Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Gun laws and mental health

OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning. Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:06:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM, OlaNordmann wrote:
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning. Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....

Where you hail from, do you have alcohol?
Do you have alcohol sales to everyone, no matter what, or do reasonable restrictions apply?
Is it safe to say that while intoxicated, people do bad things, and while intoxicated, people are not allowed to do other things?

Is it safe to say that while under the influence of alcohol, occasionally, people do bad things, or make really poor decisions?

When those bad things happen, do you jail/corrrect the person, or castigate the alcohol?

So it is with guns in the US.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:29:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 12:06:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM, OlaNordmann wrote:
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning. Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....


Where you hail from, do you have alcohol?
Do you have alcohol sales to everyone, no matter what, or do reasonable restrictions apply?
Is it safe to say that while intoxicated, people do bad things, and while intoxicated, people are not allowed to do other things?

Is it safe to say that while under the influence of alcohol, occasionally, people do bad things, or make really poor decisions?

When those bad things happen, do you jail/corrrect the person, or castigate the alcohol?


So it is with guns in the US.

I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be. I ask why you don't address the problem with mental health care to a much larger degree when we know that the perpetrates are predominantly acted out by people with mental problems.

I live in Norway and of course we have restrictions on alcohol like any other country does. In fact it's a lot stricter and more focus a lot on alcohol abuse prevention here, but thats not what I don't want to get into because it just derails the conversation.

Let's make a very important distinction: Alcohol does not make people do horrific acts of violence, nor does the ownership of guns. But guns increase the risk when people don't have access to help with their mental health problems.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 1:32:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 12:29:28 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
At 6/19/2016 12:06:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM, OlaNordmann wrote:
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning. Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....


Where you hail from, do you have alcohol?
Do you have alcohol sales to everyone, no matter what, or do reasonable restrictions apply?
Is it safe to say that while intoxicated, people do bad things, and while intoxicated, people are not allowed to do other things?

Is it safe to say that while under the influence of alcohol, occasionally, people do bad things, or make really poor decisions?

When those bad things happen, do you jail/corrrect the person, or castigate the alcohol?


So it is with guns in the US.

I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.

I ask why you don't address the problem with mental health ...

On the topic of things you didn't write anything about, did you see the word "mental" in any of your original post?

care to a much larger degree when we know that the perpetrates are predominantly acted out by people with mental problems.

The concern for and assessment of danger can be easily carried out. We have something called the Baker Act. Its a 72 hour involuntary incarceration for determination of mental health, specifically a harm to others or themselves in which the person in question is observed, some of their personal effects considered, and evaluation performed. The problem with this is that it requires other people to actively know and point out what issues might arise to both law enforcement and mental health professionals. The shooters in question typically become reclusive, severing ties in a slow fashion so that opinion of their stability becomes suspect. Couple that with the typical diffusion of responsibility found in large numbers, and its the perfect storm for trouble.

I live in Norway and of course we have restrictions on alcohol like any other country does. In fact it's a lot stricter and more focus a lot on alcohol abuse prevention here, but thats not what I don't want to get into because it just derails the conversation.

Let's make a very important distinction: Alcohol does not make people do horrific acts of violence, nor does the ownership of guns. But guns increase the risk when people don't have access to help with their mental health problems.

And there is is the crux. They do have access, should it get used. There are avenues available, various civil and religions institutions that can provide aid. The person in question, however, obviously isn't going to seek it out.

On the topic of pointless efforts against radical Islam, is the crime spike regarding violent sexual assault in Europe a result of radical Islam, moderate Islam, centrist Islam, or not related to Islam at all?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:55:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.

Readily available firearms are a pretty essential component of mass shootings, wouldn't you agree?

I ask why you don't address the problem with mental health ...

On the topic of things you didn't write anything about, did you see the word "mental" in any of your original post?

It's in the title. Even so, I thought that was very implied.

care to a much larger degree when we know that the perpetrates are predominantly acted out by people with mental problems.

The concern for and assessment of danger can be easily carried out. We have something called the Baker Act. Its a 72 hour involuntary incarceration for determination of mental health, specifically a harm to others or themselves in which the person in question is observed, some of their personal effects considered, and evaluation performed. The problem with this is that it requires other people to actively know and point out what issues might arise to both law enforcement and mental health professionals. The shooters in question typically become reclusive, severing ties in a slow fashion so that opinion of their stability becomes suspect. Couple that with the typical diffusion of responsibility found in large numbers, and its the perfect storm for trouble.

