RANT: i am obese and on a phone

[kvk1]

I had a pretty big crush on Scully when I was young.

She got so much hotter with age.

[Miketoc]

So what you're saying is that causality and correlation are different?!

[Miketoc]

I had a pretty big crush on Scully when I was young.

She got so much hotter with age.

[ig]http://i.imgur.com/LOwMh.jpg[/mg]

groce, dude

[kvk1]

groce, dude

Why don't you head to your nearest blow-me empowerment zone.

[Hishiad]

Oddly enough myself and a couple of friends had this mental illness discussion about gun control. We feel that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) should have the authority to request mental health information during the background checks they run. And deny applicants with such issues.

[therorschach]

That FHM spread she did in the 90s was boner country.

[Farley1324]

Oddly enough myself and a couple of friends had this mental illness discussion about gun control. We feel that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) should have the authority to request mental health information during the background checks they run. And deny applicants with such issues.

Who would they request that information from?

[Final_Rep]

Does it look different to you?

The vast majority of these mass/public shootings have occurred where firearms are prohibited and, often, illegal.

Possession of a firearm in the the vast majority of locations within these states is not prohibited or illegal.

In all of the big name/big body count cases, firearms were prohibited/illegal.

If you wish to disagree with these observations, please do so.




Who said that?

Where did they say that?



Personally, I post it because it seems extremely likely that mental illness is the problem here. The fact that SO MANY of them are on medications for it is a pretty good indicator that they were mentally ill...and somebody KNEW they were mentally ill. Hence, mentall illness is a major issue here.

Blaming the drugs is a common theme.

As I said already... mental illness is obviously the problem. Some people think it is a combination of mental illness and drugs that treat it and I merely asked what the null hypothesis was.

[Miketoc]

Who would they request that information from?

From God, obviously. Isn't that all you right-winger's source of freedom and justice?

LOL I KID RELAX BRO. I've been drinking

[Hishiad]

Who would they request that information from?

Yeah the "flaw" in the system is the horrible communications between hospitals....the infrastructure of information sharing amongst hospitals isn't strong enough for it to "work" but we surmise that when it's made clear to the applicant that their medical history (through a consent form) will be viewed for purposes of the background check specifically to verify the existing question on the form about mental illness they may decide against it.

[Farley1324]

Blaming the drugs is a common theme.

As I said already... mental illness is obviously the problem. Some people think it is a combination of mental illness and drugs that treat it and I merely asked what the null hypothesis was.

Agreed.

From God, obviously. Isn't that all you right-winger's source of freedom and justice?

LOL I KID RELAX BRO. I've been drinking

You apparently haven't been paying any attention to anything I post.

Right-winger citing God...yeah, that's me all over. lol

Yeah the "flaw" in the system is the horrible communications between hospitals....the infrastructure of information sharing amongst hospitals isn't strong enough for it to "work" but we surmise that when it's made clear to the applicant that their medical history (through a consent form) will be viewed for purposes of the background check specifically to verify the existing question on the form about mental illness they may decide against it.

They might.

[Hishiad]

Here's what I don't get...if people truly feel no-one should have semi-automatic guns, why don't we start by preventing certain people from owning semi-automatics....people with mental illness, past criminals, folks on welfare (seriously they should spend government issued money this way) and start there.



It's odd that there's not more mass murders happening at gun shows though....since according to most the media the more volume of guns the more crimes.

[Farley1324]

Here's what I don't get...if people truly feel no-one should have semi-automatic guns, why don't we start by preventing certain people from owning semi-automatics....people with mental illness, past criminals, folks on welfare (seriously they should spend government issued money this way) and start there.



It's odd that there's not more mass murders happening at gun shows though....since according to most the media the more volume of guns the more crimes.

Most people don't believe nobody should have semi automatic guns, but a lot of ignorant people have been deceived into believing nobody should have "assault weapons". Though, yes, some people believe nobody should have semi autos, and some people believe nobody should have any guns at all. And some people who believe nobody should have any guns, or nobody should have semi autos, are simply taking it one step at a time, starting on the outside, and working their way in. "Assault weapons" are the easiest (made up) category to start with. But if they have their way 'sniper rifles' will be up next, probably, and 'saturday night specials', and 'street sweepers', you get the idea.

