Jump to content

Omerta

TGP Prime+
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,506

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    98

Posts posted by Omerta

  1. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    Look man, I'm not saying this to be a dick or nothing but this is a situation where not knowing economic basics and relying on someone else who does not understand monetary economics in business especially in dynamic business policies is a bad thing and can make you look foolish to those who do.

    A more accurate figure is 134%. I can either tell you how that works or you can do the research on your own if you want.

  6. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    4 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Did you read the part in white? Lol

    So you're saying they have low unemployment and universal healthcare. Only one is bad, I'll let you choose lol.

    Also it is a short term problem. In the long term it is a good thing. Also, they have 1/3rd the population. And the scarcity for employers leads to higher paychecks which ya know...

  7. Posted

    55 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    Lol I hear you but people with more money have less kids on average too. This would create a lot of problems. 

    "In Japan, employers often struggle to fill job vacancies. Spending on health care and pensions has swollen Japan’s public debt to more than twice the size of its economy. The International Monetary Fund has estimated that the country’s annual economic growth could be 1 percentage point lower for the next three decades because of Japan’s aging population. That means the country’s economy, forecast to expand 1 percent this year and next, may stagnate further"

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-14/humans-having-fewer-babies-is-a-big-economic-problem-quicktake

     

    Generally because they are more intelligent and are better at performing a cost benefit analysis. Or older and wiser. 

    There are 330 million people in this country and counting, we can use a few less dumb people.

  8. Posted

    3 hours ago, seanbrock said:

    Enter children into the equation. Say both parents make 15 an hour and they have two kids. They're fucked lol. Do we tell poor people not to have kids if they work minimum wage? What if they're religious and don't believe in contraception? 

    Fuck yes tell them that. God damn I am so tired of seeing this shit. Two dumbasses fuck and either the kid or the taxpayer suffer. It is such bullshit. Dont have kids if you cant afford them on your own. How is this not common fucking sense?

  9. Posted

    On 8/19/2019 at 1:06 PM, Thanatos said:

     

    We will have to agree to disagree here. Most people who are suicidal will try multiple times and if a gun isn't present they will try other methods. I think most people that are truly suicidal will find a way to get it done. Personally I dont give a shit about suicide or people who commit suicide. My disdain for them is well documented on this site, and I dont think it needs to be rehashed here.

    Not all insurance is ass though. That is my point. What you are saying, or at least what I am hearing, when you say medicare for all is," Pay more for a shittier product." It is really hard to sell me on that. Patient satisfaction surveys who have medicare are also hating it. I can tell you from what I hear that Hospitals try to get people with Medicare out the door because there is no money to be made there. Medicare is paid off of how the patient feels they are treated, which if we are being fair, if you are in a hospital you are probably not in the greatest of moods. This is a true statement medicare has patient satisfaction as a methodology for deciding how much to pay a hospital for their services. How insane is that? There is a reason hospitals just want to do the minimum required and get them out the door and down the road to the next hospital. Imagine what is going to happen to doctors and hospitals if their reimbursement for services is on the whim of a patient. Not good. 

    "You cant throw money at things" might be the battle-cry of the right, but you have to admit they are right. 

    This result would be shocking, even if we had not spent $21.5 trillion “fighting poverty” over the past 50 years.  Here’s why.

    Between 1967 and 2012, U.S. real GDP (RGDP) per capita (in 4Q2013 dollars) increased by 127.3%, from $23,706 to $52,809.  In other words, to stay out of poverty in 1967, the two adults in a typical family of four had to capture 26.9% of their family’s proportionate share of RGDP (i.e., average RGDP per capita, times four).  To accomplish the same thing in 2012, they only had to pull in 12.1% of their family’s share of RGDP.  And yet, fewer people were able to manage this in 2012 than in 1967.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/#1dc3dbbf6f49

    I am not going to make you the argument that Republicans are right often, but they are right here. I use this so often because it seems like such a simple solution doesnt it? There is a lack of money here, lets throw money at it (21.5 Trillion) to balance it out. It fails. If throwing money at a problem works then how the hell did all that money from taxes and put into supplemental programs create our current economic climate of wealth distribution at the top. This is insane when you think about it. Telling the government to throw money at a problem is never a fix. WE are fixing a symptom and not the cause, but to many people are out for the rich guys blood. They want to see him murdered in taxes, that is how you excite a base.

