Another Mass Shooting, the one in D.C.

[Texsox]

Sorry misread that, but even better...if its just a few hundred or a thousand we're talking about, I don't get the gripe. These people shouldn't be walking the streets until properly treated, if they even can be treated.

 

IE, get them the f*** off the streets.

 

And in some countries, usually third world, that is what happens. Here we have legal protections that allow innocent people to walk the streets.

[cabiness42]

Alpha, the pro gun lobby has convinced me that criminals will get guns regardless of the laws. So fixing the mental health issue would be more effective than the gun laws.

 

How many people would he have killed with a knife? Baseball bat? A series of homemade explosives?

 

[Y2HH]

Alpha, the pro gun lobby has convinced me that criminals will get guns regardless of the laws. So fixing the mental health issue would be more effective than the gun laws.

 

How many people would he have killed with a knife? Baseball bat?

 

Why do we have to regress from gun to knife? Is this to pretend there aren't other violent weapons available?

 

How many people would he have killed with a bow and arrow? Or perhaps a chainsaw? Both far more lethal than a knife or bat, and just as easy to get.

[Y2HH]

And in some countries, usually third world, that is what happens. Here we have legal protections that allow innocent people to walk the streets.

 

We have protections to allow innocent NORMAL people to walk the streets. The mentally disturbed do not qualify.

[Reddy]

This seems off the point for a 34 year old shooter.

 

 

these were thoughts re: gun control in general - sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Jake]

Most people don't need to be institutionalized long term. Most just need to be admitted somewhere to get diagnosed, get initial treatment, and then get on regular medication. It's not like we need to have a million people living in mental hospitals long term in order to help the problem.

 

Most people, like those that aren't mentally ill? Sure. Recidivism in psychiatric hospitals is astronomical. Not only is the norm for a person who is institutionalized to return up to 10 more times, it is more common for a person institutionalized once to return 20 times than not to return ever again. It is an observed phenomenon that people who are not suffering mental illnesses (ie having some sort of emotional breakdown) often develop debilitating mental illnesses during involuntary commitments at mental institutions.

 

It is ugly, ugly stuff and isn't to be taken lightly. The person that is depressed and needs to see a psychiatrist is not the person we're worried about here.

 

So we're going to take away the rights of all Americans in order to avoid taking rights away from a small percentage of Americans?

 

Gotta love that logic.

 

???

 

Making it harder to buy guns for the vast minority of gun owners or taking away all of the rights of people who have or seem to have a mental illness?

 

The mass killings have spurred on debate that has done nothing but further entrench dangerous gun policy while increasing the stigmatization of mental illness that prevents good care or (more importantly) acceptance of mental illness by the general public

[Soxbadger]

So we're going to take away the rights of all Americans in order to avoid taking rights away from a small percentage of Americans?

 

Gotta love that logic.

 

If you think the right to be free and not locked up for being perceived ill is equal to the right to own a gun, then sure. But then again Ive yet to be convinced that the actual 2nd Amendment protects my right to own a gun. I definitely know that it protects the right of people in the militia to own a gun.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html

 

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

What is the purpose of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment? If the founders intent was to give everyone the right to guns why wouldnt they simply have written:

 

 

eing necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

I just can not see how you can reach the conclusion that every individual is guaranteed a right to bear arms without parsing the sentence. You have to give weight to the first part and in the context of the 1776 its my opinion that the actual intent behind the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal govt from having the power to take away guns from state militias.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...volutionary_War

 

This interpretation makes sense given that the constitution came after the articles of confederacy, so there was still some remnants of the idea that each state was basically its own country and therefore partially responsible for its own defense.

[cabiness42]

Most people, like those that aren't mentally ill? Sure. Recidivism in psychiatric hospitals is astronomical. Not only is the norm for a person who is institutionalized to return up to 10 more times, it is more common for a person institutionalized once to return 20 times than not to return ever again. It is an observed phenomenon that people who are not suffering mental illnesses (ie having some sort of emotional breakdown) often develop debilitating mental illnesses during involuntary commitments at mental institutions.

 

It is ugly, ugly stuff and isn't to be taken lightly. The person that is depressed and needs to see a psychiatrist is not the person we're worried about here.

 

 

 

???

 

Making it harder to buy guns for the vast minority of gun owners or taking away all of the rights of people who have or seem to have a mental illness?

