General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[GDB]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

it is their idea of challenge to stalk-and-hunt

How brave of them, to use a super powered weapon to bring down minor game! There's zero reason they couldn't do the same with a bow and arrow if they had skill, and even without skill they could use a crossbow. Cleaner kill, too. But no, they want the power and ability to just get drunk while still killing things.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I'm highly sceptical about this claim that the United States has more "crazies" than all other developed countries, and that it's because these crazy people aren't adequately taken care of that we see the level of sensationally violent crimes in the US.

Anyone has credible figures to back up these claims? I believe the problem is much more multi-faceted than just about mentally unsound people.

In gun debate, the focus on mental illness is misguided

By Dr Richard Friedman

There is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts.

1) Only about 4 per cent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness.

2) Only certain serious psychiatric illnesses are linked to an increased risk of violence. One of the largest studies, the National Institute of Mental Health's Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study, which followed nearly 18,000 subjects, found that the lifetime prevalence of violence among people with serious mental illness — like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — was 16 per cent, compared with 7 per cent among people without any mental disorder.

3) Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the ECA study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

4) Mass killings are very rare events, and because people with mental illness contribute so little to overall violence, prohibiting gun ownership on the mentally ill would have little impact on everyday firearm-related killings. Between 2001 and 2010, there were nearly 120,000 gun-related homicides, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Few were perpetrated by mentally ill people.

5) While a young psychotic male who is intoxicated with alcohol and has a history of involuntary commitment is at a high risk of violence, most individuals who fit this profile are harmless.

If we really want to stop young men like Adam Lanza from becoming mass murderers, and prevent the small amount of violence attributable to mental illness, we should invest our resources in better screening for, and treatment of, psychiatric illness in young people.

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group.

But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

[GDB]

I'm curious whether that 4% is based on number of incidents, or if it takes severity into account. One person punching someone else while drunk should not equate to the same as some whack-job going and killing 20 kids.

And even if that increase in violence by those with a mental illness is only 9%, so what? Mental illness still needs to be dealt with, regardless.

We have a war on drugs. Can't use that as an excuse.

Why does this have to be an either/or situation? Stop looking for a magical bandaid. Address the symptoms and you can fix the problem. There is no elixir.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by GDB

How brave of them, to use a super powered weapon to bring down minor game! There's zero reason they couldn't do the same with a bow and arrow if they had skill, and even without skill they could use a crossbow. Cleaner kill, too. But no, they want the power and ability to just get drunk while still killing things.

Some people are like that actually. They wanted the thrill of the recoil for a high powered weapon, at the same time a kill to barbecue.

I would call them eccentric so long they keep their minds off hunting people for soylent greening.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

In gun debate, the focus on mental illness is misguided

One thing that I dislike about journalists posting about "diagnosed psychiatric disorders", especially those taking US sources, is that they always outwardly fail to recognise the existence of something called the DSM.

Pharmacies and major psychiatric institutions use the DSM as a rating order to supplement the ICD, which is limited when it comes to determining psychological disorders (all based in a single chapter). What is more, "brain drugs" are developed based on the premise of this disorders being caused by "hormonal imbalances", which means like, if I am too aggressive that means I must go on a therapy of Spiralactone and Estradiol? If I can't stop moving around means I have to take Ritalin?

In short, the human brain is a black box. How can we just simply link a certain "erratic" behaviour to some code, give drugs and "counselling" (highlighted word because synonyms include "reeducation" and "brainwashing") and consider it a treatment? Psychiatric treatment should be about determining cause-and-effect, then addressing the environmental cause, not just pegging behaviour to a number and some pretty sounding name.

After all, a study has concluded earlier this year that your environment does actually shape you. Sure there may be scars after shifting environments and adjusting, but being in one that sits well with the person makes for a better mental well-being than just shoving drugs down his/her throat or trying to suggest behaviour change through false choices.

P.S All indications of being a "lolicon" cannot be found in either the DSM or ICD. Not even paraphilia because there is no evidence of it that results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior, but of course, DSM wants to create more drugs to sell so they label it under "Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified". Damn capitalist Americans.

Originally Posted by GDB

Why does this have to be an either/or situation? Stop looking for a magical bandaid. Address the symptoms and you can fix the problem. There is no elixir.