    If we did all the things I said we would save money for better healthcare. I dont see the need for shitty insurance at that point.  I dont think poor people cause insulin prices to go up. I also dont think I did either so it shouldn't come off my back. See what I am saying? You are taking money from people who did not create the problem so you can throw more money at it. If we didnt create the problem, how are we the solution. Fix the problem at its source, and dont just take the easy option of taking from people who worked their ass off to get where they are only to fail at fixing it. Medicare sucks. Medicare tells you it sucks, the patients tell you it sucks, doctors and hospitals say it sucks, I dont know why we ignore all that and tout it as a good thing. It simply isn't. WE are not looking at attacking the SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM, we are looking at ways to make the rich guy pay for the poor guy who isnt his responsibility. 

    When something is free people use it for menial shit. Instead of going to the doctor for a sore throat, buy some cepacol and move on. It is not so much the waiting lines for me though. It really is the standard of care. I dont want to see some tired doctor and overworked staff at the end of the day who are just waiting for their shift to be over because they have been getting inundated with bullshit all day.  Then think about how overworked a system will become. Do you think that when they start taking this out on doctors that more people are going to sign up to go to school for the better part of two decades, to become overworked and make less? I doubt it. The real problem here is America is never going to go full liberal and if thats the case you will never solve the real problem because people are to affixed on the wrong thing. 

    As to the lack of empathy. Thats fair. As far as owing society...I dont OWE them anything. People in society owe themselves. It is not up to me to help you and change your life, that is up to you. This whole, "The bootstraps thing is outdated" is horseshit. I did it. I have given society 83 field jobs as of yesterday, over 100K in taxes, 4 office jobs, and a reliable service that everyone needs. My job is done. Those 83 people earn every cent of over 1,000,000 dollars I put into the economy every year. AS far as I am concerned if you havent done more than that dont tell me that I owe society anything. I have given society enough, and yet its idea is to tax me more. Get fucked. Or at least until you can prove to me it wont be a fiasco like our social nets now.

    AS to funding. You are wrong. The money that colleges get is funded in large part by big pharma. Gasp, those evil people doing research and funding it to create new medicine. 

    https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/04/big-pharma-pays-universities-for-most-medical-research-in-u-s-today/

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2475454

    Private sector pays for most of it

    https://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-community/health-care-policy/article/who-pays-medical-research

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50

     

    The materials of CRISPR is cheap. The two decades of research is not.

    IF we all pay for healthcare now, why would I be interested in still paying for healthcare for everyone and having my insurance get worse. DO you understand how this is a tough sell? The taxpayer picks up ER visits for people who cant pay anyway, as well as a host of other services. The only thing we dont really cover right now is mental health, which we should take more seriously. 

    I got 70 percent because that is the number that people cite when talking about the 50's and the American dream and so on. WE should NEVER make a guy pay more than half of his wealth through government sanctioned theft.  I dont CARE for what reason. I also think you would be surprised how much philanthropy pays for.

     

    And the last statement is my point. We handed the penal system over to the government from the states and BAM its privatized anyway. So if that is the end game why not fix the real problem and leave our corrupt government out of it? There is no good to come from a corrupt government interfering in anything. 

     

     

    • Upvote 2

  11. Posted

    22 hours ago, Thanatos said:

    I appreciate the detailed response. I still don't get it, and I will lay out why. But first:

    Guns kill quite a bit more than 10,000 people in the United States per year. Mass shootings, sure, they are less than 500, though the trend is growing upwards. But gun violence kills a lot of people. About 40,000 people died from gunshot wounds in the US in 2017. And again, its trending upwards, that was more than any year since 1968.

    Medicare sucks is a huge generalization. There are plenty of people who would not be able to afford their medication at all except for medicare. Are there problems? Of course there are, but the issues are less with medicare and more with the ridiculous prices hospitals charge and insurances charge as a whole. (I am aware Medicare is an insurance, just saying its not solely an issue of theirs.)