 

The mass killings have spurred on debate that has done nothing but further entrench dangerous gun policy while increasing the stigmatization of mental illness that prevents good care or (more importantly) acceptance of mental illness by the general public

 

First of all, what exactly is a "vast minority"? 49.99 percent?

 

No system is going to be perfect, but clearly we are tipped too far in the direction of having people who need to be under some sort of mental health care that aren't getting it. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think institutionalization is the answer for every person with mental health issues. Maybe the problem is that right now institutionalization is our only option so we shy away from getting help for people because of that stigma. I have no problem with having things like waiting periods, but no amount of gun laws is going to change criminals abilities to get them. Better mental health will change (some) people's desires to commit criminal acts in the first place.

[cabiness42]

If you think the right to be free and not locked up for being perceived ill is equal to the right to own a gun, then sure. But then again Ive yet to be convinced that the actual 2nd Amendment protects my right to own a gun. I definitely know that it protects the right of people in the militia to own a gun.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html

 

 

 

What is the purpose of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment? If the founders intent was to give everyone the right to guns why wouldnt they simply have written:

 

 

eing necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

 

I just can not see how you can reach the conclusion that every individual is guaranteed a right to bear arms without parsing the sentence. You have to give weight to the first part and in the context of the 1776 its my opinion that the actual intent behind the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal govt from having the power to take away guns from state militias.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...volutionary_War

 

This interpretation makes sense given that the constitution came after the articles of confederacy, so there was still some remnants of the idea that each state was basically its own country and therefore partially responsible for its own defense.

 

Based on current laws, those rights exist and that was the comparison I'm making.

[Iwritecode]

I for one would love it if the media never ever announced the names of the people who do this s***. I am sure that many of them get off on the idea that people will be talking about them after they are gone.

 

I haven't really followed this shooting all that closely and might be in the minority here but I have yet to actually hear the name of the shooter.

 

 

Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho are/were all mentally ill. Fixing the mental health system will go much farther in stopping these tragedies than any gun laws.

 

I only recognize one of those names.

[Soxbadger]

Based on current laws, those rights exist and that was the comparison I'm making.

 

But so what? At one point laws existed that stated black people werent equal to a white person. Because that is the law you simply argue for the law?

 

The entire point of this nation was that we dont just say "Oh thats the law so it must be right".

 

And if you do not believe humans have the capability to change, then sure, criminals will always have guns. But I simply refuse to admit that.

 

If I do I have given up on humanity and what is the purpose of any law. Criminals will always break them, so why make law abiding citizens have to play with a handicap? If a few break the law, then everyone has to?

 

The entire point of a law is to de-incentivize behavior. If you never do that, then of course there will always be more guns.

 

Its like saying: Criminals will steal even if its illegal. Honest citizens dont steal and therefore are at a disadvantage. Thus we should let everyone steal.

 

Its not really thought provoking logic. And if you are going to hang your hat on 2nd amendment, at least explain why the 2nd amendment doesnt at all touch "self-defense" yet explicitly states "regulated", yet we read in "self defense" and omit "regulated".

 

I just cant get behind that type of parsing and selective reading. Which is why I personally dont consider what people in 1776 thought as cannon. They had some good ideas (a lot were stolen from Montesquieu and Locke), but still thats almost 250 years ago. Those same guys would have likely thought it was insane to be using something written 250 years earlier as cannon.

 

[cabiness42]

I haven't really followed this shooting all that closely and might be in the minority here but I have yet to actually hear the name of the shooter.

 

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 18, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) *

Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho are/were all mentally ill. Fixing the mental health system will go much farther in stopping these tragedies than any gun laws.

 

I only recognize one of those names.

 

Shooters at Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook CT school, Aurora CO movie theater, Tucson AZ Congressional Town hall, and Virginia Tech.

 

[cabiness42]

But so what? At one point laws existed that stated black people werent equal to a white person. Because that is the law you simply argue for the law?

 

The entire point of this nation was that we dont just say "Oh thats the law so it must be right".

 

And if you do not believe humans have the capability to change, then sure, criminals will always have guns. But I simply refuse to admit that.

 

If I do I have given up on humanity and what is the purpose of any law. Criminals will always break them, so why make law abiding citizens have to play with a handicap? If a few break the law, then everyone has to?

 

The entire point of a law is to de-incentivize behavior. If you never do that, then of course there will always be more guns.

 

Its like saying: Criminals will steal even if its illegal. Honest citizens dont steal and therefore are at a disadvantage. Thus we should let everyone steal.

