another shooting
- Started
- Last post
- 721 Responses
- OSFA0
we eat this media frenzy up...
that thought, of being the illest motherfucker in america, must dirve these sociopaths to some degree...
certainly more than guns and video games.
pavlovs_dog
(Apr 17 07, 12:25)good point
- johndiggity0
here's some history:
The federal government's intent to decrease funding for mental health care first became evident during the administration of Jimmy Carter. State policymakers, mental health professionals, and advocacy groups had hoped that the Carter administration would produce significant advances in federal support for mental health: First Lady Rosalyn Carter was a prominent advocate of better care for the mentally ill, and the creation in 1977 of the highly publicized President's Commission on Mental Health seemed to portend an expansion of federal support for mental health initiatives. However, the federal government's ability to do so was limited by spiraling inflation, the escalating cost of Medicare, Medicaid and other federal entitlement programs, the absence of vocal champions at the NIMH and other government agencies, and the lack of consensus about priorities; the community mental health centers' many responsibilities and the increasing prominence of psychologists and social workers in the mental health field virtually guaranteed that there would be no agreement as to which forms of mental illness or treatment were to be emphasized. These contradictions were reflected in the 1980 National Mental Health Systems Act, which stressed the need for improving linkages between mental health and other forms of health care, increasing provider accountability, improving care for the acutely ill, and safeguarding patients' civil rights but did not detail how these aims were to be accomplished. In addition, the act stressed that the federal government would continue to help shape mental health policy even as federal funding for community mental health centers would eventually cease.[171]
From 1981 onward, the federal government's reluctant disengagement from mental health policy quickly gave way to a determined retreat. Seeking to cut federal taxes and expenditures, President Ronald Reagan sought to dismantle or shrink many social welfare programs. One of the aims of aims of his first administration was to take apart federal mental health and substance abuse programs, cut federal support for them by twenty-five percent, and forward federal monies to the states in the form of block grants that would allow each state to devise its own mental health and substance abuse treatment policies policies. With the passage of the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, which revoked the Mental Health Systems Act, this goal was made into policy.
the rest can be read here: http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/…
fascinating read.
- walkman0
it's a spiritual disease perpetuated from the top down and continuing right from the beginning...
- walkman0
speaking of Reagan and human tragedy...
you should look into the history of the AIDS epidemic and how pivotal Reagan's decisions (or non-decisions) were in causing the crisis as we know it today.
Some say Reagan is to blame for the way AIDS has spread... very early on he could have made some decisions and possibly stopped a lot of the early transfer of that disease.
?
I don't have links or back up info - just heard a really poignant interview on CBC radio yesterday...
maybe someone else knows about this?
- Meeklo0
Finding what you want is easy if you have money or another bartering device.
version5
(Apr 17 07, 11:56)I agree, but if there is a more secure control of weapons then even with determination is just that bit harder, just that bit more secure.
you are also thinking that way because you live in a country where you can get a gun very easy, and ammo on any supermarket.
Where I come from we have a lot of criminals yes, a lot of thieves yes, but its not as easy as here to find guns, so they get creative, knifes, sticks, tools, fists or stones, yes I got robbed probably more times than anyone here, but I'm still alive.
is basic math, you have 100 people in a box, you hide 100 guns, a lot will find them, some will find more than one.
you sprinkle some ammo on that box, and people will start shooting.
you have another box, you have 30 illegal guns, hidden, yes people will find them, less than on the other box, cause there is less guns, make ammo hard to get, and smaller % of those 30 with guns will be able to shoot, yes there will be shooting, yes, crazy people will still exist on both boxes, but with less guns around and less ammo available don't you event want to consider, the remote posibility that will less guns around less things like these will happen?
- version30
simply stated:
lack of guns ≠ lack of violenceor even more simply stated:
guns ≠ violenceif you take my gun today, in how many years will you take the knife from my kitchen for your personal safety standards?
- johndiggity0
"is basic math, you have 100 people in a box, you hide 100 guns, a lot will find them, some will find more than one.
you sprinkle some ammo on that box, and people will start shooting.
you have another box, you have 30 illegal guns, hidden, yes people will find them, less than on the other box, cause there is less guns, make ammo hard to get, and smaller % of those 30 with guns will be able to shoot, yes there will be shooting, yes, crazy people will still exist on both boxes, but with less guns around and less ammo available don't you event want to consider, the remote posibility that will less guns around less things like these will happen?
Meeklo
(Apr 17 07, 12:50)you could make a similar assumption with a great many other items, like cars, but we do not see people driving cars into others like we see these kinds of rampages.
just because there is access to guns has nothing to do with people's intentions with guns.
this guy was mentally ill. anyone who goes/has gone on these types of sprees is ill. guns and gun control do not treat or control mental illness.
- Meeklo0
if you take my gun today, in how many years will you take the knife from my kitchen for your personal safety standards?
version5
(Apr 17 07, 12:55)I will take your knife right away!
but to slice an apple and invite you to my home, hang out maybe a spliff, because I feel safe with less guns around.
- mrdobolina0
you start taking guns away from people and you are going to see lots of people shooting.
cat's out of the bag, just like abortion. No point in debating it.
- 305artist0
"... fuck. sometimes I wonder if we have it so good in North America that we shit all over ourselves just because."
"Only in america
can you earn an honest buck
and keep your attitude
on self destruct."
- Meeklo0
But I see your point, and if you read my previous comments we both agree.
yes, lack of guns won't mean violence will dissapear, lets be realistic. I dont think anyone thinks that way.
Less guns and less ammo means less people being accesible to them andfor that less likely to use a gun, if they want to steal they will now find something else, a knife yes, but not a gun. do you see my point now?
- Kirshar0
Less ammo = more pistol whipping
- Meeklo0
Less ammo = more pistol whipping
Kirshar
(Apr 17 07, 13:05)valid point. and I agree
you will have to be creative, wrap your pistol in a bandana and you can know someone teeth off if you like, but you won't be able to shoot.
- mrdobolina0
The USA will not be banning guns in your lifetime.
Hypothetically speaking, you could throw this around forever because it is never going to be.
- johndiggity0
we are allowed to have guns to protect us from the government. second amendment.
- mrdobolina0
exactly.
John, peep out drudgereport today... all Cho. Fucking fear monger drudge is. He eats this shit up, knock gonzales beyond the fold.
- version30
the 16th amendment says we are not to be taxed if it is not apportioned
that doesn't stop the IRS, actually nothing does
- PonyBoy0
guns don't kill people...
... the government does.
- mrdobolina0
DC has been getting taxed without representation for ages.
- Meeklo0
The USA will not be banning guns in your lifetime.
mrdobolina
(Apr 17 07, 13:07)of course it won't.
America is the largest weapons manufacturer on planet earth,And the demand for its products all over the planet is only going to increase.
I think there is a better chance to be able to see more shootings, and eventually we will all need to get a gun, like beign in the box that has 100 guns, no one wants to be the one that doesn't have any when the next ammo sprinkle comes down from the sky.