The cookie system is out, so I have to give you one up for that through this post. +1

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by kyp275

It isn't, because the term itself has been so warped it's meaningless. For the uninitiated, the term is often linked with fully automatic rifles and other military equipment etc., but in reality is pretty much slapped on just about every rifle that looks (and don't look) like one. Ironically, the actual weapons that the term is meant to describe? they're illegal in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the term "assault rifle" isn't that misleading: if it actually regroup all rifles that are semi and full automatic (as in, military design), well we have a pretty idea it is overkill for self defense.

Really, as an european, I see no damn reason why anyone would need anything more than a mere handgun. Do people really need rifles that have 30 rounds clip to protect themselves? That's no sarcasm, that's a genuine question: I really have trouble to imagine people requiring a rifle for that kind of thing, and of course, if there are hunting designed rifles around, sure why not.

But civil modded M16, AK etc? I really question the need for that, regardless for sports and even for more dubious reasons such like collections.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Personally I believe the 2nd amendment has run its course in our society and at the very least needs a ton of regulation. Things like yearly psyche evaluations for owners, better paper trails, ,and hell even mandatory tests/learning classes for citizens wishing to purchase guns would go a long way to helping this cause. If the US at least had these things, it would be at least a manageable compromise in my eyes.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, it shows me that you are not rational about this subject because you just admitted you want the amendment repealed because it's "run its course."
Not remotely, the Greeks had it 24 centuries before the United States did.
The right to keep and bear arms is one of the corner stones of western civilization.

The only thing that has run its course in the US is "feel good" forms of gun control.
It doesn't work and it needs to start getting dismantled.
I'll clarify that by saying the bans on weapons need to go, the laws that prohibit open carry need to go, the laws that create "gun free zones" need to go.

We should keep the background checks and add to it the mental health records with strict restrictions on government form abusing the screening process.

Mandatory training is a must.
There is already a "litmus" test built into the constitution (article 1, section 8) about which arms are for the militia, and like it or not as a citizen of the US you are a member of the militia if you are male.
I posted a lengthy analysis of the 2nd amendment a few pages back in this thread by a person who did his research on the subject.
I will not trade freedom for security, therefore I can see we are diametrically opposite on this issue.

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

I'm going to resound Reckoner's opinion. Because (@synaesthetic's comment): "to what extent can you apply this line of reasoning?". Can I say "a nuclear bomb is just a tool that utilizes fission to produce a rapid outburst of energy that manifests as an explosion"? Maybe it is, but there is a reason we don't use more nuclear bombs (not yet anyways). Reckoner already clarifies that he didn't say that it is "evil", just that guns are designed to kill (or at least, deal damage), "it is what it is".

Glad you brought up nuclear weapons.
They are a deterent against other countries from using them against us or our allies.
That's why the US has them, even though we know we could never win a nuclear war.
Militia weapons (semi-auto miltitary style weapons) are a deterent to a tyrannical government forming in the united states, even though it is unknown if they would be effective against said government.
That was the intent of the 2nd amendment from the begining as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

There is such a thing as purpose in design.

No one here has disputed what a weapon is designed for.
What is disputed is the idea that it's only use is to kill indescriminately.
It can also be used to save life.
Here is an excellent website that catalogs all the local news stories of guns saving lives.
http://gunssavelives.net/

Internet cafe employee fires back at armed robbers
http://www2.wnct.com/news/2012/dec/0...ty-ar-2831692/

Originally Posted by NorthernFallout

I've been following the thread for a while and one factor I've either missed or hasn't been brought up is that of storage. I know it differs from state to state but I honestly don't know so I'm asking; Does the US have any restrictions/laws for storing weapons at home?

No, so called "safe storage" laws have been routinely struck down as unconstitutional, and they are in the United States.

I am firmly against such laws due to home invasions.
If you can't get to your weapon to defend yourself due to a "safe storage" law, then you will become a victim.
That is not allowed here.
In fact, we have a castle doctrine in Colorado known as the "make my day law" where we are protected by law if we kill an intruder into our home.
And that IS how it should be.

As for the rest of the thread, I align myself with both sides to some extent. As a Swede, guns are not an everyday thing and while I have fired hunting shotguns, and parts of my family are hunters, they still make me nervous if it's anywhere else but on a shooting range or in a forest. Carrying them in public is illegal anyhow. However, I don't support an outright ban, though I do support restriction and more thorough background checks, along with improvements in mental health solutions etc.

I agree that mental health records need to be added to the background check system in the US, but getting the tax laws passed to pay for it is going to be very difficult in this economy.

Originally Posted by Kyero Fox

It's not a deady chart, it's how easy it is to avoid it i belive.

