More Thoughts & Prayers

[floplag]

5 hours ago, RallyMo said:

One of the most inescapable reasons that the man picked up the gun was this one: it was available to him and was by far the most efficient, concealable and unstoppable way for him to achieve his goal. None of this is influenced by whatever his mental state happened to be.

No, thats the result, not the reason.  I could not disagree more.  You are putting the cart before he horse. 
He didnt pick up the gun and then decide to kill he decided to kill and than picked up the gun.  Your timeline is flawed. 

[floplag]

9 hours ago, tennischmp said:

You think it's so easy, what just snap you fingers and he is helped and crisis avoided? Problem is that it's not at all that easy. If you really think that stopping drunk drivers is as easy as stopping mental illness then you are very misinformed about how hard it really is to treat those with mental illness. And the fact that you compare stopping drunk drivers to stopping mental illness just confirms that. 

Never said that at all. never said it was or would be easy, what i said is that we are ignoring it in its entirety out of fear of stigmatization or funding or whatever other reason.  
Easy... no, the best answer by far, yes.  

[floplag]

14 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I do agree with every single thing Zakaria said. 

I believe that you are wrong completely and utterly. I just deleted a point by point response to you.  I deleted it because it’s a ridiculous waste of time.  It took me 30 mins to figure that out.  My bad.   We’re two immovable objects here.  So I’m going to spare both of us the rise in blood pressure.  I know where you stand on this. 

also, i don't know if you recall.  but I do.  back in November (i looked it up) you and i were arguing about restrictions for mentally ill people.  You seem to have had a change of heart.  Are you OK with stopping mentally ill people from having guns now ?

I dont recall ever saying i wasnt actually as my view on it hasnt changed.  I think there is a degree in the matter that has to be estalblished but yes of course i support those with legitimate reasons to be restricted, absolutely 100%.   This would include those with dangerous mental inclinations and of course criminal histories.
I do not think that includes those that are not proven to be a danger to others or that its should be used as a sweeping indictment of all mental illness.   Many people who would fall under that umbrella pose no threat to others.   You have to establish a clear reason to deny any person their rights.  

[Jason]

54 minutes ago, Adam said:

Not with social media and in a culture that celebrates gratuitous violence

IMO, one of the big contributors to the problems we have as a country 

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

I think we live in an echo chamber and the mass shooting has become an option on the psycho menu. 

Also, our world is continually more and more complex.  More and more people have issues navigating it.  We don’t have the accessible resources necessary to help people figure it out.  We also don’t have the necessary resources to intervene before someone goes over the edge. 

 

So that’s a more important issue to address, right?  If we ban all guns, like I recommend we do, that wouldn’t do shit to address what you’ve outlined.  The instrument used will simply morph into something else. 

 

 

[tennischmp]

17 minutes ago, floplag said:

Never said that at all. never said it was or would be easy, what i said is that we are ignoring it in its entirety out of fear of stigmatization or funding or whatever other reason.  
Easy... no, the best answer by far, yes.  

Please explain to me what exactly is being ignored? People actually need to seek help to get help and no amount of funding will get a person who is hiding a mental illness to seek help if they don't want to. There is also no guarantee that once that person gets help and is prescribed medications will stay on those medications. There is also no guarantee that those medication will keep that person from relapsing. Mental health is a complex issue and funding won't help all those obstacles I listed above. 

[UndertheHalo]

44 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont recall ever saying i wasnt actually as my view on it hasnt changed.  I think there is a degree in the matter that has to be estalblished but yes of course i support those with legitimate reasons to be restricted, absolutely 100%.   This would include those with dangerous mental inclinations and of course criminal histories.
I do not think that includes those that are not proven to be a danger to others or that its should be used as a sweeping indictment of all mental illness.   Many people who would fall under that umbrella pose no threat to others.   You have to establish a clear reason to deny any person their rights.  