    So then to address the point. You are against medicare for all because you don't want it to come at you and yours expense. On what grounds, then, should I pay taxes to the city to support my fire department? My local police? Infrastructure for highways that I never use? Why should we not privatize all of that and just have people buy crime insurance, highway insurance- or tolls, everything tolls- and firefighter insurance? And if you don't have it and you're being robbed the police don't come. If you're on a road you shouldn't be, you're idk, arrested. And if your house is on fire, it just burns down and the firefighters don't come. Plenty of times those things are not your fault, (minus not being on the road, everyone has a GPS at this point). Why should I pay for someone else's misfortune of having their house on fire and needing firefighters? Why should my taxes go to paying the police when I haven't needed them?

    Obviously, because society is better off that way. Just like it would be better off if people didn't have to grin and bear it if they have something wrong and hope its not too serious. Because what the GOP doesn't want people to know is that we still end up footing the bill. Someone shows up at the hospital, they aren't going to turn them away if they are dying. And many of those problems can be stopped for far less money if they are caught earlier, but people without insurance won't go until they are forced to. People are far happier in countries with some form of socialized healthcare, but in the US we're too busy diving under the covers at the mention of the word socialism to even consider what it would actually mean, and the fact that we already have socialist system that run just fine.

    This even wraps all the way back around to gun control again. You guys, according to our poll, seem to think mental illness is a major factor in mass shootings. You know one of the biggest problems for people who have mental issues? They don't have insurance that will cover it, so they can't get treatment. 

    The right's biggest lie is to tell the middle class that the poor person is the problem- You shouldn't have to subsidize the poor people. All the while the top 1% just keep taking more and more of the pot.

    So you are correct. 11,000 people die a year thanks to homicides committed by firearms. There are more gun deaths but gun control inst going to stop someone from committing suicide imo. If its not a gun it will be a rope, razor blade, pills or whatever. 

    Medicare sucks isnt really a huge generalization. It has some good parts but overall is ass. Patient satisfaction scores are dog shit for them. Hospitals hate it, doctors hate it, there are a few good things, mainly it costs the patient nothing. Outside of that it is a shit insurance program. 

    I think you misinterpreted or I did not explain my position. I think universal healthcare being funded through taxes is not really looking at the problem and just throwing money at it. If you want to solve the problem instead of the symptoms you quickly realize you dont need a dollar bill, you need a pen. Throwing money at something NEVER works. If the war on poverty can not be solved by throwing money at it then healthcare sure as hell wont get it done. You really dont need it though. You could TRIM SO MUCH FAT off the healthcare system with looking at the problem and not the outcome but that is not a good sound bite. What sounds better to a poor voting base?

    "It is not your fault, it is this big evil kabal over here making sure you stay poor, and I dont want you to do anything, you keep being you. We will make sure that rich Kabal pays for it in blood."

    OR

    "There are problems with healthcare that are going to change. We need to come up with a plan that is going to make patents on drugs harder to attain for generations, and create a 10 year recovery of assets period, we are going to reduce bureaucracy and paperwork, and use federal grant money as leverage to get these things done, or even talk about taking accreditation's away from hospitals to ensure they comply with a comprehensive healthcare reform."

    Its easier to pander to poor people by absolving them of responsibility for anything and saying it is not their fault there is an evil unseen hand.

    And a huge reason the middle class is shrinking is because of liberal policies. Or I should say liberal fixes to conservative policies. I think we can all agree that Republicans funnel wealth to the top. Then the do-gooding liberal comes along and passes tax reform to help the poor, and they take those taxes from the middle class because the top has so many loopholes they dont pay taxes anyway. So both parties are terrible for the middle class. The Republicans are evil and the Democrats are incompetent. 

    I dont mind revamping healthcare. What I dont want is my family to suffer from a standpoint of the standard of care we receive. I make more than enough to survive whatever taxes they want to throw or whatever recession is coming so the money issue is not important to me what it is the standard of care. If Macy or Gabe come down with something I dont want to be fucking around waiting 3 days to get into see a doctor because now there are 5000 people ahead of me on our hand dandy dog shit system everybody thought they wanted. If my wife were to find out she had breast cancer, I dont want to sit here and have her waiting in line with a bunch of people who are ahead of her and are so because of my dime. Nope. My responsibility is to my family, not yours or anyone elses. If every one else succeeds that is great too, but asking me to pay for others so we can all have shitty healthcare sounds like an ass plan to me. 

