Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've got concrete numbers on the effect of guns on suicide rates in the Swiss study referred to twice above.
Studies in other countries can’t really be applied to the US because there are so many different variables. The fact that some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have strict gun laws and/or very few guns in circulation
But fine, let’s assume you are correct.
No, not assuming anything here. This is not something you can have an opinion on. There is hard evidence on this. Rejecting that evidence is actively getting people killed.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've got concrete numbers on the effect of guns on suicide rates in the Swiss study referred to twice above.
Studies in other countries can’t really be applied to the US because there are so many different variables. The fact that some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have strict gun laws and/or very few guns in circulation
But fine, let’s assume you are correct. Getting rid of guns because it might reduce successful suicides is not a good idea. It tramples on constitutional rights and attempts to solve a problem that really isn’t an issue here. The effort would bear more fruit without the other issues if you focus on preventing and treating depression, rather than demonizing tools and innocent people.
Literally nobody in this thread is saying ban all guns. No one. That's just you, Captain of the USS Ludicrous Hyberbole, boldly going where no has gone before.
It's funny that you think it'll stop anywhere else BUT a ban on all firearms.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've got concrete numbers on the effect of guns on suicide rates in the Swiss study referred to twice above.
Studies in other countries can’t really be applied to the US because there are so many different variables. The fact that some of the countries with the highest suicide rates have strict gun laws and/or very few guns in circulation
But fine, let’s assume you are correct. Getting rid of guns because it might reduce successful suicides is not a good idea. It tramples on constitutional rights and attempts to solve a problem that really isn’t an issue here. The effort would bear more fruit without the other issues if you focus on preventing and treating depression, rather than demonizing tools and innocent people.
Literally nobody in this thread is saying ban all guns. No one. That's just you, Captain of the USS Ludicrous Hyberbole, boldly going where no has gone before.
It's funny that you think it'll stop anywhere else BUT a ban on all firearms.
If this is genuinely what the pro gun side thinks, then no wonder they have an obstinate refusal to accept basic realities. Every single concession to even the most obvious of facts is, in their mind, is another inch towards the grim inevitability of total ban on all gun ownership.
Is there any democracies in the world where a total blanket ban on private gun ownership is a thing?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
No, the total ban on firearms has almost invariably been followed by a totalitarian regime in some of the worst dictatorships known to man. Oddly enough, every single one of those regimes started as progressives, socialists, or communists.
Just Tony wrote: No, the total ban on firearms has almost invariably been followed by a totalitarian regime in some of the worst dictatorships known to man. Oddly enough, every single one of those regimes started as progressives, socialists, or communists.
Good one. What's facts worth when we can have a good old cry about 'progressives', eh?
So no democracies have a gun ban. But a ban on guns in America is in the realm of possibility? Pull the other one
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Just Tony wrote: No, the total ban on firearms has almost invariably been followed by a totalitarian regime in some of the worst dictatorships known to man. Oddly enough, every single one of those regimes started as progressives, socialists, or communists.
Good one. What's facts worth when we can have a good old cry about 'progressives', eh?
So no democracies have a gun ban. But a ban on guns in America is in the realm of possibility? Pull the other one
Nazi Germany began as a democracy and they banned guns. That was far from the only factor that caused it, but it is a characteristic of tyrannical groups to disarm the citizens. Always slowly, bit by bit, so they don’t realize what’s going on till it’s too late.
If progressives truly don’t want to ban guns, then they need to stop pushing for more useless gun control. It doesn’t solve the problems they claim it will, it only serves to move closer to a totalitarian regime.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Just Tony wrote: No, the total ban on firearms has almost invariably been followed by a totalitarian regime in some of the worst dictatorships known to man. Oddly enough, every single one of those regimes started as progressives, socialists, or communists.
Good one. What's facts worth when we can have a good old cry about 'progressives', eh?
So no democracies have a gun ban. But a ban on guns in America is in the realm of possibility? Pull the other one
Nazi Germany began as a democracy and they banned guns. That was far from the only factor that caused it, but it is a characteristic of tyrannical groups to disarm the citizens. Always slowly, bit by bit, so they don’t realize what’s going on till it’s too late.
And a cake begins as an egg but you don't pretend it's an omelette. No one who is taken seriously pretends that Nazi Germany was anything other than a far-right dictatorship.