Ah, no, the Jounral of the American Medical Association magazine's chart shows unnatural deaths (they classify them as preventable, as opposed to say heart disease or cancer that is not preventable only treatable).

@Klashikari (since you posted after I hit "preview"):

We don't have a bill of needs, we have a bill of rights.
Like it or not, we have the right to militia grade weaponry because every male between the ages of 17-45 is a member of the US militia as per Title 10 section 311 of the USC which was created by the Militia Act of 1903.
That act is an extention (not a replacement, as determined by US vs. Miller) of the Militia Act of 1862, which in turn is an extention (update, not replacement) of the Militia Act of 1792/96.

The "who needs that kind of gun" argument is dead.
Us. verses Heller ended it when the SCOTUS declared the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right, and when added to the decision in US vs. Miller (1939) that right ONLY applies to military weapons, not hunting or sporting weapons.

This was the Miller decision:

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

Military weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment which is why hoplophobes are calling for it to be repealed.
Any actual attempt at that would result in a civil war, no question about it, and the death toll from that would make these mass shootings pale in comparison.

Besides, as Mr. Dj pointed out to me earlier (thank you for that BTW, Mr. DJ), overall these types of mass shootings are in decline since 1929.
So while we need to take action and end the "Gun Free Zone" Act of 1995, add mental health records to background checks, and mandate training, there should not be any useless bans on weapons that are constitutionally protected.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Klashikari

I'm pretty sure the term "assault rifle" isn't that misleading: if it actually regroup all rifles that are semi and full automatic (as in, military design), well we have a pretty idea it is overkill for self defense.

As someone who's in the military, I'd like to say I have a pretty good idea what actual assault rifles are. Maybe for those who are unfamiliar it's hard to distinguish the differences, but what you're saying is pretty much akin to calling every automobile a race car just because they both have an engine and 4 wheels.

I mean, really? telescoping stock? pistol grip? BAYONET MOUNT!!?? one might as well try to join in a F1 race because you've got spoilers and body kits and neon lights on your Civic.

Really, as an european, I see no damn reason why anyone would need anything more than a mere handgun. Do people really need rifles that have 30 rounds clip to protect themselves? That's no sarcasm, that's a genuine question: I really have trouble to imagine people requiring a rifle for that kind of thing, and of course, if there are hunting designed rifles around, sure why not.

I wish people would look at the big picture. Legitimate use of firearms is not reserved only for self-defense scenarios(during which btw, you can never have enough rounds in your magazine).

But civil modded M16, AK etc? I really question the need for that, regardless for sports and even for more dubious reasons such like collections.

I'm really getting tired of this point, AR15 are NOT "civil modded" M16s, they have substantial mechanical and performance differences, and are designed for different functions and usage.

[Vexx]

Okay, guys ... this is one of the issues I have with people who want to control/restrict/ban guns. They don't know the topic. How can you (or a politician) expect to write good laws or make credible proposals when you don't understand the technologies?

That goes for any legislation (food safety, drugs, etc).

The last "assault weapon" ban (and I use the term cringing because it was a lie) was a mess of badly written garbage that basically tried to ban 'scary ugly guns'. I actually read the thing back in the 90s - it was idiotic junk.

People need rifles for hunting, they need shotguns for hunting (and home defense), they need handguns for easy carry in various scenarios (rural, traveling, stalking). Response time for police in the US simply does not support totally disarming the public. The courts have ruled it is not up to the police to prevent crime or protect you.

There are a lot of awful problems and I'm certainly willing to entertain ways to mitigate the violence that cost money (i.e. taxes, regulation, etc).

[Klashikari]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I wish people would look at the big picture. Legitimate use of firearms is not reserved only for self-defense scenarios(during which btw, you can never have enough rounds in your magazine).

That's exactly why I ask this question because I have no accurate idea what other application such weapons can be used for. Could you at least not jump on your high horses?
In any case, what are the other uses civilians need rifles for, aside hunting?

As for the clip subject, it was mainly due to how I actually see such weapons as "defense", hence why I would expect them to be used as deterrent (so dishing out 30 rounds for defense sounds a stretch, and I really don't imagine USA as a wild west either).

[Vexx]

Personally, I don't understand the fetish about large capacity clips either. A trained shooter can drop a clip and insert another very quickly. Typically, you allot two to three shots per attacker so a 10 round clip should be sufficient for three attackers assuming you have trained for those situations.