So I was arguing that someone who has been diagonosed with some sort of mental illness and is able to be declared legally disabled(and therefore able to collect a benefit check) should not have a gun.  This was essentially Obama’s law that that you several other here were adamantly against.  Because, it unfairly denied those people their right to a gun. 

Being bi polar manifests differently for different people.  None of these people are murderers until they are.  What does it mean to be a proven a danger ? By that time it’s usually 2 late.  Stop making it conditional.  Do you think that someone who is mentally ill should be allowed to go out and purchase a gun. Yes or no ? 

Edited February 16, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

11 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

So that’s a more important issue to address, right?  If we ban all guns, like I recommend we do, that wouldn’t do shit to address what you’ve outlined.  The instrument used will simply morph into something else. 

 

 

That’s not true.  Not all instruments are the same. A gun is an extremely efficicent instrument for creating carnage.  As has been demonstrated.  Why can’t both issues be addressed ?  Limit the instrument and reduce the impact of the incidents. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Spirit]

4 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

That’s not true and it’s a false equivalence.  Not all instruments are the same. A gun is an extremely efficicent instrument for creating carnage.  As has been demonstrated.  Why can’t both issues be addressed ?

 

What are you talking about?  Who’s saying we should only address one?   I said we should ban all guns.  But no one is talking about addressing the other issue.  

 

 

[floplag]

10 minutes ago, tennischmp said:

Please explain to me what exactly is being ignored? People actually need to seek help to get help and no amount of funding will get a person who is hiding a mental illness to seek help if they don't want to. There is also no guarantee that once that person gets help and is prescribed medications will stay on those medications. There is also no guarantee that those medication will keep that person from relapsing. Mental health is a complex issue and funding won't help all those obstacles I listed above. 

...and there is no guarantee that guns laws will do anything either but i digress.  
Whats being ignored?  Really?  Ok, simple, is anyone at all talking about his reasons?  what drove him to it?  Why he would do such a things?  what could have been done to prevent him from going over that edge?  Nope, ... 90+% of all the coverage is all about the fact that he used a gun and we need more better gun laws.    Or the fact that he was a supposed white supremacist.    Or literally anything else but his past and the obvious red flags that noone did anything about.   
That is the textbook definition of ignoring something.   
Even the egregious error by the FBI when this person was reported is a mere blip on the media radar.  
How much clearer can this be?  

[floplag]

12 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

So I was arguing that someone who has been diagonosed with some sort of mental illness and is able to be declared legally disabled(and therefore able to collect a benefit check) should not have a gun.  This was essentially Obama’s law that that you several other here were adamantly against.  Because, it unfairly denied those people their right to a gun. 

Being bi polar manifests differently for different people.  None of these people are murderes until they are.  What does it mean to be a proven a danger ? By that time it’s usually 2 late.  Stop making it conditional.  Do you think that someone who is mentally ill should be allowed to go out and purchase a gun. Yes or no ? 

How can this not be conditional?   You cant just attach that on anyone under such a broad umbrella you must define what makes a person a danger.  Simply being disabled, doesn't make a person violent or a threat to others and that must be the basis for denying a persons rights.    

I recall this conversation i think and i believe my argument was that you wanted to take rights on the basis of what a person might do, not what they have done.. and yes i would oppose that under ANY situation.  You must have a clearly defined reason to take ANY right away, not just guns. 

Until a person proves they are a danger to others you are acting on an assumption of guilt.   That we cannot ever allow as its in direct violation of the constitution itself... Its called due process. 

[UndertheHalo]

18 minutes ago, floplag said:

How can this not be conditional?   You cant just attach that on anyone under such a broad umbrella you must define what makes a person a danger.  Simply being disabled, doesn't make a person violent or a threat to others and that must be the basis for denying a persons rights.    

I recall this conversation i think and i believe my argument was that you wanted to take rights on the basis of what a person might do, not what they have done.. and yes i would oppose that under ANY situation.  You must have a clearly defined reason to take ANY right away, not just guns. 

Until a person proves they are a danger to others you are acting on an assumption of guilt.   That we cannot ever allow as its in direct violation of the constitution itself... Its called due process. 

