Defensive Carry banner

81 - 100 of 127 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
There you go with the insults again.

I disagree wholeheartedly; there is plenty of reason to bring it up. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is out to get you, but that's a false dichotomy. There is middle ground. It is entirely possible to believe - as I do and as I presume TravisJunky does - that we as a society handle mental health issues extremely poorly on the whole and that were we to improve our care and support systems for individuals with mental illnesses it would likely make a very positive impact on a great many ailments that plague our world today, without also believing that individuals wishing to purchase firearms should undergo a mental health screening of some sort.



It's an I, not L, just for the record. I didn't see it tag me and barely caught this.

I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you please clarify?
I asked you what part of the 2nd Amendment concerned you so much that you wanted to start with it?

Mental health?

I lived through the era. As I see it the people that really need mental health screening are the ones who screamed loudest to turn all the people with serious mental health issues out to roam the streets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
Correct. I think psychological pre screening would be inefficient and very invasive for normal every day folks. Maybe in the future if we could ever streamline the process, but as it sits now, it could be deemed by some as very invasive. But as a society, it's normal, that when you fall and scrape your knee, you go get a band-aid. Should be the same with mental illness or stress. You're impacted by a life changing event or circumstance, we as a society, shouldn't judge those individuals for seeking help, and in fact, should made getting help a very normal thing to do. Those professionals should then be the ones who recommend suspension of ownership until we're deemed capable. We could even decide that it has to court ordered if we chose to do so.

I'm just throwing ideas out to see what sticks. I think doing nothing is absurd and frankly, just normalizing this tragic event.
Well, do something. Give us an idea that would have prevented this tragedy. If you can't do that, are you actually doing anything at all, or just pontificating? How, exactly, would help dealing with mental illness have stopped this?

TravisJunky...be honest here. You've been on this forum under a different name, correct? I believe you stated then that you were in Austin, Texas. I seem to remember you said you were working for your constituents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
You are quite the frustrating personality, I must say.

Point number 1. No, you didn't call anyone names directly. The insult I referred to most recently was here:



That's an attack on the intelligence of others. It doesn't say it directly, but it's quite easily inferred. The first insult was here:



Where you stated quite clearly that any attempt to disagree with you would be so ill-conceived as to invite mockery. In both this and the previous example the implication is that to disagree with your arguments is nothing more than a display of ignorance. These are called argumentum ad hominem, or an attack against the person rather than their argument or position. It's insulting and adds no value to the conversation.

Alternatively, your arguments could be considered a simple appeal to the stone, or dismissing someone else's argument or position as ridiculous without actually proving so. Still insulting, but not always intentionally so, and Hanlon's Razor would suggest I default to this. But based on the language you use and the way you address those who disagree with you ("relishing the roll of "white knight" aren't you", "Congrats", "can't even follow your own posts"), I personally believe until shown otherwise that your offhanded dismissal of others is hostility, not just arrogance.



Point number 2. I understand your posts quite well as-written. If you intend them to be interpreted differently than they are, perhaps you should make greater efforts to communicate effectively.

For example, I said:



You quoted me and said:



Allow me to condense that to the essential point I responded to and remove the insult at the end:



I made arguments to the contrary, here shortened to the most basic form I can: There is reason to bring mental health up, and it can be done without making an argument for mental health screenings for firearm purchases.

You said "There's no reason for X except Y" and I gave you another reason. What part of that am I not comprehending correctly? What else could you have possibly meant with your post? Honestly, seriously, in earnest, no sarcasm: I do not see it.



How, pray tell, did I do that?
So many words, so few ideas. Tell us how you'd fix the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,153 Posts
Well, do something. Give us an idea that would have prevented this tragedy. If you can't do that, are you actually doing anything at all, or just pontificating? How, exactly, would help dealing with mental illness have stopped this?
So many words, so few ideas. Tell us how you'd fix the problem.
:35::hand10:
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldChap

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,212 Posts
I asked you what part of the 2nd Amendment concerned you so much that you wanted to start with it?
You're going to have to forgive me, maybe I'm running a bit slow right now. We're talking about the second amendment, but start what with it? Nothing in the 2A causes me any concern. I don't understand the question.

Mental health?
What about it?

I lived through the era.
Mental health issues weren't an "era"; it's not something that just went away. It still needs to be addressed more effectively.

