Forums - Politics Discussion - Santa Barbara Massacre: To Hell With Facts

I agree, we need to stop calling mentally disabled people "high functioning" and admit these people have problems, real problems.  Better mental health laws are needed to deal with indviduals who clear cannot function well with others in society.



Around the Network
Cobretti2 said:
-CraZed- said:
SlayerRondo said:
Aielyn said:
Clearly it can't be the fault of the NRA pushing so hard to deregulate the industry and get guns into the hands of more people, right?

That's why Australia's massacre rate has skyrocketed since the Port Arthur Massacre that triggered the massive gun buyback scheme and dramatic increase of gun control here that was implemented by a conservative government...

Oh, right. Since that gun control introduction, there has been a total of ONE gun massacre in Australia. In nearly 20 years. With that one happening more than 12 years ago. Here's the list of years in which gun massacres happened in Australia in recent history: 1984, 1987, 1987, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1996, 2002... and none since then.

Is it that we Australians are inherently less bloodthirsty than Americans? Or is it that gun control actually works, when it's applied across an entire country rather than having a different law in each state allowing those with intent to massacre being able to just cross state lines to get hold of the guns they'll use?

Yes, to hell with facts. What's important here is that those who like guns and want more of them out there are being unfairly slandered, while those evil liberals are getting off scot free when they should be attacked all-out for their abuse of 'facts'.

Are you seriously claiming that liberals do not often during gun control discussions, misrepresent the facts and make emotional arguments as opposed to reasoned ones?

Also gun deaths were already on the decline before the gun control laws were introduced in Australia in 1997.

Gun Deaths in Australia 1987 = 569

Gun Deaths in Australia 1997 = 333  Ten Year Deline = 236

Gun Deaths in Australia 2007 = 190  Ten Year Decline = 143

Australian Bereau of Statistics (ABS). Causes of Death publication series

Australia is just a more peacefull country than America is.

It is? Why is it then that violent crime is actually on the rise in Australia while it is on the decline here in the US?

Other than armed robbery Australia's rates are nearly double that of the US and have been for quite some time.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/


lol those are assualts. Australia is a very nanny state. If you have a punch up over some girl cause you are drunk that is considered assault.  Direct attacks on strangers via assault is probably low for domestics.  Most those residential assaults would be domestic violence. 

Those stats don't just include fist fights. They also include sexual assaults, kidnapping etc. The only stat I could find where the US is ahead (or behind in the case of being more peaceful) is outright armed robbery and even in that case Australia is only about 30 points lower (per 100,000) than the US and that is with Australia having what, a tenth of the US population?

I have a lot of love for our compatriots in the Land Down Under (served with some Aussies, and one Kiwi in Baghdad) but the facts just don't support your assertion that we here in the US are less peaceful. Of course, we don't eat Vegemite so there is that.



sethnintendo said:
Mr Khan said:

The second point is of prominent importance. All this hammers home is the continuing need for better mental health support in this country, both in the form of a better-staffed, publically-funded infrastructure, and a culture which encourages family members to know the signs of mental illness, and to de-stigmatize the treatment of mental illness so that family members or individuals who are mentally ill aren't passively encouraged to bury their problems for the sake of propriety.

Way we deal with mental health in USA?  Give them drugs that will probably give them worse side effects than their condition.

As a nurse who has spent 3 years working in mental health after I got out of the military I can tell you that drugs are about the best thing we have in dealing with the mentally ill. Adjusting brain chemistry is often necessary to allow those suffering from mental illness to engage in therapies like counseling etc. Of all the things we give people medications for, mental illness is probably the area where it is most effective. Medications aren't with out their drawbacks but I have personally witnessed first hand how much the right medications can have a positive impact in the lives of those who are mentally ill.

What is lacking in mental health is enough willing people to offer personal engagement on top of the drug therapies. Mental health costs a lot of money to implement and when you have what little resources there are overwhelmed with mentally ill people you will have those that slip through the cracks. Then there are those who simply cannot be helped. Not to mention there is still very much we don't know about how the brain works.