Its like any other martial art. You have to practice. Too few gun owners practice ...

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Personally, I don't understand the fetish about large capacity clips either. A trained shooter can drop a clip and insert another very quickly. Typically, you allot two to three shots per attacker so a 10 round clip should be sufficient for three attackers assuming you have trained for those situations.

Its like any other martial art. You have to practice. Too few gun owners practice ...

CMP competition requires you to have standard capacity magazines used by the military. That means 15 round pistol, 30 round rifle (high cap is not allowed).
The CMP was created by Theodore Roosevelt to train the militia.
It's not a fetish with most of us (some people it might be, but they tend to go with the really big mags, 50 to 100 rounds, which I find useless).
Personally I only use 20 round mags for my FAL, the 30 rounders exist, but they are too heavy and cumbersome to be of any use.
Five and ten round mags are too small and the weak springs (because they are shorter) cause hang-fires and jams.
The weapon was engineered to use 20 rounders, so that's what I use.
AR-15s were engineered to use 20 rounders as well, but they do better with the 30 round magazines because the weight improves accuracy and stability of the weapon.
In pistols, depends on the caliber.
My defense pistols consist of a .357 magnum 6-shot revolver and .40 S&W IMI Baby Eagle with 10 round mags. You need the larger magazines (15 rounders) for lower calibers because the stopping power is considerably less in say a .380, or 9mm.
There are legit reasons for 15 rounders in pistols and 30 rounders in rifles, larger than that are debatable, but I would never support a ban on them because that would make them like drugs (very desirable) due to prohibition.

Truth be told, the threat of banning the large magazines is what sells them more than anything.

Here's a great video on a person properly using a 20 round magazine to stabilize an FAL.

BTW, the FAL is a "Battle Rifle" like an M1 Garand, Lee Enfield, M1908 Springfield, Mosin Nagant, Mauser 98K, or other full-power rifles (meaning it does not use the intermediate rounds like the AR-15, or AK type weapons).

[ganbaru]

Rupert Murdoch Wants Stricter Gun Laws After Newtown, But Fox News Doesn’t Get the Memo
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-so-much.html

The NRA Is Silent, But Probably Not for Long
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-for-long.html

Adam Lanza’s weapons
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...f9hNsOCZkPJ1XP

That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?

I am pretty sure than many here have already a firm position on this one, but I think this one deserve some though.

[Ithekro]

The article on Adam Lanza's weapons is the same (exact same) reasoning behind the "Assault Weapons Ban" from 1994-2004. It did nothing that was useful.

As Gundomfan0083 pointed out, some of these weapons were designed with larger clips in mind and do not fuction well (or at all) if you introduce a smaller clip into them. It would not do for someone to be obeying the new laws and not be able to defend themselves because their now legal weapon jams on the first shot while the attacker with the normal (now illegal) clip of the same weapon gets shots off just fine.

Rifle clips can sometimes get away with something like that as they can be made smaller by design. A pistol's clip still has to fill the same space (the handgrip). The bullets are still going to be the same size as the original weapon.

Also mentioned, the actual high capacity magazines (the 50+ bullets clips and tubs (think Thompson machine guns with that classic round magazine) aer prone to jam (happened in that theater shooting earlier this year) and most shooters don't really like them.

The middle area is were most weapons fuction correctly by design.


Also such limits do not mean you will have less casualties if another shooting incident happens. The shooter will either just have more clips, or be more skilled at loading ten bullets or less into his weapon (instead of having to reload 20 to 30 bullet).

One wonders what they would do if one of these crazies used revolvers, pump action shotgun, or an old style repeating carbine for these shootings?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Adam Lanza’s weapons
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...f9hNsOCZkPJ1XP

I am pretty sure than many here have already a firm position on this one, but I think this one deserve some though.

They weren't Adam's weapons, they were his mothers and he killed her to steal them.
Lanza didn't buy any guns legally.
Let us not forget that.

Much thought has been given to this issue since the introduction of the Thompson 1927 submachinegun was made available to the public.
However, like in the 1920s, the most common weapons used by criminals are still the shotgun, cheap pistols, and the revolver.

http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/top_10_crime_guns.htm


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

Oh great, here comes the "video games are evil" line.

Connecticut school massacre: Adam Lanza 'spent hours playing Call Of Duty’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-Of-Duty.html

[Mr. DJ]

saw that crap on CNN about video games...

*deep, angry sigh*

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

Just like how we need to have reasonable approaches and attitudes for gun control, we need to be reasonable about how we treat and regard mentally ill people.