So you’re opposed to denying people who are mentally ill guns.  Got it.  Look there’s no way anyone can know what a person will do.  I think we have decent evidence that someone who is mentally disturbed or mentally ill is more like to do something then someone who is not (tho, a perfectly sane person is very capable of carrying out some horror as well) why isn’t that enough for you ? This is the problem with the 2nd amendment.  A right to a gun should not be equal to the right to vote or free speech in 2017.  You’re stuck up on this being a rights issue.  

The solution you’re advocating is a ground up social restructure.   Maybe it just me, but that seems pretty inefficient when we have an issue that needs to be dealt with right now.  

Edited February 16, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[UndertheHalo]

25 minutes ago, Geoff said:

 

What are you talking about?  Who’s saying we should only address one?   I said we should ban all guns.  But no one is talking about addressing the other issue.  

 

 

I didn’t word my response well.  Sorry. 

It’s a pretty complex issue.  I’m not sure what the answer is.  Social media won’t go away. The 24 hour access to news won’t go away.  The “echo chamber” is part of our world now.  I don’t know what can be done about that.   I’m all for providing access to mental health care.  More robust intervention for troubled people seems like a good idea.  But I have no idea what that should look like.  People are always going to be on the fringes and unnoticed.  In Florida that wasn’t the case but has been in other instances.  I’m not sure how that can be addressed. 

Maybe nuclear armageddon is for the best ? 

Edited February 16, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[floplag]

59 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

So you’re opposed to denying people who are mentally ill guns.  Got it.  Look there’s no way anyone can know what a person will do.  I think we have decent evidence that someone who is mentally disturbed or mentally ill is more like to do something then someone who is not (tho, a perfectly sane person is very capable of carrying out some horror as well) why isn’t that enough for you ? This is the problem with the 2nd amendment.  A right to a gun should not be equal to the right to vote or free speech in 2017.  You’re stuck up on this being a rights issue.  

The solution you’re advocating is a ground up social restructure.   Maybe it just me, but that seems pretty inefficient when we have an issue that needs to be dealt with right now.  

Its so black and white to you i guess.  For me its not that easy.  Mental illness is too broad a statement and include both those who are or could be dangerous to others, and those who generally pose no threat.  You cannot lump them all into a nice neat little package.  

More or less likely doesn't mean will, again that nasty little due process thing.   You cannot convict someone of something they havent done, and thats exactly what you are trying to do. 

The solution im proposing is one based on factual evidence.  If a person has shown hostile behavior to others and has posed a threat to another person, then you have to consider it.  Almost none of these cases are isolated first time incidents, they have history. 

I will never support taking away any right on a possibility, but i would absolutely support doing so when there is factual history, as was clearly the case with this most recent incident  

[RallyMo]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

No, thats the result, not the reason.  I could not disagree more.  You are putting the cart before he horse. 
He didnt pick up the gun and then decide to kill he decided to kill and than picked up the gun.  Your timeline is flawed. 

I'm not putting the cart before the horse at all, you silly goose. You're just assuming that I am. I believe that both the cart and he horse are important. You don't seem to, though I could be wrong.

Furthermore, you're needlessly applying a timeline where you pick and choose the important events and insist that the timeline is somehow the most important thing. In my timeline, the decision to allow for the manufacture and make available that gun appears at some point before this monster uses it to slay a bunch of other humans.

[Blarg]

There are times, like these,when the world has seemed to have gone crazy and everyone wants their solution implemented that I would like to be able to shoot all of the media services and internet with one gunshot to silence them all and live again in blissful ignorance.

We know too much and too little all at the same time.

[floplag]

1 minute ago, RallyMo said:

I'm not putting the cart before the horse at all, you silly goose. You're just assuming that I am. I believe that both the cart and he horse are important. You don't seem to, though I could be wrong.

Furthermore, you're needlessly applying a timeline where you pick and choose the important events and insist that the timeline is somehow the most important thing. In my timeline, the decision to allow for the manufacture and make available that gun appears at some point before this monster uses it to slay a bunch of other humans.