Gun violence, and violent crime in general, is a serious problem, but it should be clear by now that more and more laws aren't going to help. California already has the toughest gun laws in the nation according to the Brady Campaign (the top gun control lobby in the U.S., for the non-Americans here). We've seen other instances of newer, tougher gun laws failing to stem the tide of violence. DC had some of the harshest gun laws in America implemented in the 70s, yet it was a bloodbath during the 80s. Chicago had a handgun ban that had absolutely zero impact on handgun murders.  "Assault weapon" bans have never worked because A) they ban firearms on the basis of largely cosmetic & ergonomic features rather than anything to do with the lethality of the firearm, and B) rifles of any sort, including "assault weapons," are used in less than 2% of all homicides (and of those, the most common caliber used is the humble .22 LR). Even something as severe as outright prohibition of all firearms won't work because prohibition of anything has never worked anywhere. What we need is not new gun laws but a fresh look at the mental health situation in the country as well as seriously attempts to alleviate poverty in America. In almost every case, mass shootings are perpetrated by someone with serious mental illness. The Santa Barbara massacre was no different, with the perp having shown clear warning signs weeks prior to the shooting, and apparently he had been known to be mentally ill for a good while. The day-to-day violent crime that kills the most people is mostly concentrated in low-income urban areas, and there is a clear correlation between poverty rates and violent crime rates. When the mentally ill are properly treated and taken care of in an environment with people that can help them, they won't be able to run loose, acquire a firearm, and slaughter people. When people are not subject to the despair of poverty they are less likely to resort to crime. If guns were the problem then we'd expect to see gun laws having an immediate effect on homicide rates, and we would also see a clear progression of states with tougher gun laws having lower homicide rates than those with more lax gun laws, but we don't see any of that. There's no correlation whatsoever. The solution is neither less guns/more gun laws (as liberals want) or more guns/less gun laws (as conservatives want). Instead of focusing on the tools used in homicides we should be focusing on what compels people to murder others and doing what we can to discourage people from committing such acts in the first place.

First off, instead of newer gun laws we need better enforcement of existing laws and tougher penalties for violating the laws we do have. The mentally ill as well as felons are already prohibited from purchasing firearms. Ensuring that the mentally ill aren't left to their own devices and cannot access firearms, and ensuring that people have the opportunities they need to where they aren't trapped in a life of poverty, will reduce homicide rates tremendously. Sane people living in middle-class and affluent areas simply don't have a habit of murdering others. Instead of continuing the failed and politically non-viable approach of pushing for more gun laws, this would be an opportune time Democrats to change strategies and focus on things that will work and things that they could more effectively hit the GOP with. The Republican Party isn't going to do jack squat in making any serious attempts to lift people out of poverty, not with their sink-or-swim, dog-eat-dog, 'I've got mine so screw you,' Ayn "Altruism is Evil" Rand-inspired philosophy, but the Dems aren't helping the situation either because in their grief and outrage are focusing on the wrong damn things. A true "people-based" solution to violence in America (as opposed to an "objects-based" solution, the objects in question being firearms) would not only be more effective but also produce political capital for the Dems, as opposed to gun control advocacy which just fruitlessly expends political capital and give the GOP another wedge to exploit. Support of new gun laws has trending downwards over the decades, excepting the occasional and temporary bump after some mass shootings. I've always felt that when it comes to guns, the Democrat's hearts are in the right place, but their brains aren't thinking clearly as they focus on perceived proximate causes (bullets = dead people) than on actual ultimate causes (poverty and mental illness).

And in case you couldn't tell, I'm one of those rare pro-gun liberals. I've been around guns most of my life. I'm accustomed to them, am knowledgeable about them, and I know of and observe all the proper safety precautions. I view them as means of recreation, sport, and defense. Though I hope to never have to occasion for the lattermost of those uses, I view it like insurance: I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it. Also, looking at the statistics, I simply don't see how guns are the problem or how more gun laws are the solution. We don't see the passage of newer tougher gun laws cause immediate drops in homicide rates, nor do they prevent mass shootings. Neither do we see the relaxation of gun laws or the spread of pro-gun legislation cause sudden increases in homicides. Also whether comparing one U.S. city to another, or one state to another, or even various countries to each other, I simply don't see any correlation between prevalance of guns or strength of gun laws with homicide rates.  Why does California have a homicide rate higher than the national average despite having the toughest gun laws in America, whereas rootin' tootin' pistol packin' Texas have a homicide rate lower than the national average? Why are so many anti-gun cities (or cities in overall anti-gun states) carnage zones while there are more than a few gun-friendly cities that are very safe? Why do Switzerland, the Czech Republic, and Serbia, which are relatively much more gun-friendly than most other European nations, have homicide rates in line with what we see in the rest of Europe? Shouldn't they be more violent than the rest of Europe? And why do many countries with tough gun laws have homicide rates far in excess of the U.S.? What I do see correlated to homicide rates are poverty, corruption, and other societal ills. The reason the U.S. has a homicide rate far higher than most of the rest of the developed world has little to nothing to do with gun laws and more to do with various societal problems that the U.S. deals with but other developed nations don't. I'd slam this post full of charts and graphs (ones I made myself, not anything from the NRA or whoever) to make my point, but that'll have to wait for another time (it's late and I'd have to upload them to an image hosting site due to VGC's limits on how many images you can copy & paste from your own computer).