Good to hear that there are certain actions that can be taken, but do people often intervene? The typical reaction is often that people are shocked and they don't understand "why he would do something like this. He was such a kind and loving person".

What happens after the 72 hour incarceration, will the person be treated for his disorders/problems?

Let's make a very important distinction: Alcohol does not make people do horrific acts of violence, nor does the ownership of guns. But guns increase the risk when people don't have access to help with their mental health problems.

And there is is the crux. They do have access, should it get used. There are avenues available, various civil and religions institutions that can provide aid. The person in question, however, obviously isn't going to seek it out.

That's a valid argument! I agree that people don't always seek help with their mental problems, but making it more accessible makes it a hell of a lot easier. Having an open dialog with your doctor helps, even if you're seeking help for something completely irrelevant, it's just easier to bring it up. That's what I did when I experienced a longer depression.

I also think that one of the reasons why people avoid it is because society still stigmatize mental health issues. At least with a doctor or a therapist you know that you will be taken seriously and there's a big chance that you can be helped.

On the topic of pointless efforts against radical Islam, is the crime spike regarding violent sexual assault in Europe a result of radical Islam, moderate Islam, centrist Islam, or not related to Islam at all?

That's an exaggeration! There has been incidents yes but please cite evidence for that spike! A lot of countries have started to include lectures on sexual assault and human rights in their introductory programs for new citizens. The most interesting reaction from immigrants is actually towards the law against physically disciplining their child. There is a little resistance but most people seem to embrace the new change with a positive attitude. This is very off topic though!
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:15:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 2:55:35 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.


Readily available firearms are a pretty essential component of mass shootings, wouldn't you agree?

I absolutely disagree. Mass shootings requires a gun, not a "readily available gun"

There is no such thing as the concept of a total ban. People can get anything. Especially something as uncomplicated as a gun.

What is much harder to acquire than a gun, "banned" or not, is the mindset that people are objects and that slaughtering them is your duty.

Funny how nobody wants to talk about "banning" a mindset (or a religion)....open can of worms....
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:26:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:15:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:55:35 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.


Readily available firearms are a pretty essential component of mass shootings, wouldn't you agree?

I absolutely disagree. Mass shootings requires a gun, not a "readily available gun"

There is no such thing as the concept of a total ban. People can get anything. Especially something as uncomplicated as a gun.

What is much harder to acquire than a gun, "banned" or not, is the mindset that people are objects and that slaughtering them is your duty.

Funny how nobody wants to talk about "banning" a mindset (or a religion)....open can of worms....

Again, I don't know how to make myself clearer! My argument is not to have guns BANNED! My argument is that IF people have a right to own firearm then you better provide health care for to address mental problems! Maybe the phrase "readily available" doesn't translate well to English, what i mean is "accessible". If I decided to go on a killing spree, I would have no idea where to get a gun, absolutely no clue. That doesn't mean it's impossible, there are guns in this country too. But it sure inhibit a lot of spontaneous mass murders from happening in the first place when they are scarce.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,335
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:32:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:26:11 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:15:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:55:35 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.


Readily available firearms are a pretty essential component of mass shootings, wouldn't you agree?

I absolutely disagree. Mass shootings requires a gun, not a "readily available gun"

There is no such thing as the concept of a total ban. People can get anything. Especially something as uncomplicated as a gun.

What is much harder to acquire than a gun, "banned" or not, is the mindset that people are objects and that slaughtering them is your duty.

Funny how nobody wants to talk about "banning" a mindset (or a religion)....open can of worms....

Again, I don't know how to make myself clearer! My argument is not to have guns BANNED! My argument is that IF people have a right to own firearm then you better provide health care for to address mental problems! Maybe the phrase "readily available" doesn't translate well to English, what i mean is "accessible". If I decided to go on a killing spree, I would have no idea where to get a gun, absolutely no clue. That doesn't mean it's impossible, there are guns in this country too. But it sure inhibit a lot of spontaneous mass murders from happening in the first place when they are scarce.

