Trump Regime thread.

[OSUViking 505]

How psychiatric medicine affects someone comes down to individual circumstance. The vast majority of people do not react that way to their prescriptions. They are often still not pleasant, as they have plenty of side effects, but they do not alone cause people to behave like that.

 

Did they contribute? Of course, this kid was the culmination of his entire lifetime. Everyone is. His medicine interacted with a brain that was already pretty traumatized from a horrid upbringing. His circumstances predisposed him to a certain behavior, or so it seems, and yes those circumstances did include medicine. To say they had no impact is false, but that they were even a considerable factor seems suspect to me.

 

Medicine can suck, but modern pills DO NOT cause things like this.

[OSUViking 505]

Anyone understand how Russian internet trolls cost Hillary the election yet? I'm starting to think she's gonna run again. Lol

 

I think this is one of the few circumstances in which I'd expect Trump to win a second term.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I don't know how you can make statements like this with the way the FDA approves medicines. I think many of these drugs have long term side effects that haven't been tested and I believe that they have a negative impact on the developing brain like any kind illegal drug would.

[OSUViking 505]

I don't know how you can make statements like this with the way the FDA approves medicines. I think many of these drugs have long term side effects that haven't been tested and I believe that they have a negative impact on the developing brain like any kind illegal drug would.

 

These medicines go through extensive studies. I have been in a two-year long study with a newer anti-psychotic medication. I have had very few if any side effects, aside from the occasional spasm. If there is a type of suspect medicine being prescribed, that is a shitty doctor who should lose their license. Most of the medicine that doctors prescribe have been studied quite a bit for their efficacy.

 

Edit: It seems you guys are getting caught up in flashy news stories. No matter how "rampant" these mass shootings are, they are still exceedingly rare occurrences and an even smaller percentage of them are carried out by people with psychiatric issues (check the link I provided). In what reality does it make sense to say that because a handful of people on these medications commit mass murder, the medicine is a significant contributor to this behavior? It ignores that the overwhelming majority of people who take these medications do not even approach such circumstances.

 

Edit2: I tend to agree on the developing brain part, but I haven't sought out scientific research to back that up. I tend to think giving prescriptions to kids is a bad idea.

Edited February 20, 2018 by OSUViking

[Turry 755]

This is why children don't run a country. And I get she went through something horrible, but calling him a price of shit ? Was it worth it ?

 

Nah just racist, prejudice businessmen. She is not wrong.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Nah just racist, prejudice businessmen. She is not wrong.

True story, can disagree with anything you just said. All I'm saying, is just because she seen something messed up, or she might have lost some friends, does not make her an expert on the subject. You can tell by how she phrased it, she has no idea what she wants she's just parroting what she's being told. I'm not trying to minimize anything she went through, it is a horrible tragedy, and I've got nothing but sympathy, but I think this is one of those situations where we need to be cautious.

 

When someone says gun control what do they mean? In specifics, saying something like gun control sounds awesome and it gets people to The Ballot Box unfortunately, but that being said I've heard no real feasible plan yet. Even politicians who have these wonderful and grandiose ideas on how to make America safe again, don't seem to have any idea what gun control actually is, or how they would implement it.

 

I am still in the camp, that I'm not entirely sure we should be blaming guns here. I went to school 25 years ago in a place where everybody had a gun rack in their truck during deer season, Statewide mind you, and not a single school shooting, not a single death from the school shooting within 500 miles of where we were at. What has changed? How is it students used to be able to take rifles of large calibers under school campuses with them, not have the inclination to kill someone? That's the question I'm more interested in, what has changed within us as a society that has made human life so much less valuable ?

[seanbrock 1,684]

The girl wanted an easy 15 minutes of fame for "resisting" Trump

 

Pretty shitty thing to do in the wake of such a tragedy. Reality is Trump has been president for 1 fucking year. To get mad at him for this is retarded and nonsensical. I hope she's just dumb and not doing it for attention.

 

Oh and @OSU. I wonder how many of these shooters we're medicated as children. I think you would also agree that sometimes people can be given a bad cocktail of medicines with unseen bad side effects and people end up switching meds.

Edited February 20, 2018 by seanbrock

[OSUViking 505]

The girl wanted an easy 15 minutes of fame for "resisting" Trump

 

Pretty shitty thing to do in the wake of such a tragedy. Reality is Trump has been president for 1 fucking year. To get mad at him for this is retarded and nonsensical. I hope she's just dumb and not doing it for attention.

 

Oh and @OSU. I wonder how many of these shooters we're medicated as children. I think you would also agree that sometimes people can be given a bad cocktail of medicines with unseen bad side effects and people end up switching meds.

