Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
seanbrock

2020 Democratic Primary Race

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

@Omerta You just have the history knowledge of a 10 year old if you think the people of France and Germany are pussies or those countries are "pussy ass countries." Canada?....you got me there. They killed the shit out of some Native people I assume lol. I know nothing about their history.

 I said is it is today, history has nothing to do with the present time period I probably could not have made that statement 30 years ago, maybe about France but certainly not Germany. That said and the modern day I feel completely comfortable making that statement.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Omerta said:

 I said is it is to say common history has nothing to do with the present time period I probably could not have made that statement 30 years ago, maybe about France but certainly not Germany. That said and the modern day I feel completely comfortable making that statement.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Omerta said:

 Definitely not, but flatting for a right given to me by the Constitution, that men have find I had for karma 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 in your talking about taking away sole 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 calm and I don't give a dam about their politics. Centrist 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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Thanatos said:

You absolutely do not have the constitutional right to an assault weapon or a 100-bullet magazine. Honestly never even heard that argument tried before.

As far as Tyson goes, that analogy is god-awful as was stated in the first reply to him on that thread. Medical errors get sued, we developed flu vaccines for the flu, we build cars as safely as possible with strict regulations on being able to own and operate them, suicide is definitely something we need to do better on addressing. Point being, we address these as problems in need of a solution. And also if 40 people died in one day from the same doctor from a medical error, you bet your ass we'd have investigations all over the place.

Guns? Nope, can't touch them. I find them fun, so we're not even allowed to try to regulate them, despite the fact that kids are being killed at their schools, and if we point out that other countries have tried regulating them and have all-but-eliminated the issue, apparently that is them being arrogant instead of trying to help. The right wing in this country is fucking insane on this issue. They won't even admit the *possibility* that having gun control works, despite all the evidence that it does.

I'm not saying its a silver bullet and will solve all the issues immediately- its a nuanced issue with multiple things that need to happen, gun control being one of them- but making assault weapons harder to acquire should be a common sense, non-partisan issue. 

You’re telling me that doctors or car manufacturers don’t at times take shortcuts? That they are always playing by the book, doing exactly what is morally and ethically correct? 

That’s some fairyland make believe bullshit right there. Lol. 

Taking guns away from good people (which is exactly who 99% legislation would impact) isn’t the answer. 

“ Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither “

Also, Tyson’s point was that those deaths are PREVENTABLE just like the gun deaths. The gun deaths happen in a way that makes people focus their outrage there (which is deserved) while not giving a shit about a lot of other deaths we could prevent but choose not to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care about gun control. If gun laws stayed the same and we could do all of what you suggested, I'd do that in a heartbeat. I agree you can't just throw money at things. I think we have too many lawyers in political office. There are a lot of experts in mental health that could direct tax funding to address the mental health crisis in this country. I think a great way to start would be to address the privatized prisons crisis. I think we really need someone or something to take a serious look at the pharma/insurance aspect too. How many of these mass shooters were on psych meds of some sort? This isn't my area of expertise but to me it needs to be investigated and studied. 

Really love unionizing the whole country though. Democratize the work place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

You’re telling me that doctors or car manufacturers don’t at times take shortcuts? That they are always playing by the book, doing exactly what is morally and ethically correct? 

That’s some fairyland make believe bullshit right there. Lol. 

Taking guns away from good people (which is exactly who 99% legislation would impact) isn’t the answer. 

“ Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither “

Also, Tyson’s point was that those deaths are PREVENTABLE just like the gun deaths. The gun deaths happen in a way that makes people focus their outrage there (which is deserved) while not giving a shit about a lot of other deaths we could prevent but choose not to. 

 

I'm not really sure where you got the idea that I don't think doctors or manufacturers don't take shortcuts from my post.

I don't want to take all guns away, just assault weapons. There is a line, my dude. Should everyone have access to tanks? Missiles? Body armor? 

And Tyson's point doesn't work, because we actively try to prevent the other types of problems, whereas guns we have done next to nothing on this entire time.