    Here is an example. Everyone in my wife's family that was a woman has died of ovarian cancer before 55. My wife is 35. 2 years ago when we started to get a bit of wealth we decided this was a problem we could deal with ahead of time. So thanks to my bad ass private insurance we were able to have her genetically tested and see what the likelihood of her getting those cancers were by decoding the genome. It was expensive, and worth it. She has under a 10% chance of getting either and if she were we know exactly what she would have so treatment could commence immediately. So that brings us to why America has an outstanding system. CRISPR is something we are pioneering and nobody is even close. All those wonderful universal healthcare systems around the world are years behind us in technology. Of the top 15 most advanced hospitals on the planet 11 are in the US. CRISPR is going to treat things are the DNA level. Theoretically meaning that all of the conditions people have from birth or congenital defects will be fixed because we will modify the DNA. Think about that. We could see a literal wholesale destruction of diseases to children and guarantee health from birth. And the US will have it long before anyone else.  What funds this ? The government, hell no. They take a triage approach. There are limited resources and we are going to use them for cases they deem the most worthy, they wont try out the fancy new fangled technology because it is too much of an expense. FUCK THAT. 

    As to public services, that is extreme. I mean I am for doing away with toll roads anyway, fire departments are closing down in mass, and people hate cops and people are leaving the job and are seeing record low recruitment because people see one 10 bad cops a year and treat them all like assholes. So we may soon find out what it looks like. I am for taxes paying for this because there are no other systems in place. Insurance covers these things. If I get in a car accident and you hit me, your insurance pays, if not mine pays. This is how it should work. It should not be up to the guy 9 cars behind me to pay for it. If I do it at work the employer should pay for it unless it is my stupidity and then my personal insurance should because it is my fault. The person who pays should be the person at fault, at least in my mind that is what makes sense. I should not ask you to pay for something you didn't do. If you didn't swill 30 2 liters and ate 16 pizzas a day for 30 years and then washing it down with some scotch and Vicodin and then smoke a pack of cigarettes you shouldn't pay for it. I own nobody anything that I did not cause to happen. 

    I should not have to subsidize poor people if they have the same opportunities as everyone else. Now they dont always and that is sad, something should be done there.  The top 1% is 400,000. You really think we should tax that guy until he makes 120,000 (70%). That is fucking criminal imo. I just dont see why you guys trust the government so much. 

    This is the same government that implemented mass incarceration, they privatized the prison systems, created PAC's and Super PAC's, has toppled regimes for oil creating generational instability and hatred towards us, Have created the war on drugs to drive up cocaine prices so they could make a profit through drugs and illegals arms deals, the same government that uses our social security fund to fund wars,  basically the same government that has created the worst problems we have. Oh and by the way somehow lets epstein get killed on suicide watch, after he warns he has been "roughed up" lets his ass get suicided to protect the top. These are the people you want me to trust with my family's healthcare and give my guns too? Have you lost your fucking mind. 

    • Upvote 1

  13. Posted

    1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

    So why can't we have a permit specifically for assault weapons then?

    I find myself so completely unable to understand how the right can argue for owning assault weapons as being a right, and yet healthcare is not. Honestly here, not trying to belittle the belief, I just cannot wrap my head around how someone can believe it. Most of the time, I like to at least be able to think how the other side can possibly be viewing a thing a certain way. Abortion, for example, I understand both sides. But I cannot get my head around how people can be so pro-gun and so anti-healthcare for all. 

    Let me try to at least get there.

    Can you try to explain why you think owning assault weapons is a right? And do you think its a moral right, or just one that we have because of the second amendment?

     

    So this is just me, I wont speak for anyone else here or anywhere else.  And my response will be for America only, as other country's aren"t my business. 

    So the reason people say it is a right and healthcare is not is fairly simple in my opinion. It is in the "Bill of RIGHTS." I didnt capitalize it to be a dick, but those first 10 are guaranteed to every American citizen in this country thanks to the following amendment where we figured out black people and women are not inferior people.  I capitalized it because it is a lot easier to call it a right than it is to say," It is a right afforded to me by the constitution of The United States." So people just call it a right. And not just guns but, speech, rights for court and so on.  There is nothing in the Bill of Rights explicitly stating that healthcare is guaranteed to all citizens or we would have it. 