 

I could see that being the reason she did it. Not saying it is, or at least I hope it isn't, but people can be like that.

 

People are given a 'bad' cocktail all the time. Usually, it lands them in a hospital because it incites a bothersome or harmful physical reaction. Negative side effects of psychiatric medicine are more likely to involve suicidal thoughts.

 

I am not trying to sound like a knight in shining armor for psychiatric medicine. I long for a day that I don't have to take it at all. But I think it is very very misleading to say that it was a causative factor in these circumstances. Maybe it was, but even if it that is the case, it is only relevant for a minuscule fraction of people on the medicine.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

These medicines go through extensive studies. I have been in a two-year long study with a newer anti-psychotic medication. I have had very few if any side effects, aside from the occasional spasm. If there is a type of suspect medicine being prescribed, that is a shitty doctor who should lose their license. Most of the medicine that doctors prescribe have been studied quite a bit for their efficacy.

 

Edit: It seems you guys are getting caught up in flashy news stories. No matter how "rampant" these mass shootings are, they are still exceedingly rare occurrences and an even smaller percentage of them are carried out by people with psychiatric issues (check the link I provided). In what reality does it make sense to say that because a handful of people on these medications commit mass murder, the medicine is a significant contributor to this behavior? It ignores that the overwhelming majority of people who take these medications do not even approach such circumstances.

 

Edit2: I tend to agree on the developing brain part, but I haven't sought out scientific research to back that up. I tend to think giving prescriptions to kids is a bad idea.

Because as has already been established, these drugs have differing impacts on people. Just because you dont have a side effect in two years on a drug doesnt mean I wont have them. Even if 99.9% of people see no side effects whatsoever, somebody is making up that .01%.... and as you said, even though these shootings are relatively rare... so is .01% .

 

I am not acting like there is some grand conspiracy to indoctrinate a few select people into shooting up schools. Nobody can really account for that .01% ... its just one of those perfect storm type of situations.

 

But even so, that doesnt mean we should ignore it or does it?

 

Sorry if this has been brought up (I really hate reading and replying on my phone lol)...

 

But as previously stated... these instances are rare. Are you of equal mind to defend guns and are against gun control as you are for the mental health side of the debate?

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

I could see that being the reason she did it. Not saying it is, or at least I hope it isn't, but people can be like that.

 

People are given a 'bad' cocktail all the time. Usually, it lands them in a hospital because it incites a bothersome or harmful physical reaction. Negative side effects of psychiatric medicine are more likely to involve suicidal thoughts.

 

I am not trying to sound like a knight in shining armor for psychiatric medicine. I long for a day that I don't have to take it at all. But I think it is very very misleading to say that it was a causative factor in these circumstances. Maybe it was, but even if it that is the case, it is only relevant for a minuscule fraction of people on the medicine.

Yeah I can understand that. I do think that it is one of the things that needs to be looked at. Like I said before I'm sure that there are a lot of sociological factors at play here too. I think this is something that won't be fixed by doing one or two things. Looking at these drugs is just one of those things that we need to consider.

[OSUViking 505]

But as previously stated... these instances are rare. Are you of equal mind to defend guns and are against gun control as you are for the mental health side of the debate?

I don't think the issue is guns. They make things more efficient, but these people would find ways to kill no matter what. I don't know enough to argue what a good solution to the gun debate is. I think the root of this issue stems from some form of emotional maladaptation, which usually points to toxic home environment. Edited February 21, 2018 by OSUViking

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I have some trepidation in saying this, but to your point, it sounds like some of those students were fame-seeking, asshats, who were bullies. When people ask about the shooter there was one kid in particular who was talking about how he was weird and he was a loner, that you could tell he had picked on kids before. It is a natural part of high school and I know that it goes on and will continue too, but we really cant allow bullying in todays age. I think children of that age have less self-confidence and are weaker than previous generations. I think that bullying is hurting kids ego more than ever because instead of standing up and punching a motherfucker they just take it, until one day they start plotting revenge and her we are.

 

I am not sure how much mental illness plays a part because I Think that shit is way over-diagnosed by doctors, but I think the number of these shooters that are coming off of anti-depressants are absolutely shocking. I think we really need to look at this as it is a factor as well. I think you are correct in saying guns arent the problem. That has been true, and will consistently remain true. It is a terrible thing though because if you take them away, wait until bombings are happening. To me it really is as simple as you said, these assholes are going to find a way to do it, and banning guns wont change that.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Why hasnt it happened in other countries where they have banned guns then?

[BwareDWare94 723]

There is room for common sense gun legislation that doesn't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. Whether Republicans like it or not, that's the truth.