Our country is so afraid of offending religions in general that a Muslim on a FBI watch-list is more protected from revoking gun privileges than any other group. That's a USA problem of unvetted tolerance.
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:45:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:32:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Our country is so afraid of offending religions in general that a Muslim on a FBI watch-list is more protected from revoking gun privileges than any other group. That's a USA problem of unvetted tolerance.

That's a completely different argument. And if you want to convince me of that please cite some evidence.

I sense that there is a lot of emotion attachment to gun rights among Americans, but this has a lot more to do with health care than anything else.

I don't understand how you can make the responsibility claim if people have a limited ability to get help with their mental disorders. They are by definition victims, because they have no recourse to deal with them.
Peepette
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 12:14:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM, OlaNordmann wrote:
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning. Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....

There is undoubtedly a mental health issue here in the US in relation to gun violence. The school shootings of the last few years are good examples. Most health insurance does not cover, or only partially covers metal health care which is very, very expensive. This along with the stigma of seeking help from mental health professionals. Adding to this already poor situation is the inability of family members to acknowledge there's an issue with a family member, sweeps the problem under the rug until an incident occurs. With school budget cuts, Student Adjustment Counselors (Psychologist) have been layed off and are a non-existent in some districts; someone trained to see issues and to implement a plan for troubled kids is now gone.

Depending on the state, a 24-72 hour wait time for guns really does nothing to keep gun out of the hands of the mentally ill. Unless someone has been picked up by the police at some point and put under psychiatric evaluation, their illness will not be known. Doctors for mental health can't divulge anything about a patients, so there are no records to be flagged. Additional gun control will not ease the problem

Universal health care will be very slow if ever coming to the US. It is demonized as anti-capitalist. Canada's so called waits and high tax rates of the European countries are often sighted as pitfalls in the US media; even though Canada's waits are a fallacy and taxes paid for universal health are far less than individual plans. In the US 17% of the GDP is related to health care, higher than any other country in the world; there's a lot of corporate profits being made and government lobbyist being paid to keep the profits rolling .

In my view the war on terror was originally a result of bad foreign policy and the US attempting to secure middle eastern oil. Since the US has dramatically increased its own oil production in recent years the current turmoil is more to protect US corporate oil interest/ profits in the region and civilian contractors for the military. We no longer have any real reason to be in the middle east from a US foreign policy perspective. The so called war on terror is corporate protections in the guise of a war to justify the trillions spent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:18:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 2:55:35 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.


Readily available firearms are a pretty essential component of mass shootings, wouldn't you agree?

Its less readily available as alcohol. Arguably less so, though if you were to compare alcohol related tragedies as opposed to gun related tragedies this conversation becomes silly.

I ask why you don't address the problem with mental health ...

On the topic of things you didn't write anything about, did you see the word "mental" in any of your original post?

It's in the title. Even so, I thought that was very implied.

In the US, mental health is not nearly a hot button issue as "health care". Speaking generally, if some one casually mentions mental health at the beginning of a conversation, and proceeds to talk about healthcare as a whole, with regards to US policy, and what is NOT widely available, I would wonder why mental health was brought up as a conversation starter. Its 2 different topics.


care to a much larger degree when we know that the perpetrates are predominantly acted out by people with mental problems.

The concern for and assessment of danger can be easily carried out. We have something called the Baker Act. Its a 72 hour involuntary incarceration for determination of mental health, specifically a harm to others or themselves in which the person in question is observed, some of their personal effects considered, and evaluation performed. The problem with this is that it requires other people to actively know and point out what issues might arise to both law enforcement and mental health professionals. The shooters in question typically become reclusive, severing ties in a slow fashion so that opinion of their stability becomes suspect. Couple that with the typical diffusion of responsibility found in large numbers, and its the perfect storm for trouble.

Good to hear that there are certain actions that can be taken, but do people often intervene? The typical reaction is often that people are shocked and they don't understand "why he would do something like this. He was such a kind and loving person".

Whom kept mostly to himself, and no one thought he was up to anything. Yeah, I know. I hear it alot.

What happens after the 72 hour incarceration, will the person be treated for his disorders/problems?

Yes. If they are deemed to be a hazard to themselves or others, steps are taken depending upon the evaluation. Those exact steps, to be honest, I couldn't relate off hand. I don't have enough experience, however I have a friend in the mental health field whom could answer them if you were interested. I could relay.

Let's make a very important distinction: Alcohol does not make people do horrific acts of violence, nor does the ownership of guns. But guns increase the risk when people don't have access to help with their mental health problems.