 

Its not really thought provoking logic. And if you are going to hang your hat on 2nd amendment, at least explain why the 2nd amendment doesnt at all touch "self-defense" yet explicitly states "regulated", yet we read in "self defense" and omit "regulated".

 

I just cant get behind that type of parsing and selective reading. Which is why I personally dont consider what people in 1776 thought as cannon. They had some good ideas (a lot were stolen from Montesquieu and Locke), but still thats almost 250 years ago. Those same guys would have likely thought it was insane to be using something written 250 years earlier as cannon.

 

My point was not to argue the merits of the second amendment or even the merits of gun control. My original comment was in response to somebody who suggested taking rights that currently exist away from a large number of people as an alternative to taking away rights from a small number of people and the irony in that particular statement. Regardless of whether or not those rights are a good idea, the fact that they exist right now is what is germane to that particular comment.

 

My point is that fixing the mental health system will do more to prevent mass gun tragedies than more gun laws. If you want to respond to that specific comment, I'd be happy to continue debating with you. Otherwise, I'm finished with you in this thread.

[Jake]

First of all, what exactly is a "vast minority"? 49.99 percent?

 

No system is going to be perfect, but clearly we are tipped too far in the direction of having people who need to be under some sort of mental health care that aren't getting it. All I'm trying to say is that I don't think institutionalization is the answer for every person with mental health issues. Maybe the problem is that right now institutionalization is our only option so we shy away from getting help for people because of that stigma. I have no problem with having things like waiting periods, but no amount of gun laws is going to change criminals abilities to get them. Better mental health will change (some) people's desires to commit criminal acts in the first place.

 

22% of Americans claim they personally own a gun, according to Pew Research in 2010. 37% say someone in their household owns a gun.

 

Both numbers have been trending downwards for about 50 years and I recall hearing 18% in the past year -- can't find the cite for that though. In the 1960s, gun owners were over half the population. Now it is a relatively small group of people, smaller than the 26% of Americans that have diagnosable mental illnesses (diagnosable implies that it is severe enough to be worth diagnosing, as we now understand many mental illnesses to occur on a spectrum).

[Soxbadger]

My point is that fixing the mental health system will do more to prevent mass gun tragedies than more gun laws. If you want to respond to that specific comment, I'd be happy to continue debating with you. Otherwise, I'm finished with you in this thread.

 

Sure Id be happy to provide free health care an support services to those with mental disabilities. That would require passing a comprehensive health care law and increase of taxes. Ill sign up for that right now, everyone in the US gets healthcare, no matter what, even if I have to pay 90% taxes.

 

Not really sure what that has to do with guns. I thought the reason we cant pass gun laws is because criminals will get guns, not because people with mental illness may not have access to good medical healthcare.

[cabiness42]

Sure Id be happy to provide free health care an support services to those with mental disabilities. That would require passing a comprehensive health care law and increase of taxes. Ill sign up for that right now, everyone in the US gets healthcare, no matter what, even if I have to pay 90% taxes.

 

Not really sure what that has to do with guns. I thought the reason we cant pass gun laws is because criminals will get guns, not because people with mental illness may not have access to good medical healthcare.

 

What it has to do with guns is that better mental health care will do more to reduce mass gun shootings than gun laws.

[Y2HH]

Sure Id be happy to provide free health care an support services to those with mental disabilities. That would require passing a comprehensive health care law and increase of taxes. Ill sign up for that right now, everyone in the US gets healthcare, no matter what, even if I have to pay 90% taxes.

 

Not really sure what that has to do with guns. I thought the reason we cant pass gun laws is because criminals will get guns, not because people with mental illness may not have access to good medical healthcare.

 

How about no. 90% taxes? I'd be on the streets, as would everyone here. That'd give me about 200$ every few weeks to spend on everything if they taxed us at 90%. But, I see you thought this out.

[Y2HH]

What it has to do with guns is that better mental health care will do more to reduce mass gun shootings than gun laws.

 

It has nothing to do with anything, as if he was taxed at 90%, he wouldn't be able to afford a phone, a place to live, or anything else in his life. So he wouldn't have ever posted that.

[Soxbadger]

How about no. 90% taxes? I'd be on the streets, as would everyone here. That'd give me about 200$ every few weeks to spend on everything if they taxed us at 90%. But, I see you thought this out.