Of course they aren't committed a gun shows...somebody there would shoot back before they could rack up a media-star worthy body count.

These people might be considered psychopathic or crazy, but they aren't stupid.

[Final_Rep]

Agreed.

That said, just because you know the problem doesn't mean the solution directly attacks it.

Sometimes the solution can't directly attack the problem.

[Farley1324]

That said, just because you know the problem doesn't mean the solution directly attacks it.

Sometimes the solution can't directly attack the problem.

What kind of solution do you have in mind?


And keep in mind that we cannot solve every problem. Just look at automobile accidents. 30,000-40,000 or more deaths a year, every year, in the US alone as a result of automobile accidents...we can't even put a dent in that. Don't forget to keep things in perspective, in 2011, the last year for which we have the numbers, according to the FBI crime report, only 323 murders were committed with rifles (of all types)...fewer than were committed with hammers. This isn't really a problem of the scale that people are making it out to be.

[mjw8204]

Does it look different to you?

The vast majority of these mass/public shootings have occurred where firearms are prohibited and, often, illegal.

Possession of a firearm in the the vast majority of locations within these states is not prohibited or illegal.

In all of the big name/big body count cases, firearms were prohibited/illegal.

If you wish to disagree with these observations, please do so.

My post wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It was about questioning - something that people need to engage in more often instead of arguing.

Personally, I post it because it seems extremely likely that mental illness is the problem here. The fact that SO MANY of them are on medications for it is a pretty good indicator that they were mentally ill...and somebody KNEW they were mentally ill. Hence, mentall illness is a major issue here.

Your basis for determining mental illness is the fact that they were on anti-depressant/anxiety/psychotic drugs. This means if they were mentally ill, they were also receiving treatment for it. Does this mean the treatment was not effective? Does it mean that the treatment itself contributed to violent behavior? Some mental health drugs have been known to increase suicidal or risk-taking behavior, especially in youths. Also, they still had access to the guns that were needed to carry out the acts.

I'm not making an argument for or against; I'm just pointing out that there are multiple angles to consider here. It also begs the question of what can be done to reduce the likelihood of gun violence as it relates to mentally ill perpetrators, provided that there actually is a causal link and not just a correlation.

[kvk1]

I'm heading to my rapid eye movement empowerment zone.

[Farley1324]

My post wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It was about questioning - something that people need to engage in more often instead of arguing.

As I know of no legitimate study on the topic, with results, I cannot say whether or not it is "statistically significant". I can only say what I said. A discussion where you view the available data (and perhaps introduce any data you have or are aware of) and weigh in with your opinion, whether it agrees with me or not, perhaps with a "why" you agree or do not agree, might be beneficial.

Your basis for determining mental illness is the fact that they were on anti-depressant/anxiety/psychotic drugs. This means if they were mentally ill, they were also receiving treatment for it. Does this mean the treatment was not effective? Does it mean that the treatment itself contributed to violent behavior? Some mental health drugs have been known to increase suicidal or risk-taking behavior, especially in youths. Also, they still had access to the guns that were needed to carry out the acts.

I'm not making an argument for or against; I'm just pointing out that there are multiple angles to consider here. It also begs the question of what can be done to reduce the likelihood of gun violence as it relates to mentally ill perpetrators.

We don't know for sure, which is why we need to take even 10% of the effort and resources being used to attack our Right to keep and Bear Arms and use it to investigate this full scale, instead of trying to ignore it/sweep it under the rug.

What I do know is that, looking at all of the information that I have available, the correlation is impossible to ignore.



But, obviously the treatment was not effective if they went on a killing spree. JMO

And yes, some mental health drugs have been reported to increase that type of behavior, esp in youth/teens, but that's not a topic I am well versed in. I wouldn't even really know where to look to get the solid data on it. I just know the trends I see, and that I posted.

What do you think?