The Nazis actually relaxed existing gun laws, but only for party members and other 'desirables'.
If progressives truly don’t want to ban guns, then they need to stop pushing for more useless gun control. It doesn’t solve the problems they claim it will,
If conservatives truly are afraid of a total gun ban, then they need to stop obstructing reasonable gun control measures.
it only serves to move closer to a totalitarian regime.
Oh captain my captain! Fearlessly guiding the good ship Ludicrous Hyperbole through the treacherous waters of Reasonable Debate
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Just Tony wrote: No, the total ban on firearms has almost invariably been followed by a totalitarian regime in some of the worst dictatorships known to man. Oddly enough, every single one of those regimes started as progressives, socialists, or communists.
Good one. What's facts worth when we can have a good old cry about 'progressives', eh?
So no democracies have a gun ban. But a ban on guns in America is in the realm of possibility? Pull the other one
Nazi Germany began as a democracy and they banned guns.
Nope. Stop spreading lies.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
If progressives truly don’t want to ban guns, then they need to stop pushing for more useless gun control. It doesn’t solve the problems they claim it will,
If conservatives truly are afraid of a total gun ban, then they need to stop obstructing reasonable gun control measures.
it only serves to move closer to a totalitarian regime.
Oh captain my captain! Fearlessly guiding the good ship Ludicrous Hyperbole through the treacherous waters of Reasonable Debate
That's one of the problems with the gun control debate, neither side is willing to compromise. Demanding that gun owners concede to whatever demands anti gun groups seek to impose is neither reasonable nor is it a rational compromise. Threatening an ultimatum that if gun owners don't acquiesce to current demands for restrictions then even more draconian restrictions will be imposed later is even more unreasonable. If you're telling me that I have to surrender to your demands now or you'll demand even more later all that tells me is that you want more restrictions so if we agree to your demands now you'll want more later.
Commentary: The problem with "common-sense" gun laws
"Okay, gun haters -- now what?" That's the question many Second Amendment supporters are asking in the wake of the horrific shooting at Santa Fe High School. The carnage, the loss of life -- it's all too familiar. And so are the responses from advocates for more restrictive gun laws, often couched by them as "common-sense gun laws." What's different this time is this shooting is inspiring more people to ask the question gun rights' supporters have been raising for years:
What "common-sense gun laws" would have stopped this?
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, was one of many Democrats playing the "common-sense" card in the wake of Friday's shooting. "The American people are united overwhelmingly -- gun owners, non-gun owners -- on common-sense gun safety legislation. Expand background checks, do away with the gun show loophole," Sanders told NBC News. The potential 2020 presidential candidate went on to blame the NRA for the shooting, which he claims "has become a right-wing political organization."
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has made gun control a legislative priority, went even farther, blaming gun rights supporters in Congress for giving "a green light to would-be shooters, who pervert silence into endorsement."
But would expanded background checks, or closing the alleged "gun show loophole" have had any impact on the Santa Fe shooter? How about bringing back the "assault weapon ban," or restricting the size of magazines, or raising the minimum age for legal gun purchases?
Answer: No.
The Texas shooter used two of the most common, easily accessed guns in America: a traditional .38 caliber pistol and a shotgun. No so-called "assault weapons" or the much-reviled (but hugely popular among gun owners) AR-15. No, just the sort of basic firearms that gun-control supporters often say they find acceptable.
President Obama tells the story of traveling through rural Iowa during the 2008 campaign and his wife Michelle saying to him, "If I was living in a farmhouse, where the sheriff's department is pretty far away, and somebody could just turn off the highway and come up to the farm, I'd want to have a shotgun or a rifle to make sure I was protected."
President Obama's reply: "And she was right."
This is the "Good gun vs. bad gun" dichotomy exposed by the Santa Fe shooting, and it led to some unfortunate reporting by USA Today:
"Two details set the Santa Fe shooting apart from other recent deadly attacks: explosives and the use of less-lethal weapons," the newspaper tweeted.
"Less lethal?" The response from the pro-2A community was, "Tell that to the victims."
But the point USA Today was trying to make is that these weapons can't do as much damage as quickly as other guns. "The guns [used at Santa Fe High] may have slowed down the gunman's deadly rampage because they have a slower firing rate than firearms used in other recent mass shootings, such as the AR-15," they reported.