As I see it the people that really need mental health screening are the ones who screamed loudest to turn all the people with serious mental health issues out to roam the streets.
Is this what you're getting at with all of your questions or is this a separate question? I've already stated I don't support mandatory mental health screening for firearm purchases, nor do I support mandatory mental health screening for anything else for that matter except, perhaps, in cases where a person is a demonstrable danger to themselves or especially others.

So many words, so few ideas. Tell us how you'd fix the problem.
I might, except I'm not an expert, just a person with an opinion. And at that, a person who's so far spent the majority of this debate struggling to prove that "words mean things". I can't very well move on to discussing ideas about how to fix things with one person who keeps making wild claims and then insisting their words don't mean exactly what they say, and another person who - please take no offense, I mean none - I'm frankly not sure what it is they're asking of me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
You're going to have to forgive me, maybe I'm running a bit slow right now. We're talking about the second amendment, but start what with it? Nothing in the 2A causes me any concern. I don't understand the question.
Good. Now we can move along.

Mental health issues weren't an "era"; it's not something that just went away. It still needs to be addressed more effectively.
The "era" I speak of was a period in time when there was an outcry from seemingly well-meaning people that no one should be committed to a mental hospital. The rationale went that dangerous psychopaths would be no threat out roaming the streets. Clearly, that was a terrible decision to let them all out. I lived through that period of time. I witnessed what transpired. That's what it means when someone says "I lived through that era."

Is this what you're getting at with all of your questions or is this a separate question? I've already stated I don't support mandatory mental health screening for firearm purchases, nor do I support mandatory mental health screening for anything else for that matter except, perhaps, in cases where a person is a demonstrable danger to themselves or especially others.
Excellent. Then we agree that mental health screening would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy. Correct?

If that is correct, then why is the issue of mental health being discussed here in relation to the events in Las Vegas?

I might, except I'm not an expert, just a person with an opinion. And at that, a person who's so far spent the majority of this debate struggling to prove that "words mean things". I can't very well move on to discussing ideas about how to fix things with one person who keeps making wild claims and then insisting their words don't mean exactly what they say, and another person who - please take no offense, I mean none - I'm frankly not sure what it is they're asking of me.
If your ideas had any value to you, you wouldn't play verbal judo, but would present your ideas. No?

Do you have an idea about how to prevent what happened in Las Vegas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Harryball

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,002 Posts
59 dead, 527 injured. If you don't get a little emotional, angry, sad, upset, sick or something from that, then you could be part of the mental health problem that usually goes hand in hand with these kind of things. Maybe he doesn't understand the gun side of the argument the way most of us do, but to downplay his human emotion in the situation is distasteful.
I hear you and I don't disagree, but I only want to put this in perspective. This was one horribly exceptional day. Meanwhile...
  • Every day in the US, an average of 49 people die in home accidents (the top 5 causes are falls, poisonings, fire and burns, airway obstruction, drowning)
  • Every day in the US, an average of 96 people die in car accidents.
  • Every day in the US, an average of 164 people die of the two most early-detectable and treatable forms of cancer (skin and colon)
So where is the outrage, every day, for all that? Are we not buying into the anti-gunners narrative that says that a "gun death" is somehow more horrible than any other kind of early death? Dead is dead. I don't see Mommies Demand Action going after all those issues above. If they really wanted to save lives, those would be the areas where they could make the biggest impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Good. Now we can move along.



The "era" I speak of was a period in time when there was an outcry from seemingly well-meaning people that no one should be committed to a mental hospital. The rationale went that dangerous psychopaths would be no threat out roaming the streets. Clearly, that was a terrible decision to let them all out. I lived through that period of time. I witnessed what transpired. That's what it means when someone says "I lived through that era."



Excellent. Then we agree that mental health screening would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy. Correct?

If that is correct, then why is the issue of mental health being discussed here in relation to the events in Las Vegas?



If your ideas had any value to you, you wouldn't play verbal judo, but would present your ideas. No?

He's too busy being the "grammar police" to actually contribute.

He's been asked NUMEROUS times what his "ideas" are...but hasn't actually posted any.


I hear you and I don't disagree, but I only want to put this in perspective. This was one horribly exceptional day. Meanwhile...
  • Every day in the US, an average of 49 people die in home accidents (the top 5 causes are falls, poisonings, fire and burns, airway obstruction, drowning)
  • Every day in the US, an average of 96 people die in car accidents.
  • Every day in the US, an average of 164 people die of the two most early-detectable and treatable forms of cancer (skin and colon)
So where is the outrage, every day, for all that? Are we not buying into the anti-gunners narrative that says that a "gun death" is somehow more horrible than any other kind of early death? Dead is dead. I don't see Mommies Demand Action going after all those issues above. If they really wanted to save lives, those would be the areas where they could make the biggest impact.

