Police - a thin blue line, a wad of cash and scary guns

[Liffguard]

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

IMO we should work on institutionalizing the mentally ill.  If that's still ok to say.

I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the idea that the USA's disproportionately high level of gun violence is influenced by a lack of involuntary hospitalisations for mental illnesses.

[Liffguard]

2 hours ago, mcbigski said:

Yeah the second amendment was all about armed brown and black people and not at all about white guys in red coats.  <eye roll>  You must read Howard Zinn and NYT....

The idea that the 2nd ammendment was primarily motivated by a desire to ensure the American populace could overthrow the government (I assume that's what you mean by "red coats"), is pretty much entirely ahistorical. My understanding is that it needs to be looked at in the context of the militia movement of the time; namely, ensuring that armed militias existed for national defense against external threats, being able to engage in offensive actions against natives, and slavery enforcement.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, mcbigski said:

IMO we should work on institutionalizing the mentally ill.  If that's still ok to say.

Well, you’d actually have to show the majority shootings are caused by mental illness. Like Or at the very least very significant portion.

Or why perhaps making simply harder to get guns still isn’t on the table—by making it illegal for a person looking to sell a gun, not to do a proper background check to see if the person he or she is selling has been classified as mentally ill. 

And please no need to be so PC—just say make it easier to lock up the “crazies” against their will, like it was in the 60s. 

34 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the idea that the USA's disproportionately high level of gun violence is influenced by a lack of involuntary hospitalisations for mental illnesses.

Same. Blaming mental illness for America’s gun violence always seems a cheap cop out to avoid talking about other issues. Like when the El Paso shooting happened—a white-supremacist hated non-whites, and saw them as threat to white’s dominion of America and the “West” and the first reaction by republicans is to say he’s mentally ill—when all could be demonstrated by his actions and rhetoric is being a violent racist.  It seems rather more a violation of a person’s rights to be locked up in asylum against his or her will just for suffering a mental illness than making it take longer a citizen to legally purchase a gun.  But I guess since only effect the undesirables that’s acceptable. Though truth be told 1/5  of Americans suffer a mental illness. 

23 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

The idea that the 2nd ammendment was primarily motivated by a desire to ensure the American populace could overthrow the government (I assume that's what you mean by "red coats"), is pretty much entirely ahistorical. My understanding is that it needs to be looked at in the context of the militia movement of the time; namely, ensuring that armed militias existed for national defense against external threats, being able to engage in offensive actions against natives, and slavery enforcement.

Red-coats being the British. You know because the redness of their uniforms

[James Arryn]

Statistically, mentally ill people are much much more likely to be the victims of violence than actually be violent themselves. Another nod to fiction, that idea that insanity = violence.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Maybe just classify being a racist as needs to be locked up mentally ill.  

 

 

 

edited.

Just in case it wasn't clear you should read this post with sarcasm.   although if your racism makes you really want to shoot people for belonging to a certain group, your probably not the most stable of people and do need treatment.

[Roterdamlover]

1 hour ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

Maybe just classify being a racist as needs to be locked up mentally ill.  

No.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Statistically, mentally ill people are much much more likely to be the victims of violence than actually be violent themselves. Another nod to fiction, that idea that insanity = violence.

Yep. It’d be quite easy to blame the perceived societal misfits for society’s troubles. They’re different and that’s scary, so they must be a threat and locked up somewhere. 

If one ignores all the horrific stuff that had happened to the mentally ill—and many of those who weren’t mentally ill but considered“deviant” in some aspect—thanks to how easy it was to get someone committed, one could totally see that as a an acceptable solution; and not a huge violation of a person’s autonomy. 

Like, there are reasons why the bar for being able to involuntary commit someone is really high today. 

The fact this is seen as a suitable alternative to the gun-rights crowd than gun-control really shows if the government turns tyrannical they’ll do what they’ve done in the past and do nothing. Or even defend or cheer on the tyranny.

5 hours ago, Roterdamlover said:

No.

Agreed. Then I couldn’t make fun of them and mock them for their bigotry. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If one ignores all the horrific stuff that had happened to the mentally ill—and many of those who weren’t mentally ill but considered“deviant” in some aspect—thanks to how easy it was to get someone committed, one could totally see that as a an acceptable solution; and not a huge violation of a person’s autonomy. 

Yeah, it's truly sickening the things that have been done to people perceived to be mentally ill. Besides that, what constitutes mentally ill? I have anxiety from time to time am I mentally ill? Do you have to be diagnosed as being a sociopath or psychopath to be considered mentally ill? Or does it lie somewhere in between. "Mentally ill" is such a broad term. 

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like, there are reasons why the bar for being able to involuntary commit someone is really high today. 

