Database of Mentally Ill + Armed Volunteers In Every School=

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

21 Dec 2012, 9:35 pm

Dillogic wrote:
No idea why police would find it offensive:

They're not responsible for your safety
they won't be there to protect you in almost all cases
they're mainly there to apprehend the accused

They're just the facts (I was going to be a police officer until AS put a stop to that, so I'm not biased; I learnt these things in Criminal Justice and by simple logic).


That is not how they view it, from a personal standpoint.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


Nonperson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,258

21 Dec 2012, 9:37 pm

Well, that pretty much invalidates your whole argument. Nice sig, btw.

:roll:



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

21 Dec 2012, 9:45 pm

Tensu wrote:
*sigh*

Nobody believes in freedom anymore.


You are only 23, you've not seen the past many of us have seen. What you call "freedom" today is a joke compared to when I was 23.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

21 Dec 2012, 9:49 pm

Nonperson wrote:
Well, that pretty much invalidates your whole argument. Nice sig, btw.

:roll:


What argument is that?

That some objects are better than others if you want to kill someone? That wasn't my argument, but it's right though.

If you mean my argument that firearms don't equate to more violent crimes, well, I'm right there, they don't.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Dec 2012, 10:09 pm

Tensu wrote:
*sigh*

Nobody believes in freedom anymore.


They are willing to trade it for a false sense of safety and security which means they don't deserve either....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Dec 2012, 12:32 am

I don't like the idea of databases for the "mentally ill". What's to stop autism from being on that black list? And it will, in effect, become a black list sooner or later.
It's not about science or logic but about mob rule every time someone alleged to be autistic and goes on a rampage.
f**k, why not just make people wear a color coded star on their outer garment?
People, how 'bout we don't flock to give the government ammo to use on US!
:roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


TheygoMew
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,102

22 Dec 2012, 2:48 am

How prejudice. So suddenly because this one shooter has aspergers attached they want to create a blacklist. What about the other shooters? They were put on meds...anything to deter the fact that they most likely were affected by those meds and made them violent.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

22 Dec 2012, 3:20 am

Raptor wrote:
What's to stop autism from being on that black list?


O, ASDs will always be on a list of the all-inclusive term mentally ill (it's technically a "mental disorder", just as all "mental illnesses" are deemed mental disorders). I'm pretty certain that the NRA's opposite have thought of it just the same too.

Always nice for people to think you're possibly dangerous. But hey, that's nothing new; there's a couple of ways to govern others: one where everyone has the chance of being "bad" so we'll treat them like that, and the other that thinks most people are inherently "good". Mental illness can be seen as "bad" in either of those.... Which is the sad thing.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

22 Dec 2012, 4:01 am

Feralucce wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
The police do not have an obligation to protect you as an individual, only society at large unless you have made specific legally binding arrangements with them. Paying taxes and calling 911 doesn't count. You are merely a data point in a larger strategy and you are on your own to defend yourself! See Warren vs. DC.

I come from a law enforcement family... and have many police as friends...

I had several of them read your statement... It may be that the governmental concept matches your statement, but from the individual standpoint, they say you are wrong... all were offended by this

If they are offended by it, then that speaks well of their character. However, until the Supreme Court hears a similar case, the highest court to make a ruling so far says you are on your own and the police are not liable for failing to protect you.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

22 Dec 2012, 5:03 am

Dillogic wrote:

If you mean my argument that firearms don't equate to more violent crimes, well, I'm right there, they don't.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

22 Dec 2012, 5:20 am

Ah, but what 26 developed countries did they use?

I'll choose 26 developed (dictionary definition) countries; 13 highest and 13 lowest in regards to firearm ownership, and I'll see what I come up with. Choosing the 13 highest and 13 lowest will show an unbiased picture regarding the data (no cherry picking).

As I showed in the other thread (where I chose from all countries, whether developed or not); there was an increase in homicide overall for the less firearms per person (often a vast increase).