And there is is the crux. They do have access, should it get used. There are avenues available, various civil and religions institutions that can provide aid. The person in question, however, obviously isn't going to seek it out.

That's a valid argument! I agree that people don't always seek help with their mental problems, but making it more accessible makes it a hell of a lot easier. Having an open dialog with your doctor helps, even if you're seeking help for something completely irrelevant, it's just easier to bring it up. That's what I did when I experienced a longer depression.

At any given time, some one can walk into a police station, hospital, fire house, or what have not, plop down a firearm, knives, bats, whatever, and state "Look, I don't know why, I don't know what, but I have been having violent tendency". Accommodations will be made. The sad part is that all of this is contingent upon a proactive individual. Some one with violent unmanifested dispostion, but cognizant enough to realize the harm. Its a rather narrow field.

I also think that one of the reasons why people avoid it is because society still stigmatize mental health issues. At least with a doctor or a therapist you know that you will be taken seriously and there's a big chance that you can be helped.

Well, there is a stigma to it, lets be honest, and such a stigma is cultured from what can happen when people go off their recommended treatment.


On the topic of pointless efforts against radical Islam, is the crime spike regarding violent sexual assault in Europe a result of radical Islam, moderate Islam, centrist Islam, or not related to Islam at all?

That's an exaggeration! There has been incidents yes but please cite evidence for that spike! A lot of countries have started to include lectures on sexual assault and human rights in their introductory programs for new citizens. The most interesting reaction from immigrants is actually towards the law against physically disciplining their child. There is a little resistance but most people seem to embrace the new change with a positive attitude. This is very off topic though!

You mentioned fighting Islam, to various ends. However, in appreciation of relating mental health to health care, and our culture difference on the relation between the two, or how they are broached, I am willing to withdrawn my question/comment.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:27:27 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 4:18:44 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
In the US, mental health is not nearly a hot button issue as "health care". Speaking generally, if some one casually mentions mental health at the beginning of a conversation, and proceeds to talk about healthcare as a whole, with regards to US policy, and what is NOT widely available, I would wonder why mental health was brought up as a conversation starter. Its 2 different topics.

This is actually blowing my mind!! I've never made a distinction. Maybe it's a culture thing.

@Peepette
Thanks for your input, greatly appreciate it
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:31:23 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM, OlaNordmann wrote:
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning. Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....

"How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all whenever you have such high availability to firearms?"
False analogy. The government isn't handing out free guns to whoever wants them. Whoever has the money can buy one, and the same applies to health insurance.

"Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only one was committed by a Muslim".
In the years immediately following 9/11, there were numerous other attempted jihadist attacks on the US. Had most of these plots succeeded, the U.S. would've been crippled, and no, that is not an exaggeration. Thanks to the establishment of a vast national security infrastructure and a proactive approach to terrorism by combating Al-Qaeda overseas, Islamic terrorists more or less lost the ability to carry out complex terror plots in the US. Thus, they largely stopped trying, until the recent advent of ISIL and its spontaneous, low complexity terror attacks. In short, the reason that there have been no crippling terror attacks in the US is precisely because of the "unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam"; the low number of attacks do not prove it is unnecessary but rather that it's working and that America should keep at it. These complex plots are not generally carried out with firearms, so banning guns while allowing the jihadists to come and go as they please would do little in that respect. Attacks like the recent one in Orlando, which did involve a gun and was a very simple terror attacks, could've been stopped only on the condition that American gun control was strict enough to make it impossible for him to get a gun (OR, if other people in that bar were armed).

"It just doesn't make any sense to me"
Europe is a crowded continent with a simultaneous tradition of socialism and democracy. America is a lot more individualistic, and it has been this way since the nation's founding. To use your continent's political experience as the basis for what the US model should look like is foolhardy.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:34:25 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
In truth, mass shootings like the recent one in Orlando are often the result of a disconnect between "Almost anyone can go buy a gun" and "This is a place where no one is legally permitted to bring a gun".
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 7:46:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 10:47:56 AM, OlaNordmann wrote:
Hiya Guys!

Not being a US resident myself I just like to hear your opinion on this:

How do Americans justify the irresponsible outcry against universal health cover for all when you have such high availability to firearms? To me it seems like a combination of high-risk and awful prevention planning.