And the counterpoint Second Amendment advocates are making -- and have been trying to make for years -- is that shotguns and handguns are plenty dangerous enough -- as evidenced by the horror outside Houston. They may not look as scary as black rifles with modified, military-style stocks, but they're just as lethal. Which is why, gun-rights activists argue, nearly every proposal for "common-sense gun laws" actually makes no sense. Not if you goal is to stop the next Parkland or Santa Fe shooting.
CBS News' Margaret Brennan raised this point on Sunday during a "Face the Nation" interview with Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo:
"In this specific instance, the shooter didn't have a known criminal record. His father had legally obtained the guns that he used in this shooting. They weren't semi-automatic weapons, so specifically what laws do you think need to be changed that would have prevented this attack," Brennan asked.
Sheriff Acevedo responded by talking about proper gun storage -- locking guns up so they can't be used without the owner's permission. This is a policy promoted by the NRA, too. But it's not one that's been advanced by the activists at anti-gun organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety or gun restrictionist members of Congress like Senator Murphy.
No, the only gun law that would have stopped Santa Fe is total gun confiscation. And given that the perpetrator in Santa Fe also experimented with IEDs and pressure-cooker bombs, even that may not have been enough.
A few people, most notably former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, have spoken publicly about repealing the Second Amendment -- a mandatory step in any effort to ban private gun ownership. But they are lonely voices, even on the Left.
Democrats are caught on the horns of their own dilemma. They can either propose useless laws that would have virtually no impact on potential mass shooters; or gun confiscation which has very little support among the electorate and would be a massive turnout magnet for Republican voters.
Meanwhile, the Texas shooting also poses a quandary for the "police people, not guns" proponent on the Right. Unlike the Parkland shooter--who had repeated troubling encounters with law enforcement-- the Santa Fe suspect had no criminal record and was an honor student and involved in his church. As in the case of the Las Vegas shooter, there were no "red flags" until the shooting started.
Perhaps there is a third way. Democrats could join conservatives in asking uncomfortable questions about whether government policies kept the Parkland shooter out of jail in the name of "social justice." And they could support efforts by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to enforce current gun laws to get more gun criminals behind bars.
Would these efforts end mass shootings? Of course not -- because nothing short of confiscating all guns would do that. But they would lower the overall gun crime rate, make some communities safer and get some guns off the street.
To many on the Right, that sounds like "common sense."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/25 20:54:21
If progressives truly don’t want to ban guns, then they need to stop pushing for more useless gun control. It doesn’t solve the problems they claim it will,
If conservatives truly are afraid of a total gun ban, then they need to stop obstructing reasonable gun control measures.
it only serves to move closer to a totalitarian regime.
Oh captain my captain! Fearlessly guiding the good ship Ludicrous Hyperbole through the treacherous waters of Reasonable Debate
That's one of the problems with the gun control debate, neither side is willing to compromise. Demanding that gun owners concede to whatever demands anti gun groups seek to impose is neither reasonable nor is it a rational compromise. Threatening an ultimatum that if gun owners don't acquiesce to current demands for restrictions then even more draconian restrictions will be imposed later is even more unreasonable. If you're telling me that I have to surrender to your demands now or you'll demand even more later all that tells me is that you want more restrictions so if we agree to your demands now you'll want more later.
Commentary: The problem with "common-sense" gun laws
"Okay, gun haters -- now what?" That's the question many Second Amendment supporters are asking in the wake of the horrific shooting at Santa Fe High School. The carnage, the loss of life -- it's all too familiar. And so are the responses from advocates for more restrictive gun laws, often couched by them as "common-sense gun laws." What's different this time is this shooting is inspiring more people to ask the question gun rights' supporters have been raising for years:
What "common-sense gun laws" would have stopped this?
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, was one of many Democrats playing the "common-sense" card in the wake of Friday's shooting. "The American people are united overwhelmingly -- gun owners, non-gun owners -- on common-sense gun safety legislation. Expand background checks, do away with the gun show loophole," Sanders told NBC News. The potential 2020 presidential candidate went on to blame the NRA for the shooting, which he claims "has become a right-wing political organization."
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat who has made gun control a legislative priority, went even farther, blaming gun rights supporters in Congress for giving "a green light to would-be shooters, who pervert silence into endorsement."