I agree, both matter, yet noones talking about the cart right now are they?  Im not seeing candle lit vigils or senators calling for mental health care. 
 
There is a process to thing, a person makes a decision to kill, then decides how.  Yes making it easy to get a gun is part of the problem, but there is zero evidence that he wouldnt find another way.  He decided to kill, youre dealing with how he carried out that decision, im looking at stopping the decision itself.  

[Kevin]

21 minutes ago, Blarg said:

There are times, like these,when the world has seemed to have gone crazy and everyone wants their solution implemented that I would like to be able to shoot all of the media services and internet with one gunshot to silence them all and live again in blissful ignorance.

We know too much and too little all at the same time.

I would call the FBI but I'm sure the paperwork would get misplaced somewhere.

[Spirit]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

I didn’t word my response well.  Sorry. 

It’s a pretty complex issue.  I’m not sure what the answer is.  Social media won’t go away. The 24 hour access to news won’t go away.  The “echo chamber” is part of our world now.  I don’t know what can be done about that.   I’m all for providing access to mental health care.  More robust intervention for troubled people seems like a good idea.  But I have no idea what that should look like.  People are always going to be on the fringes and unnoticed.  In Florida that wasn’t the case but has been in other instances.  I’m not sure how that can be addressed. 

Maybe nuclear armageddon is for the best ? 

 

I'm sure how it can be addressed.  Ban all guns! 

Any other "common sense gun control" is just bullshit.

 

[Blarg]

1 minute ago, Geoff said:

 

I'm sure how it can be addressed.  Ban all guns! 

Any other "common sense gun control" is just bullshit.

 

Ultimately banning people is the only logical solution.

[InsideThePark]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

In Florida:

Under federal law, you also must be 21 to buy a handgun from a firearms dealer. But 18-year-olds can buy semiautomatic rifles.

makes sense.

Rick Scott might want to take a look at that before calling for someone else's resignation.

[Jason]

2 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

So you’re opposed to denying people who are mentally ill guns.  Got it.  Look there’s no way anyone can know what a person will do.  I think we have decent evidence that someone who is mentally disturbed or mentally ill is more like to do something then someone who is not (tho, a perfectly sane person is very capable of carrying out some horror as well) why isn’t that enough for you ? This is the problem with the 2nd amendment.  A right to a gun should not be equal to the right to vote or free speech in 2017.  You’re stuck up on this being a rights issue.  

The solution you’re advocating is a ground up social restructure.   Maybe it just me, but that seems pretty inefficient when we have an issue that needs to be dealt with right now.  

A lot of people will refuse to deal with their mental illness because of the negative stigma and labels they may get. In our society they are looked down on. Your argument sort of proves it. If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness that frequently causes the person to be violent then yes, they should not have a gun but they still need to have their due process (yes I'm stuck on constitutional rights too). Do you think everything listed in the DSM V make a person ineligible to posses a firearm? The bottom line is we aren't doing enough to for the mentally ill in this country and way to many of them do slip through the cracks. That has to change

[red321]

[Jason]

22 minutes ago, InsideThePark said:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

In Florida:

Under federal law, you also must be 21 to buy a handgun from a firearms dealer. But 18-year-olds can buy semiautomatic rifles.

makes sense.

Rick Scott might want to take a look at that before calling for someone else's resignation.

All but 3 states have 18 as the age to purchase a long gun.

[InsideThePark]

2 minutes ago, Jason said:

A lot of people will refuse to deal with their mental illness because of the negative stigma and labels they may get. In our society they are looked down on. Your argument sort of proves it. If a person is diagnosed with a mental illness that frequently causes the person to be violent then yes, they should not have a gun but they still need to have their due process (yes I'm stuck on constitutional rights too). The bottom line is we aren't doing enough to for the mentally ill in this country and way to many of them do slip through the cracks. That has to change

Trump's executive order made it easier for some who are mentally ill to avoid the process you suggested.