weak!"
To insinuate that the government has some plot to enslave the people is like saying Bush did 9/11 or the moon landing was a hoax or Obama is a reptilian Kenyan Muslim. [/quote]
You're saying anyone who has reservations about trusting the government with new systems or ideas, or who disagrees with something you agree with is doing it for completely delusional reasons, and has no way that maybe they have legitimate grievances with something being proposed. That's exactly how it reads to me. That's misrepresenting and trying to feign superiority. If you really think anyone who is against nationalized healthcare thinks Obama is plotting domination or thinks that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is spouting the trash you typed, then I really don't know what to say.
Not everyone who thinks about shit differently than you thinks the government is trying to throw the shackles on.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;49232519]No, don't even try to play it off like that.
You're saying anyone who has reservations about trusting the government with new systems or ideas, or who disagrees with something you agree with is doing it for completely delusional reasons, and has no way that maybe they have legitimate grievances with something being proposed. That's exactly how it reads to me. That's misrepresenting and trying to feign superiority. If you really think anyone who is against nationalized healthcare thinks Obama is plotting domination or thinks that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is spouting the trash you typed, then I really don't know what to say.
Not everyone who thinks about shit differently than you thinks the government is trying to throw the shackles on.[/QUOTE]
Did I imply everyone who was against gay marriage or a single payer healthcare system was like that?
Cause I'm rereading my post and it's pretty clear I didn't.
But there are people who do say that, just listen to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.
Those arguments I said were examples of what the kinds of "us vs them" people who say the second amendment is important to protect us from a tyrannical government would be saying about those issues.
Maybe I didn't explain that well but you completely misunderstood my meaning.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232481]I found a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/"]review article[/url] that says that most gun crime, and indeed violent crime in general, is not linked to any form of mental illness.
You missed my point. My point is that mental health is not as big of an issue when it comes to gun crime in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I think that the reason that this connection is made so often is A) it gives people invested in guns and gun culture something else to pin the blame of shootings on and B) it's often a factor in larger than normal shootings, which get more coverage on national media outlets than single death incidents or criminal on criminal incidents.
[QUOTE=KillRay;49232423]The culture of the US is so vastly different in it's current state that'd it be hard to believe in a similar event occuring in this country i m o.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. The idea of ever actually NEEDING armed revolt is so fuckin' ridiculous in and of itself that it's a weak argument for guns even if there were a level playing field.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49232465]You'd be a fool to entertain the idea that in this day and age U.S. service-members would turn on their own countrymen, there would have to be some sort of dystopian orwellian future for that to be possible.[/QUOTE]
It's not like it hasn't happened in relatively recent history.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings[/url]
Granted it's not like they rolled up and started firing for no apparent reason but depending on the situation tensions can flare and shit goes downhill very quickly. Servicemen/women are human beings like everyone else and will fire if they feel the need to, fellow citizens or not.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49232465]You'd be a fool to entertain the idea that in this day and age U.S. service-members would turn on their own countrymen, there would have to be some sort of dystopian orwellian future for that to be possible.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there would defintely be desserters and then like, but you'd be surprised how lots of people act under authority. The Milgram experiment sound familiar?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49232538]I totally agree. The idea of ever actually NEEDING armed revolt is so fuckin' ridiculous in and of itself that it's a weak argument for guns even if there were a level playing field.[/QUOTE]
The argument isn't that the rebels would win outright, but that the "tyranical" government, by attacking its own citizens, deligitimizes itself entirely. The second amendment seems to be there more to dissolve the government incase of violent tyranny, the assumption being that members of the government themselves would recognize this.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49232511]The gun debate is so split for two reasons that I can see:
1) Neither side agrees on common facts. There's no way anyone can come to a consensus if we don't even have that. An example would be the simple fact of whether gun control has positive effects.
2) A lot of the argument rests on axiomatic assumptions that can't really be argued. One example would be the idea that owning a gun should be a right. You either agree or disagree with this, and no amount of argumentations can really sway it.[/QUOTE]
I do think that owning a gun is an important right in this country regardless of what others may think. Given my proper training and experience with firearms, I don't think that I should be limited in my selection seeing as they are all tools that boil down to the same functionality no different than me being able to go out today and buy a 400hp Corvette vs a 150hp Corolla even if I may not be Robby Gordon.