 

There have been a handful of school shooters with mental health conditions, but they are anomalies when it comes to all violence. The vast majority of violence in the United States is committed by individuals who do not have known mental health conditions. Whether Republicans like it or not, that's the truth.

 

There is absolutely zero reason to believe that armed security personnel at schools as a required standard wouldn't remove the easy target labeling of American schools, and it most certainly would deter some potential shooters. For fuck's sake don't arm teachers that are in the vicinity of kids all day long, but we must consider publicly funded armed security at schools. Whether Democrats like it or not, that's the truth.

 

The underlying similarity between all these school shooters is not the gun--it's that they're almost all awkward, socially inept males with built up bitterness and anger. If we want to truly stop most if not all school shootings, we need to not ignore these awkward, shy young boys who don't naturally have communication skills. We are too one-size-fits-all when it comes to development of communication skills. First, we must put an emphasis on noticing the socially inept in adolescence or early teenage years, then taking the initiative to help them develop such skills. Second, we must refocus on the arts in schools. Creativity is therapeutic and also a form of communication. Simply having a medium with which to express their emotions and frustrations could have prevented some of these young men from becoming monsters. Obviously the vast majority of them don't become mass shooters, but most of them do become other undesirable types in our society, like stalkers. Helping intercept this development into undesirable subtypes would help our society in so many ways. To paraphrase, part of solving this issue is sympathizing and caring about young males. Whether Democrats like it or not, that's the truth.

 

Where is the fucking compromise?

[seanbrock 1,684]

Did any of those countries have problems with shootings other than robberies or gang violence or anything like that? I honestly don't know. I mean, we have had guns here for a long time and this has only become a problem over the past 20-25 years? Seems strange.

[RazorStar 4,025]

 

Studies indicate that the rate at which public mass shootings occur has tripled since 2011. Between 1982 and 2011, a mass shooting occurred roughly once every 200 days. However, between 2011 and 2014 that rate has accelerated greatly with at least one mass shooting occurring every 64 days in the United States.

 

Hmmm. Like this is the sort of thing you could probably write a dissertation on. All the various factors that lead to the rapid increase of mass shootings, including the fact that shootings as a whole have gone down significantly. I have some hypotheses, but nothing concrete. I have to imagine that fame is to some degree responsible for the increase. You can name the shooters of all of these attacks, but you'd struggle to come up with the name of a single victim of these attacks. Not to mention the whole copycat phenomenon. People who are driven enough to want to kill someone are the same kind of people who want to make the next Colombine, the next Sandy Hook, whatever it is.

 

And the fact is, no matter how many of these shootings happen, if the response is "arm more people to deal with it" you're just gonna have more people shooting each other. Sure does sell a lot of guns though.

[OSUViking 505]

Why hasnt it happened in other countries where they have banned guns then?

 

I'll again emphasize that I don't know a lot about guns or statistics about guns. I still think I'm capable of contributing to this discussion.

 

I have a hard time imagining that European nations struggle with the specific sociological circumstances the US does. I have only been exposed to a specific part of the US, but the immaturity and emotional chaos is fucking everywhere. I used to think adults knew everything, but I'm 21 and at this point I can see that a lot of people I grew up with had some asshole parents.

 

There is a lot of the world that I'm not aware of, but Americans seem especially stupid. I'm sure if I lived in Saudi Arabia, I'd think the same of them because it appears from the outside that they let religion (read: emotions and fear of death/loneliness/any excuse people use to justify religious governance) govern how they think. Americans straight up let pride and anger run rampant in their decisions, at least from what I've noticed here in the Midwest (though I see the exact same patterns in those I know in Minnesota, Texas, etc.).

 

If this is a wide-ranging cultural issue, it's because Americans seem to idolize individuality to a fault. There is only individuality in the sense that we are responsible for what's under our control, but that jurisdiction describes a fraction of circumstances in our lives. We're supposed to handle emotional issues on our own, and we're supposed to succeed on our own. It's idiotic. We're a social species for a reason, and to take that even further the fact that we were a SUCCESSFUL species because we were SOCIAL meant that we could even develop into the creatures we are today. There seems to be a stark lack of community in the United States. Europe does not have as many suburbs; they are largely centered in cities with villages and small towns littered throughout. I wonder if this is significant, but the suburban/commute life that so many Americans live seems very isolating.

 

I am rambling at this point. Rough day yesterday and haven't been able to organize my thoughts in a way that I deem satisfactory. Did any of the above make sense? Genuinely unsure. It reads like rubbish but I don't know how to fix it on my end.