That's because liberals LOVE to "quantify" death and for some reason a death (even if justifiable) by firearm is "worse" than being killed by anything else.

Don't forget their tired old standby "argument" of "A knife/hammer/crowbar/etc wasn't made for killing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
@Strmwatch...I hate tell them they're wrong, but my Bowie knife wasn't made for cleaning under fingernails!!! :danceban:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strmwatch

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,180 Posts
You're impacted by a life changing event or circumstance, we as a society, shouldn't judge those individuals for seeking help, and in fact, should made getting help a very normal thing to do. Those professionals should then be the ones who recommend suspension of ownership until we're deemed capable. We could even decide that it has to court ordered if we chose to do so.

I'm just throwing ideas out to see what sticks. I think doing nothing is absurd and frankly, just normalizing this tragic event.
The part in bold is not optional. Loss of civil rights can only be imposed by a court order. And, currently, courts can and do order confiscation of firearms when a person is found to be mentally incompetent. The process seems adequate as it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,212 Posts
Good. Now we can move along.
Oh. OK.

The "era" I speak of was a period in time when there was an outcry from seemingly well-meaning people that no one should be committed to a mental hospital. The rationale went that dangerous psychopaths would be no threat out roaming the streets. Clearly, that was a terrible decision to let them all out.
Well no, but this is a bit of a false dichotomy. You may not mean it, but your phrasing seems to imply the only two options are "the old way" or "let them all free".

I personally think "the old way" is simply beyond the pale. Forced imprisonment without trial, forced sterilization, lobotomies, electro-shock therapy, and all manner of horrid "treatments" and experiments. A large amount of mental health treatment under "the old way" left people far worse off than when they started.

And just letting them out isn't a great option either, especially considering the amount of damage done to individuals who were subsequently incapable of caring for themselves or potentially more dangerous with a new combination of untreated mental illness and a grudge against society for locking them away and torturing them. It's no great wonder a lot of them ended up on the streets. Depending on the numbers you cite, homeless individuals have a rate of serious mental illness ~6.5 times that of the average.

But this isn't an either/or situation. Our options extend beyond "let them roam the streets untreated" and "lock them away and subject them to 'treatments' tantamount to torture". Do I have all the answer? No. I never claimed to. What I have is a sense of compassion that doesn't let me look at the rate of homeless who have serious mental health concerns, 44,000+ suicides every year in the US alone, and the stigma that people who just want help have to overcome to get help without being deeply saddened and left thinking there has to be a better way than what we're doing right now.

Excellent. Then we agree that mental health screening would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy. Correct?

If that is correct, then why is the issue of mental health being discussed in relation to the events in Las Vegas?
We have no idea if it would have made a difference; we don't even know if the man suffered from any kind of mental illness and we may never know. It's just being floated as a possible factor in the shooting, as mental health problems have been in so many other tragic situations.

And I want to be clear again: I am not arguing for mandatory mental health screenings for anything. What I want is for people to understand that right now mental illnesses are often treated like some sort of hybrid leprosy/Ebola/HIV combination. It can be very, very difficult for people to to overcome the stigma around mental illness and get the support they need to get the help they need. And sometimes that help is inaccessible. It's not always covered by insurance and can be very expensive.

What I want is for mental illness to be treated less like some sort of leprosy that spreads by talking about it and more like what it is: a condition to be diagnosed and treated as effectively as possible. No stigma, no jokes, no looking down on people simply trying to get help with a problem that is no different than any other medical issue except for where it happens. I'm not saying taxpayers should foot the bill for all mental health care. I'm not asking you to leave your job and take a position as a counselor to the homeless. And I'm not suggesting that addressing mental health would fix all the problems that cause suicide and mass shootings.

But even if it doesn't save a single life - and I don't think that would be true at all - wouldn't it be worth changing your attitude about mental health just to know that you, by doing nothing more than talking and being compassionate without sacrificing anything, could make other people's lives more bearable and maybe even a little happier?

If not, then feel free to shut me down and I'll go away. Like I said, I don't have all the answers. Maybe I'm an idealist. I'm OK with that.

If your ideas had any value to you, you wouldn't play verbal judo, but would present your ideas. No?

Do you have an idea about how to prevent what happened in Las Vegas?
I'm not playing verbal judo. I'm not the one saying things and then denying they mean what they say.