@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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, seanbrock said:

I really don't care about gun control. If gun laws stayed the same and we could do all of what you suggested, I'd do that in a heartbeat. I agree you can't just throw money at things. I think we have too many lawyers in political office. There are a lot of experts in mental health that could direct tax funding to address the mental health crisis in this country. I think a great way to start would be to address the privatized prisons crisis. I think we really need someone or something to take a serious look at the pharma/insurance aspect too. How many of these mass shooters were on psych meds of some sort? This isn't my area of expertise but to me it needs to be investigated and studied. 

Really love unionizing the whole country though. Democratize the work place.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes as a history of mental illness? I would argue that's most likely a result of a lack of access to mental health care than it does anything else. I'm sorry but you cannot convince me that there isn't some sort of illness or some sort of social issue that I might be conflating with mental illness as a strict definable condition like bi-polar or schizophrenia or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could ban and forcefully remove every “ assault weapon” from every single household in the country and mass shootings would still happen. That’s where the disconnect is. 

The ban would be ineffective and solely symbolic. Sounds like American Politics at its finest. 

Most of these shooters have suffered severe trauma as children. Why don’t we address that? Almost all of these shooters experience a follow up traumatic event leading up to their crimes? Why don’t we focus on that? And a large majority of these shooters have been and/or are currently on anti psychotic medication. Why don’t we focus on that? 

We do a really shitty job of taking care of each other in this country. And we are too obsessed with treating the result of a tragedy and not the causes. 

Wasn’t that here a mass knifing recently as well ? These people are sick and hurting,  it our solution for that is to ban weapons . 

If this issue continues without attention we’re gonna need those weapons when these crazy sickos become actually more common. Not mention those weapons would be useful fighting tyrannical governments. It took like 12 armored swat guys with assault weapons to take down one of these recent shooters. How’s my butter knife or pistol gonna work on those guys ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a study by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights linking suicides and mass shootings and general violence to psychotropic drugs and prescriptions. 

My phone is too potato to link it right now but I can find it after work and post it if needed. Just published last year I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fairly sure that is the one I have read, I have not seen the one Thanatos is talking about.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Omerta said:

I'm fairly sure that is the one I have read, I have not seen the one Thanatos is talking about.

Yeah just backin ya up. Not that you need it. But those studies you’re talking about definitely exist. Ha. 

/Ngata direct reply 

I think it’s extremely weak to say that these drugs have no correlation simply because a lot of people are on them and they don’t partake in mass shootings. Lots of people have “assault weapons” who don’t partake in mass shootings. So why are we risking those people’s liberty and rights? 

The human brain is extremely complex and each of us can have varying degrees of reaction to different drugs based on our brain chemistry. That’s not even to mention dosing issues... or perhaps missing a few days and then going back on them... or not being able to pay for them and going long stretches without them. All of that screws with your brain. 

Nature (genes) and Nurture (our surroundings and how we’re raised) do have a significant impact on our brains. 

Just because you can take psychotropic drugs and not commit a mass shooting doesn’t mean I can do the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Omerta said:

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.

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.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Edited by Omerta
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first article I cited merely to tell you where I found the link to the study, it cites it about half-way down. I don't necessarily agree with it myself. It was just hard to find the damn study again, because all the links I found to it were from places that wanted me to remove my adblocker. Fuck that.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random note. Tom Steyer is one pool away from qualifying for the debates... he just entered the race in mid July and he’s already pumped 10m dollars into this campaign. He’s been pushing ads like crazy here (Iowa) and multiple of the polls he’s gotten already to qualify have been based here. 

I hope he crashes and burns but that may be unfair because I’m not familiar with his positions at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also.. it’s been reported / released that there were two guards watching Epstein the night of his murder. Both “fell asleep” and then falsified their reports to reflect that they did check on him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Random note. Tom Steyer is one pool away from qualifying for the debates... he just entered the race in mid July and he’s already pumped 10m dollars into this campaign. He’s been pushing ads like crazy here (Iowa) and multiple of the polls he’s gotten already to qualify have been based here. 

I hope he crashes and burns but that may be unfair because I’m not familiar with his positions at all.

I'm just some crazy conspiracy theorist to say polls are manipulated. :Yao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

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