    I also think that people who dont support medicare for all get lumped into "anti-healthcare." Call it psychopathy or whatever you want but I care very little of others. So the appeal to me better nature with," What about your fellow man?" does not work for me. The benefit to that is that I am also not for holding others back because I think they deserve what they get or whatever the narrative is. Here is what I do know, Medicare sucks. This is well documented, so why do you think I would want to put my family on that shit ? That is nuts. I laid out what I would do for healthcare and it had nothing to do with universal healthcare, raising taxes, or disbanding private insurance. If this country can come up with a way that isnt some dumbed down marxist drivel of," lets take all the things from the bourgeoisie and give it all back to the proletariat" nonsense. I am all for people having healthcare, but it is not going to come at the expense of me or my family. I am not going to be satisfied with some horseshit medicare for all. 

    I also think that almost all of us really dont think about human rights. If we are talking about rights as they pertain to humans as a whole, how many people really think about that? I mean most people only think of rights that pertain to them or a group they care about. This conversation for example. Why cant it be a right to have guns and healthcare? Why does one group want to take the rights to abortion, and the abortion group wants to take guns? The truth is we care very little about the rights of others just so long as those we value are preserved. We dont ever stop to think about humanity as a whole, and what rights should be guaranteed to use as human beings ? We only see what is right in front of us. 

    So I am not really pro-gun anti-healthcare, but I am not some rube who is going to jump on the liberal bandwagon with some cheap appeal to my empathy with a shit plan and a whole lot of propaganda. Not going to happen. I dont think immigrants are going to steal my job, and I dont think it is my job to take care of someone else. 

    A far as why do I believe it is our rights to have guns. Well first and foremost I dont believe we all should. I believe people like me should. What I mean by that is this. I have no domestic violence charges, I have no felonies, no mental illness, extensive training on using the weapon, and have no criminal history other than a DUI in 2009 and a parking ticket for parking in a bank parking lot 4 years ago. I am no danger to anyone who is not posing a threat to me and my family so I should not be penalized for the action of a few people. I also think that this "Mass shooting Problem" is extremely disproportionate to the actual problem. Seriously less than 500 people a year is such a small percentage that I think we should be dedicating a bit more outrage to things that kill more people like Diarrhea, measles, nutritional deficiencies, drowning, falls, fires, and syphilis. 

    As fr as if guns are a moral right or a constitutional one, I think that it is both.  I think it is a moral right because I dont have anymore right to take something from you than you do from me if I have harmed nobody. Abortion kills 500,000 viable fetus's a year, and it is never a mans right to have a say in anything woman. Why do people who dont own guns get to mandate something that kills less that 10,000? Why do we have to worry about taking anyone's rights. Why dont people agree to leave each other alone? i have shot nobody or done anything violent or shown signs of slipping into the abyss why does someone get to take something that brings joy to someone. It just doesn't make sense to me that people get to tell people what they can and cant have if they are not hurting anyone. You also cant attribute to me something that my gun has not decided to do. 

    The Constitution is pretty damn clear on this. "Shall not be infringed" kind of says all that needs to be said and their are no specific restrictions on it. Now as to what you said earlier there is a distinction between AR's and ICBM's. In the military we have something called discriminatory fire. Or target discrimination.  A bomb is an indiscriminate killer. An AR is fired with intent of specificity on a particular person. meaning that person has to look at that person and kill them. A bomb has way more potential for destruction, and it is an indiscriminate killer. That is a massive difference imo. 

    This was longer than I intended but this is about as thorough as I can get.

  14. Posted

    His point still stands. When you say why cant we have tanks you're going to an extreme to illustrate a middle of the road point. Assault weapons, still not a thing, are slightly more dangerous than handguns, a lot more dangerous than bolt actions, and a lot less dangerous than pipe bombs or bazookas. 

    That is the equivalent of me saying well cars kill more than people than guns let's ban them. Or force everyone to take public transportation and ban everything that isnt a hybrid to lower our carbon footprint. 