He's too busy being the "grammar police" to actually contribute.
I'm not playing grammar police. I haven't corrected your grammar once that I recall. I'm literally just trying to get you to understand that words mean things. You seem to have no idea how to carry on a rational discussion and you seem to have no concept of logic.

He's been asked NUMEROUS times what his "ideas" are...but hasn't actually posted any.
No, as far as I recall I haven't been asked for ideas more than once, and I just responded to that request.

Edit: I checked. I looked at every time I've been quoted in this thread and have been asked exactly twice for ideas. Once I chose to be snarky and point out that it's difficult to discuss real ideas when I'm having to spend my time convincing someone that when they say "1+1=2" they can't turn around 5 minutes later and say "No I said 2+2=4, you're just ignorant and don't understand", and expect to be treated like an adult. I'm talking to you @Strmwatch.

The second time I provided the best answer I have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
So I caught Jimmy Kimmel's monologue tonight (10/02/17). He bashed the NRA pretty good. He's been using his show for awhile as a bully pulpit. Starting to wonder if he won't run for office in the future. No real point to this post other than frustration that there's no counterpoint.
It doesn't matter really. He speaks to his base. I enjoy his comedy but I'm not in his base with regard to not knowing or understanding the truth about how moronic Gun Control is and the truth is on our side. The NRA is "us" and merely speak for our base. Especially now with new leadership.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
686 Posts
I don't watch any late night comediennes, because I usually take offense at their comments and I have to get up early to go to work.
All I can offer are prayers for the murdered and injured citizens, and their families. All I know is that gun control is gun control for some, those who would comply, not the rich comediennes who live in gated communities ans usually employ armed security. I don't have any solution for the lack of humanity exhibited by any murderers. I just plan to be ever vigilant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,002 Posts
That's because liberals LOVE to "quantify" death and for some reason a death (even if justifiable) by firearm is "worse" than being killed by anything else.

Don't forget their tired old standby "argument" of "A knife/hammer/crowbar/etc wasn't made for killing.
I agree that those of are the liberal views, but of course they are wrong. The knife was originally intended for killing and skinning. The hammer is the evolution of the club, which was made for killing. On the other side of the equation, guns aren't just made for killing. I have been shooting for over 40 years and since I am not a hunter (nothing wrong with it, just not my cup of tea), none of my guns have ever killed anything. It's a ridiculous argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
Oh. OK.

Well no, but this is a bit of a false dichotomy. You may not mean it, but your phrasing seems to imply the only two options are "the old way" or "let them all free".

I personally think "the old way" is simply beyond the pale. Forced imprisonment without trial, forced sterilization, lobotomies, electro-shock therapy, and all manner of horrid "treatments" and experiments. A large amount of mental health treatment under "the old way" left people far worse off than when they started.

And just letting them out isn't a great option either, especially considering the amount of damage done to individuals who were subsequently incapable of caring for themselves or potentially more dangerous with a new combination of untreated mental illness and a grudge against society for locking them away and torturing them. It's no great wonder a lot of them ended up on the streets. Depending on the numbers you cite, homeless individuals have a rate of serious mental illness ~6.5 times that of the average.

But this isn't an either/or situation. Our options extend beyond "let them roam the streets untreated" and "lock them away and subject them to 'treatments' tantamount to torture". Do I have all the answer? No. I never claimed to. What I have is a sense of compassion that doesn't let me look at the rate of homeless who have serious mental health concerns, 44,000+ suicides every year in the US alone, and the stigma that people who just want help have to overcome to get help without being deeply saddened and left thinking there has to be a better way than what we're doing right now.

We have no idea if it would have made a difference; we don't even know if the man suffered from any kind of mental illness and we may never know. It's just being floated as a possible factor in the shooting, as mental health problems have been in so many other tragic situations.

And I want to be clear again: I am not arguing for mandatory mental health screenings for anything. What I want is for people to understand that right now mental illnesses are often treated like some sort of hybrid leprosy/Ebola/HIV combination. It can be very, very difficult for people to to overcome the stigma around mental illness and get the support they need to get the help they need. And sometimes that help is inaccessible. It's not always covered by insurance and can be very expensive.

What I want is for mental illness to be treated less like some sort of leprosy that spreads by talking about it and more like what it is: a condition to be diagnosed and treated as effectively as possible. No stigma, no jokes, no looking down on people simply trying to get help with a problem that is no different than any other medical issue except for where it happens. I'm not saying taxpayers should foot the bill for all mental health care. I'm not asking you to leave your job and take a position as a counselor to the homeless. And I'm not suggesting that addressing mental health would fix all the problems that cause suicide and mass shootings.