Having said that, I think that it should be mandatory that people take the proper safety courses and be licensed in order to own and operate a firearm no different than driving a car. I've seen too many idiots with guns to think differently, but I also know that banning AK clones and the thousands of AR derivatives will do nothing but hinder law abiding hobbyists.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232481]I found a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/"]review article[/url] that says that most gun crime, and indeed violent crime in general, is not linked to any form of mental illness.
[/QUOTE]
The article is a bit unusual since it cites from opinion pieces. They based their conclusion from reference 25 which was a study conducted in 2006, I'm trying to search for it online.
I think I found it, it was apparently based off data from Sweden instead of the US.
[url]http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/ref/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1319[/url]
[url]http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1319[/url]
[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16877653[/url]
Why do people keep comparing guns to cars it makes no sense imo
scanner says they're detonating the device found in the initial location
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49232570]Why do people keep comparing guns to cars it makes no sense imo[/QUOTE]
Are they not both tools? A car gets me from A to B, a rifle will get that deer onto my dinner table. You need to appreciate and respect both as they both are things that can get people killed. A rifle isn't something I need every day to survive, but neither is a car. I could take a bus or walk, but I decided to take the proper courses and learn about the tool and become registered to both drive and to shoot.
The third suspect has been detained. Ethnicity not revealed at this time.
EOD is about to detonate a suspected device.
News is beginning to suggest "terrorism". They're slowly creeping towards the announcement, sort of like it's an animal they don't want to spook.
Politics aside, I think this scenario is shaping up to be a workplace mass shooting aka going postal by disgrulted workers of some type who wanted revenge.
[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;49232582]Are they not both tools? A car gets me from A to B, a rifle will get that deer onto my dinner table. You need to appreciate and respect both as they both are things that can get people killed.[/QUOTE]
One is a nigh-essentiality for our lives in our current socio-economic landscape and is the most efficient form of personal transportation. The other only has a stake in killing things and occasional sport and recreation. If you're seriously telling me that "getting that deer onto my dinner table" is the primary intent of a majority firearm owners then I dont know where to begin lol, not to even mention the fact that "both are things that can get people killed" is a dumb argument. Guns are designed with the intent that it will be lethal and efficient at the task of injuring/killing and cars are not.
[QUOTE=axelord157;49232606]Politics aside, I think scenario is shaping up to be a workplace mass shooting.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it very unusual for there to be more than one person in a scenario like that? And disgruntled employees rarely wear bullet-proof vests as has been reported, or carry explosives in their cars
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49232604]in a lot of states public transportation is dogshit, and you need a car to function, walking 2 hours to and back from work everyday isn't an option
you do not need a gun to survive unless you live in backwoods middle of nowherestan and can only subsist on berries and venison[/QUOTE]
Then that depends entirely on where you are. You may not care about the need of a firearm likewise I didn't care about a car when I lived in downtown Boston. Then again, my neighbor who owns a farm needs his pickup truck and also a rifle to keep the groundhogs and coyotes at bay.
Three disgruntled employees gathered together to equip themselves, plot and execute a mass shooting on their work place?
That doesn't even make any sense.
[QUOTE=verynicelady;49232614]Isn't it very unusual for there to be more than one person in a scenario like that? And disgruntled employees rarely wear bullet proof vests as has been reported, or carry explosives in their cars[/QUOTE]
Well, according to our President, Ft. Hood was workplace violence so this will probably be swept under the rug as workplace violence aswell
[QUOTE=axelord157;49232606]Politics aside, I think this scenario is shaping up to be a workplace mass shooting aka going postal by disgrulted workers of some type who wanted revenge.[/QUOTE]
I don't know... when's the last time a disgruntled worker brought an IED, assault rifles, and body armor?
[QUOTE=sgman91;49232634]I don't know... when's the last time a disgruntled worker brought an IED, assault rifles, and body armor?[/QUOTE]
And two buddies
I'm leaning towards some whack job fringe group or terrorists.
I fee like it might be terrorists but they want to confirm it for sure because the implications would be huge if it was
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