Interesting to see what I'll find and if it's the same as "developed" and "under-" combined (personally, I think it's wrong to exclude undeveloped countries, as not all are cesspools of terrorism and religious extremism).

Will get back with my results when done.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

22 Dec 2012, 6:23 am

Done

Countries chosen: top 24 developed, broken into two groups based on firearm ownership

Top 12 per firearm ownership per 100 people and murder rate per 100,000 per year:

Average firearms owned: 33.27
Average murder rate: 1.5

Bottom 12 per firearm ownership per 100 people and murder rate per 100,000 per year:

Average firearms owned: 8.2
Average murder rate: 1.23

Conclusion: firearms do nothing in regards to overall* homicide rate (well, that's being generous and not counting that for an extra 0.27 of a murder per year you increase the firearms ownership by a factor of 4). So, a 4 times increase in firearms equates to an increase of a 0.27 murder per year per 100,000

Limitations: I only did homicide rather than other violent crimes (assault and battery, for example). That's something I'll do at a later date.

*Saying that the homicide rate is higher due to a higher amount of murders involving firearms is dishonest. The homicide rate is from all means

(I'll also do a "mental illness" one too, though I know how that'll end up.)



J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

22 Dec 2012, 7:05 am

Lol, the Harvard statistics don't need a second going through, it's quite clear the conclusion.
Haven't a clue why you wasted your time. :?



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

22 Dec 2012, 7:35 am

J-Greens wrote:
Lol, the Harvard statistics don't need a second going through, it's quite clear the conclusion.
Haven't a clue why you wasted your time. Confused


Not really. I've seen a number of studies that say this or that (peer reviewed), to support a common goal, with a broad statement regarding its outcome -- even though it can mislead you in what it's actually showing (hence why I say it's supporting a common goal). Not a waste of time (as you'll see), and I like breaking things down myself to see what the actual truth is overall (an interest).

Take this for example:

Quote:
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.


You can say that there's more homicides in the 24 developed countries I listed when there's higher firearm ownership (the top 24), but that's misleading as it doesn't mention that there's four times the firearm ownership for the small increase in overall homicides between the two groups.

See, what I found is that high income + more guns = more homicides; just what they say they found out

But in reality, that's only a very narrow way in looking at it.

(The mental illness one will be fun.)



TriciaFaulconer
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 4

22 Dec 2012, 1:38 pm

It is difficult, cost prohibitive, for the mentally ill to get all the help they need now.

A database of mentally ill people so you can restrict the rights of the people in it will only backfire. People who are mentally ill will become less likely to seek the help they need if they believe they are going to be punished instead of helped.

We have a dangerous culture. Violent games, music, movies, an abundance of weapons and schools where acts of violence, some big and some smaller, happen daily. This places all of us in danger and puts the blame on all of us. If all we do is lay blame on one group or another and we don't come together to look for solutions, we will never stop the senseless killings.

We need more awareness for autism so people understand what it is and what it isn't so we can appropriately diagnose those who are affected and so we can protect our basic rights. This means speaking up for ourselves.

I am praying for the families of Sandy Hook. I am autistic and I am deeply saddened by the events of this one disturbed individual.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

22 Dec 2012, 1:49 pm

TriciaFaulconer wrote:
It is difficult, cost prohibitive, for the mentally ill to get all the help they need now.

A database of mentally ill people so you can restrict the rights of the people in it will only backfire. People who are mentally ill will become less likely to seek the help they need if they believe they are going to be punished instead of helped.

We have a dangerous culture. Violent games, music, movies, an abundance of weapons and schools where acts of violence, some big and some smaller, happen daily. This places all of us in danger and puts the blame on all of us. If all we do is lay blame on one group or another and we don't come together to look for solutions, we will never stop the senseless killings.

We need more awareness for autism so people understand what it is and what it isn't so we can appropriately diagnose those who are affected and so we can protect our basic rights. This means speaking up for ourselves.

I am praying for the families of Sandy Hook. I am autistic and I am deeply saddened by the events of this one disturbed individual.


The blame is never on all of us. It's not on me.