Edited February 21, 2018 by OSUViking

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Tonight's CNN town hall is in my neighborhood, so I'm going.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So in the interest of framing this discussion, what exactly to the collective is "common sense" gun laws? I am for closing the gun show loophole, I am all for making the background check as stringent as feasibly possible. I think 3 days is a little too quick. I am all for applying for a license to won guns, and with each type of guns certain amounts of hours are to be required to training, and maintenance. I also would like to see them make people do an in depth psychological evaluation for each class you are applying for. After that however I think it should be whatever you choose to own. I would also like to people get home inspections and every member of the family evaluated before guns are introduced into the home.

 

That said, like I said afterwards though there should be no restrictions on what you could own imo.

[Thanatos 2,847]

So in the interest of framing this discussion, what exactly to the collective is "common sense" gun laws? I am for closing the gun show loophole, I am all for making the background check as stringent as feasibly possible. I think 3 days is a little too quick. I am all for applying for a license to won guns, and with each type of guns certain amounts of hours are to be required to training, and maintenance. I also would like to see them make people do an in depth psychological evaluation for each class you are applying for. After that however I think it should be whatever you choose to own. I would also like to people get home inspections and every member of the family evaluated before guns are introduced into the home.

 

That said, like I said afterwards though there should be no restrictions on what you could own imo.

 

Forcing people who buy guns to be trained in their usage is a great step.

 

I would also impose an age restriction. I know that young people are different, but depending on the type of gun, I wouldn't have teenagers being able to use, say, semi-automatic rifles. (This may already be the case but I can't really find anything on it.)

 

If they want a .22 or w/e to go squirrel hunting with their father, okay, but its always been weird to me that we have an age limit on drinking but not on guns.

[OSUViking 505]

So in the interest of framing this discussion, what exactly to the collective is "common sense" gun laws? I am for closing the gun show loophole, I am all for making the background check as stringent as feasibly possible. I think 3 days is a little too quick. I am all for applying for a license to won guns, and with each type of guns certain amounts of hours are to be required to training, and maintenance. I also would like to see them make people do an in depth psychological evaluation for each class you are applying for. After that however I think it should be whatever you choose to own. I would also like to people get home inspections and every member of the family evaluated before guns are introduced into the home.

 

That said, like I said afterwards though there should be no restrictions on what you could own imo.

 

Not that the psychological aspects of your propositions lack merit, but it seems the solutions you've proposed would impede things too much. There's no way the majority of the pro-gun crowd would go for these. In their mind, and personally I think this makes some sense, it would be another step towards government basically negating the 2nd amendment. It's clearly not the intent, but I can see how someone would think it opens avenues for more blatant abuse down the line.

Tonight's CNN town hall is in my neighborhood, so I'm going.

 

Scream out the most obscene thing you can think of.

 

... or don't, because iirc you're a teacher.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I agree with that to a point. That wold be the only sort of gun control I could really support, because contrary to popular belief this is not a gun problem. This is people not respecting the value of a human life, and the way schools handle things now. I am not saying the school could have prevented it, or the cops, or the teachers. I think to point the blame at any of those 3 and say they are the culprits is absolute bullshit, and completely stupid. Guns are not the issue. People are.

 

That said if we are talking "gun control" or in my mind casualty mitigation, we could do more to screen the people as that is where the problem lies. I would be in favor of more of an even approach and I would only implement/change 2 or 3 laws. Definitely the gun show one, and the background check, and I would amend it to have people complete certifications for guns. All 3 of those tings are either non-existent or lacking. And I am sure people would have a fit, but this is coming to the point where gun laws in America is at a crossroads. The pro-gun lobby needs to realize there are going to be a flood of liberals here in about 10 years because that is how society is teaching them, and if they dont make concessions soon, it will bring about an all or nothing solution. Which is to and 3, we do nothing and we revisit this every time this happens. Or we ban guns period. So really if I am in the Pro-gun lobby (I am) I realize that 2 of the 3 outcomes involve change, 1 that is not ideal, 1 that is unpalatable, and 1 that is ideal. So just crunching some numbers I am going to be uncomfortable in 2 out of 3 outcomes, so I might as well try to control the narrative if I cant just have it left alone.

 

I think most liberals are stupid when it comes to guns, and I think that their opinions are equally stupid. THat said they are not going away, and if we dont control the narrative now, they will scrap it all together one of these liberal seizes control of all 3 branches.

[BwareDWare94 723]

You know, in regard to this recent shooting, heads should be rolling at the FBI. This shouldn't have happened. A government entity wasn't competent? Imagine that

[Omerta+ 1,206]

And what do you propose they do ?

[BwareDWare94 723]

Fire every single person involved with the tip they got from the YouTube comment.

 

Every.

Single.

Person.

 

No tolerance.