But would expanded background checks, or closing the alleged "gun show loophole" have had any impact on the Santa Fe shooter? How about bringing back the "assault weapon ban," or restricting the size of magazines, or raising the minimum age for legal gun purchases?
Answer: No.
The Texas shooter used two of the most common, easily accessed guns in America: a traditional .38 caliber pistol and a shotgun. No so-called "assault weapons" or the much-reviled (but hugely popular among gun owners) AR-15. No, just the sort of basic firearms that gun-control supporters often say they find acceptable.
President Obama tells the story of traveling through rural Iowa during the 2008 campaign and his wife Michelle saying to him, "If I was living in a farmhouse, where the sheriff's department is pretty far away, and somebody could just turn off the highway and come up to the farm, I'd want to have a shotgun or a rifle to make sure I was protected."
President Obama's reply: "And she was right."
This is the "Good gun vs. bad gun" dichotomy exposed by the Santa Fe shooting, and it led to some unfortunate reporting by USA Today:
"Two details set the Santa Fe shooting apart from other recent deadly attacks: explosives and the use of less-lethal weapons," the newspaper tweeted.
"Less lethal?" The response from the pro-2A community was, "Tell that to the victims."
But the point USA Today was trying to make is that these weapons can't do as much damage as quickly as other guns. "The guns [used at Santa Fe High] may have slowed down the gunman's deadly rampage because they have a slower firing rate than firearms used in other recent mass shootings, such as the AR-15," they reported.
And the counterpoint Second Amendment advocates are making -- and have been trying to make for years -- is that shotguns and handguns are plenty dangerous enough -- as evidenced by the horror outside Houston. They may not look as scary as black rifles with modified, military-style stocks, but they're just as lethal. Which is why, gun-rights activists argue, nearly every proposal for "common-sense gun laws" actually makes no sense. Not if you goal is to stop the next Parkland or Santa Fe shooting.
CBS News' Margaret Brennan raised this point on Sunday during a "Face the Nation" interview with Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo:
"In this specific instance, the shooter didn't have a known criminal record. His father had legally obtained the guns that he used in this shooting. They weren't semi-automatic weapons, so specifically what laws do you think need to be changed that would have prevented this attack," Brennan asked.
Sheriff Acevedo responded by talking about proper gun storage -- locking guns up so they can't be used without the owner's permission. This is a policy promoted by the NRA, too. But it's not one that's been advanced by the activists at anti-gun organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety or gun restrictionist members of Congress like Senator Murphy.
No, the only gun law that would have stopped Santa Fe is total gun confiscation. And given that the perpetrator in Santa Fe also experimented with IEDs and pressure-cooker bombs, even that may not have been enough.
A few people, most notably former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, have spoken publicly about repealing the Second Amendment -- a mandatory step in any effort to ban private gun ownership. But they are lonely voices, even on the Left.
Democrats are caught on the horns of their own dilemma. They can either propose useless laws that would have virtually no impact on potential mass shooters; or gun confiscation which has very little support among the electorate and would be a massive turnout magnet for Republican voters.
Meanwhile, the Texas shooting also poses a quandary for the "police people, not guns" proponent on the Right. Unlike the Parkland shooter--who had repeated troubling encounters with law enforcement-- the Santa Fe suspect had no criminal record and was an honor student and involved in his church. As in the case of the Las Vegas shooter, there were no "red flags" until the shooting started.
Perhaps there is a third way. Democrats could join conservatives in asking uncomfortable questions about whether government policies kept the Parkland shooter out of jail in the name of "social justice." And they could support efforts by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to enforce current gun laws to get more gun criminals behind bars.
Would these efforts end mass shootings? Of course not -- because nothing short of confiscating all guns would do that. But they would lower the overall gun crime rate, make some communities safer and get some guns off the street.
To many on the Right, that sounds like "common sense."
Nobody who is taken seriously wants to ban all guns, that's silly and unrealistic. I was trying to highlight the "they're coming for our guns" paranoid delusion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/25 20:59:08
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I think Big Crafting is behind this. Nothing sells poster board and markers like an anti gun rally.
Adam Ruins everything, and even Penn and Teller took on this topic. Yes, sometimes anti depressants and increase the risk of some kids committing suicide. However, it lowers the risk in the vast majority of kids. Risk assessment and management here.