Thankfully

21 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The fact this is seen as a suitable alternative to the gun-rights crowd than gun-control really shows if the government turns tyrannical they’ll do what they’ve done in the past and do nothing. Or even defend or cheer on the tyranny.

I don't know about any "crowds" but I'm probably someone you would consider to be on the "gun-rights" side & I most definitely would not ever think this is a suitable alternative. It is direct opposition to what I would like or what I think is fair. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, it's truly sickening the things that have been done to people perceived to be mentally ill. Besides that, what constitutes mentally ill? I have anxiety from time to time am I mentally ill? Do you have to be diagnosed as being a sociopath or psychopath to be considered mentally ill? Or does it lie somewhere in between. "Mentally ill" is such a broad term. 

Well do you have a husband you aren’t serving properly? Not a strict and proper heterosexual?  Or simply  “weird”? Well there you go. That’s much of the criteria in who got locked up back then and it’ll likely be the criteria many who think it should be easier to forcefully commit someone now. 

Also, be greeted with applause by those who’d stand to make a pretty penny locking people up. 

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't know about any "crowds" but I'm probably someone you would consider to be on the "gun-rights" side & I most definitely would not ever think this is a suitable alternative. It is direct opposition to what I would like or what I think is fair

I’m not talking about specifically you.  I’m more referring to those who grow outraged at the slightest whiff of gun-control but don’t show any real objection to Trump basically advocating a return to the “good ol days” in terms of how America dealt with the mentally ill. Which was basically like stray dogs. Animals that could not be expected to oversee their own affairs, and pose a threat to their community if left unattended.

Which should be the type of stuff, their presumably are needed to prevent based on their purported justification for having them.

You personally don’t agree that making it easier to forcefully commit someone is suitable alternative to gun control. I get that. But you have to concede that it’s obvious that many on the “gun rights”  side do. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well do you have a husband you aren’t serving properly? Not a strict and proper heterosexual?  Or simply  “weird”? Well there you go. That’s much of the criteria in who got locked up back then and it’ll likely be the criteria many who think it should be easier to forcefully commit someone now. 

Right that's what I'm saying. It's ridiculous & to subjective to be a guideline. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m not talking about specifically you.  I’m more referring to those who grow outraged at the slightest whiff of gun-control but don’t show any real objection to Trump basically advocating a return to the “good ol days” in terms of how America dealt with the mentally ill. Which was basically like stray dogs. Animals that could not be expected to oversee their own affairs, and pose a threat to their community if left unattended.

I gotcha. I agree there seems to be an outrageous level of hypocrisy in some people. Don't you feel like there is so much more to it than just "gun control" I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone but sometimes it seems like our entire society has gone crazy. Everyone is so offended by everything & it makes it very hard to discuss things rationally. We need to be able to talk about these touchy subjects without getting our feelings hurt or at the very least not let our emotions make our decisions. Not that there isn't a level of benefit to being emotionally connected to an issue but if you argue against something merely because you don't like the person arguing for it or because they have said something that has hurt your feelings it is counter-productive. 

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Which should be the type of stuff, their presumably are needed to prevent based on their purported justification for having them.

You personally don’t agree that making it easier to forcefully commit someone is suitable alternative to gun control. I get that. But you have to concede that it’s obvious that many on the “gun rights”  side do. 

I guess I haven't discussed this with many people. I know how I feel but I rarely talk about anything controversial IRL with anyone outside of my immediate family. I guess my question to them would be what constitutes mental illness & who gets to decide that? Do we take a doctor's word for it? What if two doctors disagree? 

Also, I haven't looked up the statistics but if there is no correlation between mental illness & gun crimes why would this be on the table to begin with? Like, even if there could be some objective way to figure out who has a mental illness & who doesn't (there isn't but for arguments sake) what is there to gain by taking guns away from these people if they aren't the ones committing the crimes in the first place? 

Just to be clear, I know you aren't arguing for this, I'm just "thinking out loud" about the questions I would have to the people advocating for this. 

[James Arryn]

3 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Right that's what I'm saying. It's ridiculous & to subjective to be a guideline. 

I gotcha. I agree there seems to be an outrageous level of hypocrisy in some people. Don't you feel like there is so much more to it than just "gun control" I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone but sometimes it seems like our entire society has gone crazy. Everyone is so offended by everything & it makes it very hard to discuss things rationally. We need to be able to talk about these touchy subjects without getting our feelings hurt or at the very least not let our emotions make our decisions. Not that there isn't a level of benefit to being emotionally connected to an issue but if you argue against something merely because you don't like the person arguing for it or because they have said something that has hurt your feelings it is counter-productive. 

I guess I haven't discussed this with many people. I know how I feel but I rarely talk about anything controversial IRL with anyone outside of my immediate family. I guess my question to them would be what constitutes mental illness & who gets to decide that? Do we take a doctor's word for it? What if two doctors disagree? 