    A bus can do the same thing as a car, why do we need them. Its lazy and a bad and meaningless place to start an argument.

  15. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

    Apparently my sarcasm went right over your head, even though I explicitly said "tongue-in-cheek aside."

    "Attacking their rights" by saying that the average  private citizen shouldn't have assault rifles. Okay. Owning an assault weapon is not a right. If you think the government has no business telling people how to live their lives, what's your argument against me purchasing an ICBM. Or a tank. Or a bazooka. Take your pick. There are regulations, common sense regulations, we can use here.

    Plus your analogy is simply a bad analogy, sorry friendo. I can choose whether to purchase an assault rifle. I can't choose if I'm mentally ill.

    Yes it is a right. And you can own all of those things. Permit required of course.

  16. Posted

    2 hours ago, Thanatos said:

    There is a difference between owning an inanimate object and having something wrong with YOU. And the continual strawman in this topic is really wearing on me. Who in here is advocating what you guys keep crying about- banning guns? No one that I'm aware of. I laid out solutions, how about engaging with that instead of constantly bringing up arguments that aren't being used by anyone except the extreme left?

    Didn't you say we should ban guns? I swear we went around this. 

  17. Posted

    46 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

    It creates a stigma that people who are mentally ill are more likely to be mass shooters than people who are not. A stigma that is not borne out in reality.

    I think that is inaccurate. Most people who do these have AT MINIMUM major depression. Even the study you linked said that.

  18. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

    Your second statement is actually false. (I think it is, if what you're saying here is "more people who own all rifles and dont kill people, than people who are on antidepressants and don't.") A person with a gun is three times more likely to commit a violent act than someone who is on mental health medication- this is not a good comparison though, because there are a ton more people that own guns than are on anti-depressants. But the idea that mental health patients are more violent is not generally true. Many of them become overly docile, even more so than the average person.

    Here's the article I found it in:

    https://time.com/5644147/mass-shootings-mental-health/

    And here's the study. According to it, less than 1% of all mass shootings are committed by people with serious mental illness in their background.

    https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099

    People, such as Wayne La Pierre of the NRA, are suggesting things like a mental illness registry. It is highly unlikely that any attempt to profile mentally ill people will lead to any sort of actual reduction of mass shootings. It's simply too complicated an issue to argue that we could somehow prevent it by having a profile on mentally ill people. 

    I get it. We want to believe that in order to do something like this, someone's brain has to be fundamentally broken- different than yours or mine, because we'd never ever consider doing something this evil. It's the same philosophy that makes us want to believe people like Hitler and Stalin were mentally ill. Humans don't need to have something mentally wrong in order to do these kinds of terrible acts. 

    What is the driving force behind mass shootings? There's no silver bullet, like I said. But one thing they do all have in common is guns. And guns with high capacity magazines are much more likely to result in more deaths and injuries. 

    There are, according to one of the more exhaustive studies done on mass shootings, four factors that seem to contribute to mass shootings.

    1) 1/3 of mass shooters were prohibited from owning guns, and the vast majority of these still bought them legally due to a failure of background checks.

    2) 51% of mass shooters were convicted or involved in a domestic violence dispute, or other violent attacks or crimes.

    3) Family and domestic violence is a driving force in creating a mass shooter.  54% of mass shootings involved the death of a family member or close friend of the shooter, who was either confirmed to be their target, or likely to be so.

    4) Mass shootings that involve high capacity magazines result in more injury and death than those that do not. (A high capacity magazine was defined by Everytown as being one that could fire 10+ bullets without reloading.)

    Thus, they propose the following four solutions:

    1) Background checks on all firearm sales, and punishment for those that do not use them or fail to use them.

    2) Red flag laws, that allow a family member and law enforcement to seek the temporary removal of firearms from those who have exhibited violent behavior.

    3) Strong domestic violence laws that keep guns out of the hands of abusers.

    4) Restrictions on the purchase, possession, and manufacture of high capacity magazines that thus limit the amount of rounds of ammunition a shooter can fire without reloading.

    I would concur without a blink on 1, 3 and 4. It is the 2nd proposal that is obviously the most controversial. I'm not sure I would include family in those that have the ability to seek it, but it depends exactly how it would be enforced. Law enforcement should be able to- with a court order of course- temporarily remove a firearm from someone deemed a threat, I don't really have an issue with that.