Although to be honest about it, it does effect a lot of kids. Weren't one of the Columbine shooters having a bad reaction to one of his meds, so doctors decided to simply switch him to the generic version of the same drug?
feeder wrote: [
Nobody who is taken seriously wants to ban all guns, that's silly and unrealistic. I was trying to highlight the "they're coming for our guns" paranoid delusion.
So, Nancy Pelosi isn't taken seriously? She's strait out said it. As have editorial staff from Think Progress and Huff Po.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/25 21:33:04
feeder wrote: [
Nobody who is taken seriously wants to ban all guns, that's silly and unrealistic. I was trying to highlight the "they're coming for our guns" paranoid delusion.
So, Nancy Pelosi isn't taken seriously? She's strait out said it. As have editorial staff from Think Progress and Huff Po.
As far as I can ascertain, Pelosi has not straight out said she wants a total gun ban. She did say she hopes a ban on bump stocks is a slippery slope to further gun restrictions.
If you have a source for Pelosi saying she wants to ban all guns, I'd like to hear it.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I think Big Crafting is behind this. Nothing sells poster board and markers like an anti gun rally.
Adam Ruins everything, and even Penn and Teller took on this topic. Yes, sometimes anti depressants and increase the risk of some kids committing suicide. However, it lowers the risk in the vast majority of kids. Risk assessment and management here.
Although to be honest about it, it does effect a lot of kids. Weren't one of the Columbine shooters having a bad reaction to one of his meds, so doctors decided to simply switch him to the generic version of the same drug?
Yeah, idgaf what a comedian and a comedian/magician duo say. You got some studies to link?
Adam/Penn & Teller may be able to take on things like which buffets to avoid or are Air BnBs really just horror movies waiting to happen, but unless they are professionals without my knowing, their word is as good as Trump on this topic.
A gunman who opened fire at an Oklahoma restaurant Thursday evening was confronted by two people who saw what was happening, got their guns and shot him dead, police said.
The man, whom police identified as 28-year-old Alexander Tilghman, planted himself outside the door to Louie's Grill & Bar in Oklahoma City at about 6:30 p.m. local time. He began firing a handgun into the restaurant. Three people, including two juveniles, were wounded, according to police. A fourth person fell and broke his arm when the shooting started.
The gunman turned to flee and was confronted by two armed men outside, Carlos Nazario, 35, and Bryan Wittle, 39.
Police say the two men had arrived at the restaurant separately and saw the man open fire. They went and got handguns they each had stored in the trunks of their vehicles. The men then shot and killed the gunman, according to police, who gave no further details.
Capt. Bo Mathews of the Oklahoma City Police Department confirmed that all three men had used handguns and said investigators had no idea why the gunman targeted the restaurant or what he was planning to do afterward.
Heres is the terrifying part of the story.....
The Republican governor recently vetoed a state bill that would have allowed adults to carry a firearm without training or a permit. The bill had widespread support among lawmakers in Oklahoma, already considered a gun-friendly place. About a dozen other states have passed so-called constitutional carry laws.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
I think Big Crafting is behind this. Nothing sells poster board and markers like an anti gun rally.
Adam Ruins everything, and even Penn and Teller took on this topic. Yes, sometimes anti depressants and increase the risk of some kids committing suicide. However, it lowers the risk in the vast majority of kids. Risk assessment and management here.
Although to be honest about it, it does effect a lot of kids. Weren't one of the Columbine shooters having a bad reaction to one of his meds, so doctors decided to simply switch him to the generic version of the same drug?
Yeah, idgaf what a comedian and a comedian/magician duo say. You got some studies to link?
Adam/Penn & Teller may be able to take on things like which buffets to avoid or are Air BnBs really just horror movies waiting to happen, but unless they are professionals without my knowing, their word is as good as Trump on this topic.
Both of these guys have pretty hard-core citations to back them up. No, I'm not going to post every link from their episodes.
I think Big Crafting is behind this. Nothing sells poster board and markers like an anti gun rally.
Adam Ruins everything, and even Penn and Teller took on this topic. Yes, sometimes anti depressants and increase the risk of some kids committing suicide. However, it lowers the risk in the vast majority of kids. Risk assessment and management here.
Although to be honest about it, it does effect a lot of kids. Weren't one of the Columbine shooters having a bad reaction to one of his meds, so doctors decided to simply switch him to the generic version of the same drug?
Yeah, idgaf what a comedian and a comedian/magician duo say. You got some studies to link?