 

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federa...justed-brackets

 

 

 

Strangely the US had a marginal tax rate of over 90% for the highest class and not everyone was on the street.

 

History, good for facts, bad for people!

 

(Edit)

 

If I was taxed at 90% Id still make more than 50% of the worlds population. Wealth is relative.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17512040

 

(Edit 2)

 

That doesnt even take into account the money I would save not having to pay my own personal health insurance as now my taxes would pay that instead.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federa...justed-brackets

 

 

 

Strangely the US had a marginal tax rate of over 90% for the highest class and not everyone was on the street.

 

History, good for facts, bad for people!

 

(Edit)

 

If I was taxed at 90% Id still make more than 50% of the worlds population. Wealth is relative.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17512040

 

(Edit 2)

 

That doesnt even take into account the money I would save not having to pay my own personal health insurance as now my taxes would pay that instead.

 

Except then the number of people in the highest tax bracket was under 50 IIRC.

 

[Y2HH]

Except then the number of people in the highest tax bracket was under 50 IIRC.

 

Exactly, but let's ignore facts, as he's pretending I'm doing, while he's the one actually doing it.

 

Also...nobody actually paid that tax, loopholes, loopholes, loopholes.

[Y2HH]

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federa...justed-brackets

 

 

 

Strangely the US had a marginal tax rate of over 90% for the highest class and not everyone was on the street.

 

History, good for facts, bad for people!

 

(Edit)

 

If I was taxed at 90% Id still make more than 50% of the worlds population. Wealth is relative.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17512040

 

(Edit 2)

 

That doesnt even take into account the money I would save not having to pay my own personal health insurance as now my taxes would pay that instead.

 

Actually, history, bad for facts, bad for your weak argument, bad for you.

 

Even when the US had that tax rate on the richest of the rich, none of them paid that, or anywhere near it.

 

And yes, if you were taxed at 90% you'd still make more than 50% of the worlds population, and like that 50% of the worlds population, you'd be on the streets. You didn't think this out, and that's clear.

 

Taxed at 90%, the average person here would probably end up with about 320$ (actually probably far far less than that, but I'm being generous), in which to spend per month, for food, bills, utilities, housing, etc...IE, not nearly enough. Go back to the drawing board. Leveraging 90% tax on everyone is asinine.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Except then the number of people in the highest tax bracket was under 50 IIRC.

 

? If you take a random year like 1959, the top income was $300k. There were likely more than 50 people who made that (I actually cant find any stat on this). Furthermore, any income over $14,000 was taxed at 39% or greater. That is now the HIGHEST tax bracket.

 

Why are we wasting this time with a red herring anyways. Not many gun owners are going to say "Ok Ill pay more money for mental health if it means I get to keep my guns."

 

Cause if they were, then maybe we can get a deal worked out.

[Soxbadger]

Actually, history, bad for facts, bad for your weak argument, bad for you.

 

Even when the US had that tax rate on the richest of the rich, none of them paid that, or anywhere near it.

 

And yes, if you were taxed at 90% you'd still make more than 50% of the worlds population, and like that 50% of the worlds population, you'd be on the streets. You didn't think this out, and that's clear.

 

Taxed at 90%, the average person here would probably end up with about 320$ (actually probably far far less than that, but I'm being generous), in which to spend per month, for food, bills, utilities, housing, etc...IE, not nearly enough. Go back to the drawing board. Leveraging 90% tax on everyone is asinine.

 

Do you even understand how graduated tax works?

 

The only part you pay 90% is the amount that is higher than that bracket. The top tax bracket now is $400k. Meaning that only dollars made over 400k would be taxed at 90%.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2...marginal-rates/

 

But I know you actually do understand that, you are just trying to create a strawman argument suggesting that I was saying a "flat tax", which I never did.

 

Does this type of argument ever work?

[EvilMonkey]

22% of Americans claim they personally own a gun, according to Pew Research in 2010. 37% say someone in their household owns a gun.

 

Both numbers have been trending downwards for about 50 years and I recall hearing 18% in the past year -- can't find the cite for that though. In the 1960s, gun owners were over half the population. Now it is a relatively small group of people, smaller than the 26% of Americans that have diagnosable mental illnesses (diagnosable implies that it is severe enough to be worth diagnosing, as we now understand many mental illnesses to occur on a spectrum).

How many of that 26% are shopaholics, ADHD or some other similar 'disorder' that gets treatment nowadays but is not the same as crazy person hearing voices in their head?