Also, I haven't looked up the statistics but if there is no correlation between mental illness & gun crimes why would this be on the table to begin with? Like, even if there could be some objective way to figure out who has a mental illness & who doesn't (there isn't but for arguments sake) what is there to gain by taking guns away from these people if they aren't the ones committing the crimes in the first place? 

Just to be clear, I know you aren't arguing for this, I'm just "thinking out loud" about the questions I would have to the people advocating for this. 

Maybe you’re not aware that the latest pro-gun sidestep on gun crimes is mental illness? If a video gamer kills someone with guns, video games are the problem, let’s talk about video games, at least until we’re past talking about the incident. If a Muslim kills people with guns, Islam is the problem, let’s talk about Islam. If a misogynist kills people with guns, let’s talk about misogyny. Or bullying. Or drugs. Or heavy metal music. Or homophobia. Or anything that is added to the ‘____ gun-violence’ that isn’t about the guns. Mental health had for a while now been the kind of catch-all basket for stuff that doesn’t fit into any other basket, except of course guns. So now right-wingers are talking a LOT about mental health.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

52 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Maybe you’re not aware that the latest pro-gun sidestep on gun crimes is mental illness? If a video gamer kills someone with guns, video games are the problem, let’s talk about video games, at least until we’re past talking about the incident. If a Muslim kills people with guns, Islam is the problem, let’s talk about Islam. If a misogynist kills people with guns, let’s talk about misogyny. Or bullying. Or drugs. Or heavy metal music. Or homophobia. Or anything that is added to the ‘____ gun-violence’ that isn’t about the guns. Mental health had for a while now been the kind of catch-all basket for stuff that doesn’t fit into any other basket, except of course guns. So now right-wingers are talking a LOT about mental health.

No I wasn't aware. I don't watch much main stream media & it sounds like I'm not missing much. 

It doesn't sound like a very legit argument though. What is the motive do you think? 

I guess I just don't understand how this offers a solution to the gun violence. What solution do they propose? What solution does the left propose?

I guess I don't really care if it's the left or the right proposing a solution, if it's a logical solution that has some potential to work. I'm not really into politics because I think left or right, they exaggerate, lie & twist facts to fit their agenda. It's hard to know what the truth is when you can Google pretty much anything & bring up something that supports the claim someone is making, no matter how outlandish. 

I'm more interested in how we can keep guns out of the hands of people that want to do harm with them & in the hands of people that don't. 

[mcbigski]

On 11/25/2019 at 1:14 PM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’m not talking about specifically you.  I’m more referring to those who grow outraged at the slightest whiff of gun-control but don’t show any real objection to Trump basically advocating a return to the “good ol days” in terms of how America dealt with the mentally ill. Which was basically like stray dogs. Animals that could not be expected to oversee their own affairs, and pose a threat to their community if left unattended.

Which should be the type of stuff, their presumably are needed to prevent based on their purported justification for having them.

You personally don’t agree that making it easier to forcefully commit someone is suitable alternative to gun control. I get that. But you have to concede that it’s obvious that many on the “gun rights”  side do. 

Wait now, what is Trump's position here?  I haven't heard anything where he was saying reopen asylums as a better solution than a lot of homelessness and poorly monitored administration of psychoactive drugs.  Nor did I hear he said shoot them all, which seems a bit farfetched.

And while not every person who has mental illness shoots up a school or movie theater, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US.  Statistically speaking, which is more likely to commit a mass shooting, someone mentally ill, or a legal gun owner?  Falling victim to the street light fallacy might make one feel good, but it doesn't address the root cause.

Anyway, too long a tangent, let's get back to discussing police or start another broader gun control thread.  Collectivists gotta oppress!

[Varysblackfyre321]

Nvm

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Wait now, what is Trump's position here?  I haven't heard anything where he was saying reopen asylums as a better solution than a lot of homelessness and poorly monitored administration of psychoactive drugs.  

That it was tragedy that these institutions which were known, for being underfunded, having a low-bar for being able to committed, and patients being basically tortured were closed down.

I remember, growing up, we had mental institutions," Trump said Sunday. "A lot of them were closed. And all of those people were put out on the streets. And I said — even as a young guy, I said, 'How does that work? That's not a good thing.' And it's not a good thing. So, I think the concept of mental institutions has to be looked at.

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Nor did I hear he said shoot them all, which seems a bit farfetched.

I didn’t say he did? I'm guessing you're referring to me saying he harkens back to a time where the mentally ill were treated like stray dogs? Which would kinda imply you think just outright shooting them with actual bullets is either the norm and/or an most acceptable way to deal with them generally in America.

And took it to be totally literal and totally exact comparison. Which is...weird.  Like you might as well ask ”Are they eating you?”