Adam/Penn & Teller may be able to take on things like which buffets to avoid or are Air BnBs really just horror movies waiting to happen, but unless they are professionals without my knowing, their word is as good as Trump on this topic.
Both of these guys have pretty hard-core citations to back them up. No, I'm not going to post every link from their episodes.
A well-sourced story is factual regardless of who presents it. That's why Trumpalos hate John Oliver. He tells the truth in a entertaining way.
I will check out this Adam Ruins guy. I can't fething stand Penn and Teller.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I think Big Crafting is behind this. Nothing sells poster board and markers like an anti gun rally.
Adam Ruins everything, and even Penn and Teller took on this topic. Yes, sometimes anti depressants and increase the risk of some kids committing suicide. However, it lowers the risk in the vast majority of kids. Risk assessment and management here.
Although to be honest about it, it does effect a lot of kids. Weren't one of the Columbine shooters having a bad reaction to one of his meds, so doctors decided to simply switch him to the generic version of the same drug?
Yeah, idgaf what a comedian and a comedian/magician duo say. You got some studies to link?
Adam/Penn & Teller may be able to take on things like which buffets to avoid or are Air BnBs really just horror movies waiting to happen, but unless they are professionals without my knowing, their word is as good as Trump on this topic.
Both of these guys have pretty hard-core citations to back them up. No, I'm not going to post every link from their episodes.
Cool story. You want to link or are we doing a swoop and poop name drop?
Edit: @feeder, that may be true and I do enjoy John Oliver, but he has also been wrong/made mistakes. You cannot just take a story from entertainers at face value, because they can get things turned around or tell you something that is almost true but not quite because they didn't present it right or understand it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/25 22:38:15
cuda1179 wrote: Although to be honest about it, it does effect a lot of kids. Weren't one of the Columbine shooters having a bad reaction to one of his meds, so doctors decided to simply switch him to the generic version of the same drug?
Speaking from personal experience, that kind of stuff really does super uncomfortable gak to your brain. Even if it's the "right one", the adjustment period can be really fethed up. I spent about a week not knowing how to described the fugue state I was in to anyone other than that I felt like I was orthogonal to myself. There were times I genuinely questioned if things were even real or if it was just a vivid dream.
So yeah, honestly, I'm personally kinda surprised there's not more of this kind of stuff. I think what should really bother people more than this happening (because, at least to me, it's kind of a no-brainer), is why in this country there's so many untreated/undiagnosed mental health cases.
Stop the problem from happening, and you stop the need for treatment that makes people go sideways. I mean, I guess if you think private industry can withstand that loss in profits anyway.
I used to have panic attacks. I haven't had one in a while, but they were random, and were so horrible that they were essentially a self reinforcing loops; the more worried I was about having one the more likely it was I would have one.
At one point I was prescribed some drug. I think it was Paxil, but whatever, not important. What happened was fascinating - first, it didn't stop the panic attacks, like at all. Second, it caused suicidal ideation. I don't mean like, I subtly started thinking dark thoughts - once I was driving home and then suddenly thought "hey, I should drive into that overpass". It was super strong, super overt, and it wasn't even my own voice; it was like a stranger yelled it inside my mind. I literally laughed, it was so outlandish.
Anyway I stopped taking the Paxil and eventually the panic attacks went away on their own for whatever reason that caused them to suddenly manifest in the first place.
Ultimately I think we're going to look back on this period in psychological medicine the way we now look back on the way we used to treat epilepsy with leeching.
I'd really like to see us improve healthcare in this country, but I think we need to have an honest discussion about that for it to happen and that means the right wing needs to care about mental health for longer than in the 48 hours immediately following a mass shooting.
Also, I'm not doing that thing where I pretend we only have mass shootings because of Ritalin or whatever, because these medications are common worldwide and mass shooting are not common worldwide. I don't think it's a non-factor either, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 01:26:57
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Oh sure. I'm not blaming the meds. But last I knew, there's more mental health issues estimated in the US than elsewhere. It's not unreasonable to assume the possibility that we might have different ones here than elsewhere, or at least, a higher prevalence of certain specific ones than elsewhere. Not to say that the medicine isn't effective in some or even most cases, but it seems like it's often a factor in these kinds of situations, and that's when it goes wrong the hardest.