But even if it doesn't save a single life - and I don't think that would be true at all - wouldn't it be worth changing your attitude about mental health just to know that you, by doing nothing more than talking and being compassionate without sacrificing anything, could make other people's lives more bearable and maybe even a little happier?
How do you know what my attitude about mental health is? I guess I would "feel" good about my attitude with regards to homicidal psychopaths had I not seen what one did with a hatchet to a couple of children. He was turned loose on society by people who had more compassion for the poor psychopath than for the lives of two innocent children. Irregardless, I appreciate your concern for mental health. But, as you say, none of that is relevant to the issue of Las Vegas, or those of which which Jimmy Kimmel speaks.

I'm not playing verbal judo. I'm not the one saying things and then denying they mean what they say.

I'm not playing grammar police. I haven't corrected your grammar once that I recall. I'm literally just trying to get you to understand that words mean things. You seem to have no idea how to carry on a rational discussion and you seem to have no concept of logic.

No, as far as I recall I haven't been asked for ideas more than once, and I just responded to that request.

Edit: I checked. I looked at every time I've been quoted in this thread and have been asked exactly twice for ideas. Once I chose to be snarky and point out that it's difficult to discuss real ideas when I'm having to spend my time convincing someone that when they say "1+1=2" they can't turn around 5 minutes later and say "No I said 2+2=4, you're just ignorant and don't understand", and expect to be treated like an adult. I'm talking to you @Strmwatch.

The second time I provided the best answer I have.
Well, I'm sorry, my friend. That is an answer in search of a question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,212 Posts
How do you know what my attitude about mental health is? I guess I would "feel" good about my attitude with regards to homicidal psychopaths had I not seen what one did with a hatchet to a couple of children. He was turned loose on society by people who had more compassion for the poor psychopath than for the lives of two innocent children. Irregardless, I appreciate your concern for mental health. But, as you say, none of that is relevant to the issue of Las Vegas, or those of which which Jimmy Kimmel speaks.
My apologies, I should have worded that a little differently. I did not mean that you to refer directly to you, OldChap, but rather a general "you, the reader". And all my post isn't to say that there aren't some people who need to be put away for the safety of themselves and/or others. There certainly are. There are people born with defective organs that cannot be fixed without a transplant; why should the brain be any different? But you can't transplant a brain and you can't just off someone. But just as many more people are born with or acquire diseases or defects that can be fixed and/or treated, so too the brain.

As for bringing mental health up in the first place, TravisJunky mentioned that mental health problems often influence these kinds of events. We don't know about this particular one, but it's not at all unusual to see mental health problems associated with individuals who perpetrate these attacks. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, was diagnosed with Asperger's and OCD, and his parents suspected he suffered from un-diagnosed schizophrenia. James Holmes, the Aurora shooter, was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and either schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. He had a long history of battles with mental health himself, and as it turns out his family history, including an aunt and his grandfather, was full of serious mental illness. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine shooter, are also on the list.

In almost every case of a shooting like this, one of two things (or both) is a major factor: serious mental health problems or, as I wrote about yesterday in another post, an ideology that dehumanizes either a certain group or everyone outside the believer's group. That's not to say that mental health problems excuse mass murder, by no means. And certainly no ideology excuses it. I'm just saying that those are two very common factors in these events and, whether or not this guy was struggling with mental health problems, it's still a good thing to talk about.

Jimmy Kimmel in the episode mentioned a bill that made it easier for people with severe mental illnesses to get guns. Is he right? Frankly I don't know; I'm not familiar with the bill he's talking about. I'd guess probably not. But that's a perfectly good opportunity to turn the discussion and say "Hey, that's not what the bill was about. But if you want to talk mental health let's do it, and figure out how to help people."

Well, I'm sorry, my friend. That is an answer in search of a question.
Well, I disagree. That happens. I'm under no illusion that I'm going to bring everyone to "my side". I just feel strongly about the subject, as I'm sure you noticed, and it was being discussed, so I took part. If nothing else, this has been a good opportunity to bring some points to light for others who may not have seen them before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,686 Posts
@paaiyan....Just so you understand that the mental health issue would in no way have done anything at all to prevent what happened in Las Vegas.
 
81 - 100 of 127 Posts
Top