To a group of people saying they're being treated like animals. 

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

And while not every person who has mental illness shoots up a school or movie theater, there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US.  Statistically speaking, which is more likely to commit a mass shooting, someone mentally ill, or a legal gun owner?  Falling victim to the street light fallacy might make one feel good, but it doesn't address the root cause.

1% of actual gun homicides are caused by someone sufferance of mental illness. 

4/5’s of mass shooters don’t have a  mental illness.

https://www.cmhnetwork.org/hifi/files/news/Mass_Murder_Mental_Illness_and_Men.pdf

And when you take into account that 1/5 of Americans have a mental illness, those who suffer mental illness, this doesn’t really leave credence to the idea that those who suffer mental illness are more likely to commit mass shootings. 

https://www.nami.org/nami/media/nami-media/infographics/generalmhfacts.pdf

Mental illness covers a wide arrange of things. Anxiety and depression, are mental illnesses, a pretty common one, and I’d say the chance of those who are suffering that working up the nerve to commit a mass shooting. 

Yes, we shouldn’t fall victim to the Street light fallacy.  Blaming the weird, crazy, people for the problem of gun violence, appears to be the easy most comforting choice, but based on the actual evidence mental illness isn’t the issue With gun violence. It's regular sane joes. Like I'm guessing you consider yourself as. No real risk for you being thrown in an insane asylum. You're no deviant. 

Also, you've committed the either/or fallacy.  A person with a mental illness could be a legal gun-owner. A lot of gun-related suicides have the legal owner of gun use his or gun to take their own life. 

1 hour ago, mcbigski said:

Anyway, too long a tangent, let's get back to discussing police or start another broader gun control thread.  Collectivists gotta oppress!

Do you even recognize the irony in that statement? You’ve so far argued it should be easier to forcefully commit someone against his or her will, off the chance they just suffer a mental illness. The standard is exceptionally high to protect   individuals from just being haphazardly locked up because they don't fit society’s mold. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 11/25/2019 at 5:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It doesn't sound like a very legit argument though. What is the motive do you think? 

To deflect Mostly. Mental Illness is an easy scapegoat because many people have very negative preconceptions for that means, and seen as something only extreme deviants have. It puts the blame on not on ”normal” people’s irresponsibility, but on weirdos.  Same the reason people blame legalizing weed and violent video-games. Honestly, I can't tell how much I rolled my eyes when I see people list video-games and weed as some of the root causes for violence.

It would make far more sense to bemoan the legalization of alcohol for mass shootings than weed, given people who are stoned are far less likely to commit violence than those who drunk. But drinking alcohol is still far more common, including among  conservatives, and weed is still associated with liberal hippies(deviants!), so it's only ok to blame the plant-based drug that’s killed almost no one.

Plenty of sports have the express goal of inflicting a significant amount of pain on another human being(boxing, wrestling, football) that are glorified but, only really violent video-games are called out as being the things that are called out.

On 11/25/2019 at 5:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm more interested in how we can keep guns out of the hands of people that want to do harm with them & in the hands of people that don't. 

Then, requiring everyone who wants to sell a gun to sell a gun needs to be a step in that process.

On 11/25/2019 at 12:31 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also, I haven't looked up the statistics but if there is no correlation between mental illness & gun crimes why would this be on the table to begin with? Like, even if there could be some objective way to figure out who has a mental illness & who doesn't (there isn't but for arguments sake) what is there to gain by taking guns away from these people if they aren't the ones committing the crimes in the first place? 

 

Fewer suicides, namely, less accidental killings perhaps. I think the problem in terms of the discussion of gun-violence is it always centers around the most gratuitous crimes. The deaths caused by mass shooting, pale in  comparison to how many kids die annually due to supposed ”responsible” gun owners not acting responsibly. As much as shootings are covered in America, they make up Less than one percent of gun homicides. The rate of Gun homicides is actually(like really a most crime), down from what it was decades ago:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/most-americans-incorrectly-think-gun-homicides-have-gotten-worse-not-better/%3foutputType=amp

There is a degree of nuance to the situation I think many people miss. 

[BigFatCoward]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 1:20 AM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

 

I'm more interested in how we can keep guns out of the hands of people that want to do harm with them & in the hands of people that don't. 

You sell a man a gun now, and 3 weeks down the line he finds out his wife is having an affair.  He didn't want to do harm when he bought the gun. 

 

[Pebble thats Stubby]

there have been several requests to move the gun control discussion into a separate thread.  I've created one for you.

 

Lets talk about the police.     you can even talk about police with guns here.

[BigFatCoward]

5 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

 

Lets talk about the police.     you can even talk about police with guns here.

Police don't want, nor need guns. 

[Which Tyler]

19 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Sensible police don't want, nor need guns. 

FTFY