... and ACLU is NOT helping lately. When mental health experts advocated a law that might reduce the violence caused by mentally ill people who are untreated... “rights” above safety advocates like ACLU shots it down. The risk that innocent people might be murdered was not as important as the fact that the mentally ill might lose their “right” to walk around untreated.

A troubling revelation has broken regarding a mental health bill recently defeated in Connecticut during this calendar year. Had it passed, that bill could have possibly taken Adam Lanza off the streets so he would not have been free to commit his heinous act on December 14.

In February 2012, Connecticut Senate Bill 452 (SB452) was put forward to remedy the fact that Connecticut was one of less than ten states in the U.S. to lack an "assisted outpatient treatment" (AOT) law.

But the bill was passed to Connecticut's Joint Committee on Judiciary in March, where it quietly faded away because of opposition by those who viewed it as "egregious" and "outrageously discriminatory."

Had this law passed, it may have forced Adam Lanza to be treated for his alleged mental illness instead of allowing him to roam free, and ultimately to kill 26 persons and himself in a vindictive rage on Friday.......

----------

Spoiler for ... more on ACLU:

Is the ACLU directly responsible for the massacre in Arizona?

Rights of the mentally ill have always been a special part of the ACLU’s agenda. In the past, treatment of the mentally ill was brutal and horrific, with the mentally ill confined to cages like animals and treated as subhuman. As research into mental illness gave us insight to the disease, we discovered that brain chemistry has much to do with the more catastrophic illnesses, such as paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Based on that excellent research, drugs have been developed to minimize the symptoms and make these illnesses manageable. That is, if the drugs are taken regularly, as prescribed. If they are not, symptoms can return and can even be made worse.

That’s not quite the way the ACLU sees it, however, and it has taken to the courts to make sure that those diagnosed with mental illness are not forced to take medication. From an ACLU of New Mexico press release:

August 6, 2008

CONTACT: (505) 266-5915 ext. 1003

ALBUQUERQUE— Yesterday, the New Mexico Court of Appeals struck down a city ordinance, affirming an earlier ruling, that would have empowered the city of Albuquerque to forcibly medicate people with mental illnesses. The Assisted Outpatient Treatment Law (AOT) conflicted with state laws that require patient consent before treatment. This decision is a tremendous victory – upholding civil liberties in New Mexico.

Why did Albuquerque enact this law in the first place? The press release gives us an idea:

Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU), and The Law Offices of Peter Cubra initially sued the City in 2006, alleging that AOT subjects people with mental illness to potentially invasive treatment regimens based upon speculation that they might become dangerous.

By all accounts, speculation that the shooter in Arizona would become dangerous was widespread – and correct. The simple fact is that under the laws of that state, and others, thanks in large part to the ACLU, there was nothing that could be done – including making the shooter take medication or seek treatment. This is what the New Mexico law was trying to address, but in a less coercive form. The requirement was that those who were already receiving mental health services – there have been no reports that the Arizona shooter was under care – would need to continue with treatment and / or drugs. The press release explains:

AOT, also known as Kendra’s Law, grants judges the authority to require people receiving mental health services to take psychiatric drugs, regularly undergo psychiatric treatment, or both. Failure to comply could result in the patient’s being committed to an institution for up to 72 hours.

Why is it called Kendra’s law? From Wikipedia, cross-checked for accuracy through other sources:

In 1999, there was a series of incidents involving individuals with untreated mental illness becoming violent. In two similar assaults in the New York City subway a man diagnosed with schizophrenia pushed a person into the path of an oncoming train. Andrew Goldstein, age 29, while off medicines, pushed Kendra Webdale to her death in front of an oncoming NYC subway train. The law is named after her.

The law was modeled and signed into law in many states, has been challenged, and in both cases has been ruled constitutional. The challenge that was won by the ACLU in New Mexico was because Kendra’s Law conflicted with state law, but it certainly was not the reason given for the initiation of the lawsuit. Remember, the ACLU’s position is that:

…AOT subjects people with mental illness to potentially invasive treatment regimens based upon speculation that they might become dangerous.

The reason that more stringent laws mandating involuntary hospitalization or treatment of those with severe mental illness have not been enacted is the real fear of a protracted lawsuit by the ACLU.