Norway has the highest per capita rate of death by mass shooting in the Western world. That was one guy in a gun free zone. Clearly there is more to it than universal health coverage.

There is no effective test for determining who is dangerously mentally ill, and in the US the Constitution provides individual rights so that people cannot be forced into treatment base solely on suspicion. Free mental health care is provided for anyone who is dangerous, but by the time it's acted out it's too late. The dangerously mentally ill are often paranoid, so they cannot be relied upon to take prescribed medications. Something might be done about that by requiring supervised medications.

The number of people killed in mass shootings is few hundred of the 13,000 murders. The US has an unmatched system of free emergency medical care, partly due to gunshot victims, but also drug overdoses, heart attack, and stroke victims.

Gun laws do nothing to prevent mass killings or homicides. Ten European countries now have greater mass killing rates, despite gun controls.

>>Out of the 207 mass shootings in the US in 2015, only 1 of those was committed by a Muslim. Even so, you legitimate spending unwarranted amount of money fighting radical Islam to no justifiable end that could be spent on health care instead. It just doesn't make any sense to me....

The notion is that if we ignore terrorism, we'll save money. The 9/11 attack cost over $100 billion, and the US did nothing to provoke it other than existing. We were not in Iraq or Afghanistan. Currently, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and one of the uses is to extract ransoms. That's what North Korea does. But nuclear weapons can also be sold or given to terrorists, of which Iran is a strong supporter. Without an expensive intelligence apparatus, we can have a city nuked with no clue who did it. ISIS now has, thanks to our president, a safe haven in Raqqa that they are using to develop drone weapons and biological weapons. They are trying to make biological weapons suitable for manufacture in the home, so they can kill millions with only a few agents. There is a long list of terrorist attacks in the US that have been averted. For example, two terrorists were about to kill several hundred people at the cartoonist meeting, when a Texas highway patrol officer shot both of them dead. Just let terrorist operate unchallenged, and there would be many, many casualties. Bombs count too,

Even a hundred years ago, it was possible to ignore terrorist nutcases. What could they do? Now, technology makes them a major threat.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 1:14:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:32:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:26:11 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:15:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 6/19/2016 2:55:35 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant to my question because I wrote nothing about regulating firearms or imply that they should be.

Of course not. Readily available firearms were brought up because it sounded cool, I suppose.


Readily available firearms are a pretty essential component of mass shootings, wouldn't you agree?

I absolutely disagree. Mass shootings requires a gun, not a "readily available gun"

There is no such thing as the concept of a total ban. People can get anything. Especially something as uncomplicated as a gun.

What is much harder to acquire than a gun, "banned" or not, is the mindset that people are objects and that slaughtering them is your duty.

Funny how nobody wants to talk about "banning" a mindset (or a religion)....open can of worms....

Again, I don't know how to make myself clearer! My argument is not to have guns BANNED! My argument is that IF people have a right to own firearm then you better provide health care for to address mental problems! Maybe the phrase "readily available" doesn't translate well to English, what i mean is "accessible". If I decided to go on a killing spree, I would have no idea where to get a gun, absolutely no clue. That doesn't mean it's impossible, there are guns in this country too. But it sure inhibit a lot of spontaneous mass murders from happening in the first place when they are scarce.

Our country is so afraid of offending religions in general that a Muslim on a FBI watch-list is more protected from revoking gun privileges than any other group. That's a USA problem of unvetted tolerance.

That is a out right lie. Disgraceful. Secondly, how in God's name would you ever get a ruling in the courts to restrict gun purchases based upon ones religious belief when one is not on the terrorist watch list?.
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:13:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 7:46:51 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Norway has the highest per capita rate of death by mass shooting in the Western world. That was one guy in a gun free zone. Clearly there is more to it than universal health coverage.

Hiya all.

I'll get to the other arguments when I got time, but I just have to say I'm completely flabbergasted by this rediculous argument. When you compare very rare instances againt a small baseline then of course the rate is gonna be distorted.

If I where to use the Orlando nightclub shooting as an example:
- The US mass murder rate per capita from ONS was approx. 0.153 per million
- Floridas mass murder rate per capita from the ONS was approx. 2.417 per million.
- Orlando's mass murder rate per capita from the ONS was approx. 186.759 per million.

Holy sh** Orlando must be a dangerous place right? No. It's an extremely unordinary occurance to happend in Orlando's history, and it's not not very likely to happend again.