While liberals weren't always largely anti-gun (nor were conservatives always pro-gun; Nixon was in favor of tough gun control), they are now, and there are probably many reasons why this is so. Perhaps it's because guns are largely a foreign thing to them, something they've never seen outside of the movies. It does seem like the divide on gun control is just as much a "rural vs. urban" type thing as it is a "Republican/conservative vs. Democrat/liberal" thing. According to exit polling data provided by Nate Silver after the 2008 election, 57% of rural Democrats own guns, whereas only 27% of suburban and 20% of urban Democrats do. Interestingly, a similar pattern applies to conservatives as well, with gun ownership rates of 65%, 58%, and 40% for rural, suburban, and urban Republicans, respectively. So, living in urban environments might simply be far less conducive to a gun-friendly attitude than rural areas. Rural Americans are more likely to just think of guns as an ordinary fact of daily life, whereas Americans who live in cities (a group that skews more liberal/Democratic), are more likely to view guns as something with no valid purpose at best or as implements of wanton destruction at worst. The fact that many pro-gun activists quite frankly come across as uncaring and often outright nuts likely exacerbates this perception. That Bundy guy is a good recent example. A tax-dodging racist militia nut who denies the very existence of the U.S. government gets a bunch of his buddies because they want to reenact the Whiskey Rebellion (except in today's America nobody has the balls to do what George Washington did during that particular even) and gets hailed as a hero. The Bundy Gang and various other crazies give gun owners everywhere a bad name. We're not all a bunch of far-right militia kooks.

And with that, it's time to go to bed.



Why call yourself "SocialistSlayer"? Are you a fan of Anders Behring Breivik? Do you know what a socialist is? Please consider changing your name to something less hateful.



Around the Network
chapset said:
Fucking Obama


Obama? He is a mere puppet in the plans. Blame the Illuminati!



enrageorange said:

Let me start by saying I am more or less on your side of the issue. I don't own the gun. But I don't care if my neighbor owns one for hunting, or as a hobby, or to feel safer. With that said let me give you some advice.

There is way too much passion. It is clear you are very anti gun control. That means you have a very obvious agenda, and I should be very cautious when reading your post.

Now honestly most of what you are saying might be completely true. But the way you are talking won't convince anyone on the opposite side or in the middle of the issue. You are just pandering to your side and politicizing the issue yourself.

Let me give you an example on how to improve.

On the off chance that you need a reminder that money cannot buy you brains, I give you the ultra-rich, ultra-liberal, ultra-anti-gun, ultra-moron, Michael Moore who, in a statement he posted on Facebook, blames, among other things, congress for not passing stricter gun laws that “90% of Americans want”.  Hey genius, this incident happened in CA, where all of those stricter gun laws you claim that 90% of us want already exist.  This once again proves what we (those of us who can actually use our brains) have been saying for decades:  More gun laws cannot possibly prevent crimes like this.

Note the things I highlighted. Avoid statements like those. They are exactly the type of venom that for some reason both sides use, even though they just make the other side look at you with animosity, and make people who haven't formed opinions tend the ignore you.

Had you written something like this, it would have been far more effective at convincing people who don't share your opinion.

Michael Moore who, in a statement he posted on Facebook, blames, among other things, congress for not passing stricter gun laws that “90% of Americans want”.  But the sad truth is that this incidident is an example of even strict gun control laws not working. Despite all the precautions that the state of California takes towards gun ownership. This man still managed to get a gun. Where there is a will, there is a way. If someone wants to get a gun, he will find a way to get one. More gun laws cannot possibly prevent crimes like this.



These aren't my words.  This is an article from a gun and accessory review blog that I frequent. 



 

projectile based weapons should be banned altogether. the serve no purpose but to kill. and fast.
i do not despise violence as it is part of our nature. but giving anyone the power of killing within a click is just insane.
real men use fists and body. imo gun owners feel weak and frightened by their own weakness and need something to compensate such.



If there were more people with guns on that campus there would have been a sweet shootout and no one but the bad gunman would be hurt.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

supernihilist said:
projectile based weapons should be banned altogether. the serve no purpose but to kill. and fast.
i do not despise violence as it is part of our nature. but giving anyone the power of killing within a click is just insane.
real men use fists and body. imo gun owners feel weak and frightened by their own weakness and need something to compensate such.


sorry but criminals arent real men, they dont care for a noble gentlemens duel like you seem to be infering.

And if im under attack, i dont want a fair fight, I want to be at the advantage. And I dont want to be put at a disadvantage, because people like you thinking we should all be ninja warriors like in the movies and be able to fend off our attackers with our honed skills.