     1st and foremost thank you for the articles.

     

    The 2nd one you reference to, the PDF file, was far and away the best.  It was  Interesting, because they were talking about mass murder and mass shootings in particular. There are several takeaways, but the most important one was the fact that these things are extremely rare, thus making them hard to predict and model.

     

    The 2nd salient point is that it is usually done by children who have experienced traumatic events, have isolation is traits, or have parents who are not present in their lives. I think all of these things are extremely important, they are definitely contributing factors to what is happening. 

    The FBI and CIA studies that they referenced were also extremely interestings. If you have not read the whole thing I certainly would recommend it.

     

    As to the 3rd when you referenced comment was still a good article. I just don't think it has as much substance as the 2nd. That being said an interesting thing they brought up as that 59% of people who commit mass shootings should have been banned from buying them in the 1st place. I have said before that I am all for universal background checks, if you could cut out 60% of mass shootings, this problem becomes even smaller.

     

    The 1st article though, was pure dog shit.  It cited very little data, used Twitter as a source, didn't reference any material that you can look back to in say there was a streamlined and efficient methodology. It was certainly not a scholarly work, it was an opinion piece. The author keeps saying that doctors agree with this comment doctors agree with that, but they only talk till 1 or 2 doctors from what I saw. That is an extremely small sample size to then extrapolate out to the rest of the community. Especially when you followed up with that 2nd article that you had from the American psychological association. There was a brilliant piece of writing, the 1st article would have done well to cite that period

    • Upvote 1

  19. Posted

    I meant assault. God damn auto correct. Most people who own assault rifles dont. The percentage of people who own assault rifles are less than those who have mental health issue.

    I am interested in that study so I will read it shortly. Those shootings all have people in common too is my point.

    I won't comment on the study you cited until I have read it.

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, Thanatos said:

    @Omerta: Site's being funky so I can't quote you here. I'm not saying we are those countries, I'm saying the right claims gun control won't work when whenever we see it implemented, it does work, and they offer no explanation as to why it won't work here when it's worked elsewhere. 

    As far as the 2A, there are two possibilities for it. Or possibly both.

    1) We wanted to have a free people that could resist the government if it became tyrannical. This is for sure an intended usage of the 2A when it was created. This usage is obsolete. If the US army came after its citizens you ain't gonna stop them, assault rifles or no. The tech difference is simply too great. So unless you're also advocating letting private citizens buy tanks and body armor...

    2) Self-defense. This is more in-line with a modern usage of the 2A, and you don't need an assault rifle for self-defense. 

    I can tell you why it works other places, but not here. Or at least my theory. Culture. We are not the same as far as national identity, customs, mannerisms, or personality. One of the reasons you have to be nuts to fight the US is because we love violence. We always have and always will. That is why combat sports are GINGANTIC here and not so much other places. 

    Guns are a part of who we are. We won our freedom with them. We settled the west with them. We have shaped our country and the world with them. We have an attachment to them that cant really be found elsewhere. 

    By you're logic we would ban the burka because the rest of the world doesn't have draconian laws against women. Why cant they just get on board and be part of this whole thing? It is their culture. We have ours and they have theirs. Or we would tell France to quit letting people marry dead people, but we don't, or shouldn't anyway.

    The point is the US is uniquely different from the rest of the world and I see no reason to conform for something that kills less than 500 people a year. It is an overreaction to take those things from millions of people who have done noth in ng wrong.

    And I really couldn't disagree more with how you interpret the second amendment but that is a different conversation but a few quick things.

    What about foreign occupation?

    I can legally buy body armor.

    It is far from obselete for our own government. Tactics beat technology. Any field commander will tell you that. We wouldn't win but we could make it so bloody and drawn out it would be pointless. 

    Iraq was far from technological but those IED's still work. Suicide bombing still worked. These are the least technological th h in ngs in the world but massively effective. Its All about tactics.

     

  22. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

    There's a lot of people on pysch drugs who don't go shooting the place up. And there was a big study done on it, most mass shooters had no history of mental illness.