Yeah, we're on the same page. I was just agreeing that it really can mess you up; I sometimes wonder what might have happened if the Paxil was a little more subtle, or if I had been in a bad state of mind at that time - and this is something they give to people who actually are clinically depressed!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/26 01:40:17
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I used to have panic attacks. I haven't had one in a while, but they were random, and were so horrible that they were essentially a self reinforcing loops; the more worried I was about having one the more likely it was I would have one.
At one point I was prescribed some drug. I think it was Paxil, but whatever, not important. What happened was fascinating - first, it didn't stop the panic attacks, like at all. Second, it caused suicidal ideation. I don't mean like, I subtly started thinking dark thoughts - once I was driving home and then suddenly thought "hey, I should drive into that overpass". It was super strong, super overt, and it wasn't even my own voice; it was like a stranger yelled it inside my mind. I literally laughed, it was so outlandish.
Anyway I stopped taking the Paxil and eventually the panic attacks went away on their own for whatever reason that caused them to suddenly manifest in the first place.
Ultimately I think we're going to look back on this period in psychological medicine the way we now look back on the way we used to treat epilepsy with leeching.
I'd really like to see us improve healthcare in this country, but I think we need to have an honest discussion about that for it to happen and that means the right wing needs to care about mental health for longer than in the 48 hours immediately following a mass shooting.
Also, I'm not doing that thing where I pretend we only have mass shootings because of Ritalin or whatever, because these medications are common worldwide and mass shooting are not common worldwide. I don't think it's a non-factor either, though.
I agree 100%. So what are they problems with mental health?
Seeking medical attention for these issues puts are marker on you your whole life in the healthcare system. Anxiety/depression/ect - will be in your chart forever - this scared people from reporting their issues.
Seeking medical attention is expensive and likely the people suffering the most don't take their issues serious enough (they think they can get through it on their own)
The field of psychology one of the least exact sciences in medicine - we really don't know enough about what we are doing when we are treating mental health issues. A lot of times the treatments exacerbate the issue if the patient doesn't follow up with prescribing doctors. Sometimes they work great. In my personal experience I find these treatments exceptionally lacking - I am not really sure they increase quality of life.
Honestly I think the best place to start is to make aquiring healthcare easier for people - free healthcare would go a long way with that. A lot of issues within the healthcare system need to be seriously examined to increase efficientcy and the government needs to supplement it big time. Having a healthy populace should be one of the primary places government should be placing it's resources in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: I'll point out that the only way to stop this insanity is to ban the news from showing their names and faces.
All of these idiots have been driven to get thier 15 of fame atop the corpses of others, so, you know what? Deny them that. Poof, problem solved.
I think that is a great idea.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 02:11:19
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
As more info comes out on the the school shooting in Noblesville, Indiana today it appears a teacher tackled the shooter. The teacher was shot three times but is going to be ok. One other student was also hit but not fatally.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/26 03:03:43
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
The news coverage should be 'some donkey-cave shot up a school today, heres the stories from the families' and carefully not talk about the shooter at all.
Sympathy for the families, being forgotten and sent to rot for the perp.
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
daedalus wrote: Oh sure. I'm not blaming the meds. But last I knew, there's more mental health issues estimated in the US than elsewhere. It's not unreasonable to assume the possibility that we might have different ones here than elsewhere, or at least, a higher prevalence of certain specific ones than elsewhere. Not to say that the medicine isn't effective in some or even most cases, but it seems like it's often a factor in these kinds of situations, and that's when it goes wrong the hardest.
Or it’s simply over diagnosed, not because the American people are especially predisposed towards such conditions, but a consequence of a healthcare system in which more money is made the more drugs are issued. In the UK doctors have no personal interest in giving out prescriptions for particular drugs, in fact the NHS has interest in not giving out drugs because it costs the state. Prescription drugs are advertised on tv in the US - ‘ask you doctor for Xanthafil today’. That doesn’t happen in the UK because your doctor decides what you’re getting or not and they’re no reason to favour one brand over another. Doctors in the US can shovel out pills because insurers pick up the tab.
Children in the US are some of the most doped up in the world. Parent can’t handle a noisy kid? Take them to the doctor and he’ll prescribe expensive sedatives. It’s much more difficult in the UK. I don’t believe that mental health is an especially special problem in the US, but the frequency of prescribing sedatives is.