[mjw8204]

As I know of no legitimate study on the topic, with results, I cannot say whether or not it is "statistically significant". I can only say what I said. A discussion where you view the available data (and perhaps introduce any data you have or are aware of) and weigh in with your opinion, whether it agrees with me or not, perhaps with a "why" you agree or do not agree, might be beneficial.

What purpose does it serve for me to agree or disagree?

What I do know is that, looking at all of the information that I have available, the correlation is impossible to ignore.

There is a lot of wrong that can be done based off assumptions drawn from correlations.

I will venture a guess that those pointing the finger to mental illness share the same level of ignorance on that subject as you would attribute to those pointing the finger at guns.

[Final_Rep]

I'm heading to my rapid eye movement empowerment zone.

I'm in the Patrón Silver margarita drinking empowerment zone, in Waikiki, known as Cha Cha Cha.

Every Tuesday this location has Taco Tuesdays.

HTH

[Hishiad]

Free-wifi hotspots. (Masturbation empowerment zones.)

Except in public libraries then it's the danger zone.

[Farley1324]

What purpose does it serve for me to agree or disagree?

I was laboring under the, apparently mistaken, assumption that you might be interested in discussing the topic.

There is a lot of wrong that can be done based off assumptions drawn from correlations.

I will venture a guess that those pointing the finger to mental illness share the same level of ignorance on that subject as you would attribute to those pointing the finger at guns.

What do you base that guess on?

Consider me as "pointing the finger to mental illness". Let's say I am ignorant on the topic. Inform me. Educate me. I'm listening. /Dr Crane

[mjw8204]

Except in public libraries then it's the danger zone.

No, no. That's the library's fault for advertising the availability of free wi-fi. They're just begging for people like Kvk to show up.

[Hishiad]

I was laboring under the, apparently mistaken, assumption that you might be interested in discussing the topic.

Sooo to discuss the topic each person must first pick sides to agree or disagree with? That doesn't make sense...there is something called "objective" discussion

[Hishiad]

No, no. That's the library's fault for advertising the availability of free wi-fi. They're just begging for people like Kvk to show up.

And based on Farley's recent revelations since it's a "gun free" zone he'll be the most lethal individual there with his pee-shooter.


Kvk is truly a mastermind.

[Farley1324]

Sooo to discuss the topic each person must first pick sides to agree or disagree with? That doesn't make sense...there is something called "objective" discussion

I'm just wondering if he agrees or disagrees with the observations I made and the conclusion that I drew. I was hoping he could objectively view that information and form his own opinion.

[Farley1324]

And based on Farley's recent revelations since it's a "gun free" zone he'll be the most lethal individual there with his pee-shooter.


Kvk is truly a mastermind.

Libraries are "gun free"?

[Hishiad]

I'm just wondering if he agrees or disagrees with the observations I made and the conclusion that I drew. I was hoping he could objectively view that information and form his own opinion.

If he disagrees you'll spend the better part of this "discussion" trying to convince him to agree. It's what you do, and then rather than seem like an educated, objective topic of discussion it'll seem like one guy (you) is simply trying to convince the second guy (mjw in this case) to agree with you. Then the discussion is no longer an open format sharing of information, but more a debate on who's right or wrong. Something typically considered pointless, especially on the internet.

hth

[Miketoc]

I'm just wondering if he agrees or disagrees with the observations I made and the conclusion that I drew. I was hoping he could objectively view that information and form his own opinion.

I think you just like the whole back and forth game.

[Farley1324]

If he disagrees you'll spend the better part of this "discussion" trying to convince him to agree. It's what you do, and then rather than seem like an educated, objective topic of discussion it'll seem like one guy (you) is simply trying to convince the second guy (mjw in this case) to agree with you. Then the discussion is no longer an open format sharing of information, but more a debate on who's right or wrong. Something typically considered pointless, especially on the internet.

hth

"Sharing of information"...that describes the majority of my posts on the topic.

Some people choose to remain willfully ignorant, though.

I think you just like the whole back and forth game.

That...input from both parties, taking turns, evaluating and responding to the other...is generally how discussions with two people go. At least that's how I see it?