    Can you cite this? I have only found things citing the correlation between and depressants and coming off and mass shootings. I have not found one saying the opposite, I would like to read it. I know Lanza, The Urora shooter, and the parkland kid ( I think but not as sure as the other two) were on them.

     That said there are more people who owns all rifles you don't kill people, than there are people who are on antidepressants and dont.

  23. Posted

    1 minute ago, seanbrock said:

    Here's the bottom line. There are two causes of gun violence in this country. Poverty and mental illness. If you don't want to address those problems then don't bitch when they come for your guns. It's not like we could even fight against the government. They could just drone bomb us. It's be pretty easy to do I would imagine with the spying capabilities that we allow them to have.

     You just said it. There Is 2 causes of gun violence and neither one of them are a gun. Why would you take the gun? 

     Maybe it's not for our government, what if China decides they want to take over when they realize we're never going to pay them back. Now granted I will give you, I don't think there's any 2 countries in the world that could beat us, but Hey you never know. They have a standing army of over million people, ours is 300000 on a good day. That being said there's 330 million people in this country in the majority on guns, that beats a million man army every day.

     Or what if they're just fun to shoot, that's OK because that's my right granted to me by the Constitution.

  24. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    13 hours ago, seanbrock said:

    We're also from different generations. When I grew up if you get in a fight in Junior high school the cops got called.

    My problem with gun people is they don't want any restrictions on gun ownership but they also don't want to pay for mental health care for people. They want to leave it to insurance to feed people pills or lock them up because it's cheaper than actual treatment. They don't see a problem that parents both have to work to keep the family's head above water and we have a bunch of latch key kids. You can't have it both ways. You keep saying guns don't kill people and we should keep our guns but you offer no solutions and any solution that's offered up costs too much. 

     I agreed with you until the last few sentences. I'm not one of those people, we can address health care all day long, just because I don't believe in raising taxes for everyone  for some convoluted plan that isn't going to work, does not mean I don't believe in health care reform. I believe there are many ways to do it without having to do that.

     As far as both parents having to work, you're absolutely right there.  I am certainly for a living wage, I have also said several times over that I believe every job in this country should be unionized. I'm not saying that so that way everybody here can see how woke I am saying it because I truly believe that that would drastically change with the outlook of our country looks like. There would be more time at home with parents, now hopefully these parents are engaged, but under ideal circumstances we will be able to raise better kids, we would be able to have kids around their parents enough to know that they're there for them. We would have parents who would know there something wrong with their child. These are things I absolutely believe in.  Any amount of money you wanna spend on repairing the American Family, spend it. I would donate 90% of my wealth if it meant the American Family were repaired. Now I'm not that rich, but I would certainly be all for the government taxing people like me and who make more than me over 90% of our wealth to repair the American Family.

     

    Well to a point, the US government has proven that throwing money at something doesn't really work Look at the war on poverty. In simple terms you would think it would work. These people have no money, let's throw more money at them. And yet poverty has risen. Although in principle I would be for a tax for the American family. That is the one thing in my life I could not live without.

     If we recognize we have a mental health problem, why do we lash out and decide to take guns from millions of people? It doesn't make any sense. There are some gun control measures I'm all for. If you wanna have universal background checks, all for it, you wanna have the gun show loophole closed, all for it, you wanna have a centralized database for people who have mental health issues or felony records, all for it. That being said, for law abiding citizens who have no mental health issues, there is absolutely no reason I shouldn't be able to own 1 because 3 or 4 assholes in this country don't know how to behave per year.

     

     

    • Upvote 3

  25. Posted · Edited by Omerta

    11 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

    You could say the same thing about the people in the US. Owning a gun doesn't make you tough lol

     Definitely not, but fighting for a right given to me by the Constitution, that men have find I had for, counts for something. 

     

    I'm not going to sit idly by and just give up my guns for no reason, especially considering less than 500 people die in mass shootings and your talking about taking away "assault" rifles from millions. If the people of France when a fold their right so easily, let him. That has literally nothing to do with me, and I don't give a damn about their politics. Interesting thing though because they care a lot about ours.

     And maybe where you're from there's a lot of pussies, but where I grew up there wasn't.

  • Chatbox

    TGP has moved to Discord (sorta) - https://discord.gg/JkWAfU3Phm

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×