The ACLU’s argument is that people should be in charge of their own psychiatric treatment. The Catch-22 is that while off medication, many individuals with certain mental illnesses do not have the capacity to determine their own treatment. That has made no difference to the ACLU, whose lawsuits have been responsible for the mass deinstitutionalizing of the mentally ill, who, without the benefit of therapy and/or medication, regularly turn into the chronically homeless – and sometimes into violent criminals.

Which brings us back to Arizona. I am not a mental health professional. Here is what I believe, however, from simple research. The Arizona shooter was severely mentally ill. His writings, videos and postings indicate that he was convinced that the government was trying to brainwash us all, especially him. It is quite likely that he believes attempting to kill Representative Giffords was an act of self-defense, and that he would have tried to do so regardless of what political party she belonged to or what her stand on the issues were. The shooter was worried about “brainwashing” and being “forced to worship God” by the government – not about immigration or health care.

The debate here is not whether anything from the outside provoked the shooter – anyone who tries to pass off that meme with all that we now know is absolutely and clearly trying to score political points, nothing more. The issue is how far we can go as a society to protect ourselves from people who are clearly mentally ill, and how far the ACLU and the left will go in making sure we can’t.

credits

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'm sorry but it's not the progressives who are destroying public mental health care services. You can spout nonsense about the ACLU all you want, but it's Republicans and Tea Partiers who continue to defund public healthcare organizations.

... but who led the way? Those types above!

It goes back further than the current environment you suggest.

What is clear is that decades of failed liberal policies have made it difficult to force people with severe mentals to be treated or institutionalized... then everyone's shocked when these same mental nutcase individuals go on a shooting rampage like we witnessed in Tuscon, Aurora, and now in Newtown.


FYI: The deinstitutionalization movement was a product of the Vietnam War era lawyer glut composed of ACLU types and Biden dodger types. It was opposed by conservatives... but the courts ruled in favor of the ACLU and let people out who had no business on the streets. This led to increased numbers of urban outdoorsmen and petty crime. This continued throughout the late 70s and the ~80s

[ReaperxKingx]

Originally Posted by Mr. DJ

saw that crap on CNN about video games...

*deep, angry sigh*

Felt the same, how do they come up with that stuff.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by ReaperxKingx

Felt the same, how do they come up with that stuff.

... posted this waay back and I was sure it's going to (unfortunately to many...) reverberate:

Study: More Violent Video Game Play Results in More Aggression

In the first study to test the effects of playing violent video games over time, researchers found that cumulative play results in increased hostility and aggression.

Seventy French university students were recruited for the study and told they would be participating in a three-day experiment testing the effects of brightness of video games on visual perception. They were then assigned to play a violent or nonviolent video game for 20 minutes on each of three consecutive days.

The violent game group played Condemned 2, Call of Duty 4 and The Club on consecutive days (in random order). The nonviolent game group played S3K Superbike, Dirt2 and Pure (also in random order).....

An Ohio State University study suggests that the negative effects of playing violent video games can accumulate over time.

"It's important to know the long-term causal effects of violent video games because so many young people regularly play these games," Brad Bushman, co-author and professor of communication and psychology, said in a school news release. It "could be compared to smoking cigarettes. A single cigarette won't cause lung cancer, but smoking over weeks or months or years greatly increases the risk. In the same way, repeated exposure to violent video games may have a cumulative effect on aggression."

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by flying ^

What is clear is that decades of failed liberal policies have made it difficult to force people with severe mentals to be treated or institutionalized... then everyone's shocked when these same mental nutcase individuals go on a shooting rampage like we witnessed in Tuscon, Aurora, and now in Newtown.

hmm, it's not really obvious to see that Adam Lanza had severe mental disorder b4 he did what he did. He did have autism, but the correlation of this with mass killing is ... not really there.

And let's not forget that many mass shootings in school were also committed by the bullied.

So how can an inanimate object be more dangerous than a living predator!

A mine ! maybe.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Oh great, here comes the "video games are evil" line.

Connecticut school massacre: Adam Lanza 'spent hours playing Call Of Duty’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-Of-Duty.html

As if the first dude from Japan, UK, France, Germany or Russia is not playing hours on Call of Duty. Now what?

And based on the last Call of Duty game, I've not seen anyone in other countries go berserk and start attacking people with a machete because he was inspired by that particular bit either. How do you explain we don't have many cases of such violence elsewhere but the US if we take into account that players from worlwide are probably spending as many hours as Adam Lanza did? try finding another denominator in this equation and it's pretty obvious what it is.

Seriously, one word to describe those people accusing video games: c**ts!