My favorite example is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

But this is all off topic. I really don't want this to become another US vs the rest of the world thread.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 3:47:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/20/2016 5:13:39 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:

I'll get to the other arguments when I got time, but I just have to say I'm completely flabbergasted by this rediculous argument. When you compare very rare instances againt a small baseline then of course the rate is gonna be distorted.

The implicit claim being refuted is that free mental health care will reduce or eliminate mass shootings. Mass shootings are rare events. My claim is that free mental health care will have little or no effect on the rate of mass shootings. Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that because mass shootings are rare events there is no possible evidence to disprove the claim that free health care reduces it. If it is true that statistics do not count for rare events, then there can be no proof that mental health care helps, so no debate is possible. In fact, it's all about the statistics.

Consider the claim, "Being unable to swim has no relation to drowning." The argument is then, "drownings are rare, so the statistics should not be counted." Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as cherry picking. The logical error is obvious. Because drownings are rare, it takes few cases to disprove the claim. If mental health is the primary factor in mass shooting, then any place with a good mental health system should not have mass shootings. The one case of Norway proves that there are other factors involved, and that was all I claimed from that example. If we broaden the data set and see that the mass shooting rates in ten European countries are higher than the US rate, and the European countries have free health care and strict gun control laws as well, then we can claim more broadly that neither health care nor gun laws are the dominate factor. Mass shootings in Europe soared with the rise of terrorist subculture, laws and health care notwithstanding. The dominant factor in both mass killings and and ordinary homicide is culture, and the presence of a violent subculture in particular.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/19/2016 3:26:11 PM, OlaNordmann wrote:

Again, I don't know how to make myself clearer! My argument is not to have guns BANNED! My argument is that IF people have a right to own firearm then you better provide health care for to address mental problems! Maybe the phrase "readily available" doesn't translate well to English, what i mean is "accessible". If I decided to go on a killing spree, I would have no idea where to get a gun, absolutely no clue. That doesn't mean it's impossible, there are guns in this country too. But it sure inhibit a lot of spontaneous mass murders from happening in the first place when they are scarce.

Your first claim is that free mental health care would reduce or eliminate mass shootings. We know that's false because places that have free care have no fewer mass shootings. The reason why it is false is debatable. I think it is because the people who commit mass shootings suffer from extreme paranoia, and such people to not volunteer for mental health treatment. Free mental health treatment is available in the US for people who are criminally insane, but the criminally insane do not volunteer for because they think the system is out to get them.

So how about involuntary treatment? The problem with that is that in the US, the Constitution forbids imprisonment without proof and a court hearing, not merely suspicion. There is no test to determine if a person who is potentially violent will actually become violent. About 4% of the population is potential violent, but fewer than about a hundred actually become mass killers.

When people are identified, they are prescribed medication. The medication is effective, but insane people often do not take it. There are bad side effects. I think a reasonable improvement would be to require that medication be taken under supervision. The person must report to a clinic every day where taking the meds is witnessed.

The is no evidence that restricting gun availability reduces mass killings. In Australia, there was government confiscation of all guns. The mass killing rate seemed to decline for a few years, but the statistics then caught up. (Wikipedia has a list of massacres in Australia.) There was some replacement of arson for guns as the mechanism of killing. Explosives are also a ready alternative, with instructions on bomb making using household chemicals available on the web. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 killed 168 people using a bomb made from fertilizer and fuel oil.
OlaNordmann
Posts: 87
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 8:14:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
My claim is simple: Mental health is a contributor to violence. Therefore depriving or limiting someone from getting help with their mental problems will increase violence.

The reference I made with mass shootings is that while Islamic extremists account for a insignificant number of attacks, there is almost no limit in government spending and national support in order to fight the war on terror. Maybe you should consider waging war on mental health instead.

And for the record, let my try to explain this again because you don't seem to grasp the concept of per capita. Since Europe comprise of smaller countries, then for each mass shootings the per capita will increase significantly for that country. It follows the logic that while it is unlikely that it happens in a specific place, it is very likely that it happen somewhere. And for each time that happens, that said country will surpass the per capita of bigger countries. If one of those smaller countries where represented often, then I will be inclined to agree with you. But you don't address the fact that for the surrounding countries or for every other years in that specific country the mass shooting per capita was 0!