7 dead in shootings at 3 massage parlors across metro Atlanta

[Damocles]

Yes you fucking were.

You very lazily and hastily tried to come up with some bullshit to derail the thread, but in doing so exposed just how reckless and undisciplined you are in your messaging.

I provided you the fucking link directly from the NIH that said obesity is an inherited disorder.

Apparently, you ignored that because you don't operate in good faith.

No, I wasn't. I came up with an equally stupid statement to match yours. The reality is, your insistence that the only cause of obesity is genetics is simply incorrect, I then proceeded to give you examples where it can be caused by other means... but regardless nobody thinks that spoons cause obesity, nor do folks with brains think guns cause violence. Nobody with a brain and free will thinks that cars are the cause of speeding, or that planes are the cause of terrorism. The tools used to generate violence are never the cause of violence.

 

[LV426]

That is flat incorrect. Hitler was duly elected by Parliament, and that Parliament was elected by voters who cast votes.

LMAO!

Wow.

 

[LV426]

Votes can be very dangerous, and harmful to society, jobs, livelihood.

Guns can be very dangerous, and harmful to society, jobs, livelihood.

When Venezuela was taken over by a totalitarian regime through the election process, it was votes cast that caused that and the actions of the government to follow caused many deaths.

What caused deaths in Venezuela was you and your "very fine people" trying to pull of a coup there, but you failed and people died as a result.

Anyway, you keep arguing that a right should be taken away,

Don't you see that you're the one arguing for that right to be taken away when you blame mental health for gun violence?

 

[LV426]

If you do not believe that you will be able to get that done, then this conversation is moot.

When you blame mental illness for gun violence, what you are arguing for, whether you realize it or not, is mandatory, recurring mental health evaluations for every single gun owner in the US.

Now, there are going to be A LOT of those gun owners who do not pass that mental health evaluation, and those gun owners will lose their guns because of it.

So every single time you try to pin gun violence on mental illness, what you're saying to gun owners is that you believe some of them are mentally ill and that they should lose their right to own a gun if a doctor thinks so.

 

[LV426]

The reality is, your insistence that the only cause of obesity is genetics is simply incorrect,

Genetics of Obesity: What have we Learned?
Obesity is an Inherited Disorder of Central Regulation of Food Intake
Defects in eight genes involved in the neuronal differentiation of the paraventricular nucleus and in the leptin/melanocortin pathway, have been shown to lead to human monogenic obesity with hyperphagia as a common feature [16]. Recent progress in the elucidation of polygenic predisposition to obesity also points to a key role of the central nervous system in body weight regulation [17].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3137002/

 

[CASPER]

If the program was no-questions-asked and wholly anonymous, why would anyone be guilty of anything?

Since we don't have gun registries in the US, we have no way of matching any single gun to any single person, do we?




You're the first person I've ever heard say that they don't want free money.




Then what would it take to buy the gun back from someone? Because everyone has a price.

Yes proof can be offer, there are other pople that would know who the owner was, you don't know how courts work if you you can just steal something.

It is not Free money, I just do not want to Sell, and as such would not, especially if I know I cannot replace it ever.

Actually when it comes to Money, no everyone does not have a Price.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

That is flat incorrect. Hitler was duly elected by Parliament, and that Parliament was elected by voters who cast votes. Votes can be very dangerous, and harmful to society, jobs, livelihood. When Venezuela was taken over by a totalitarian regime through the election process, it was votes cast that caused that and the actions of the government to follow caused many deaths.

Anyway, you keep arguing that a right should be taken away, and if it isn't we should make laws infringing it "this way" that you think is beneficial. To do that you must first change the 2nd Amendment which tells me that the right of the people (means the same thing every time it is used in the constitution) to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you do not believe that you will be able to get that done, then this conversation is moot.

Do you think the NFA making fully automatic weapons a hassle to own is infringement?

 

[CASPER]

So...you can't really ascribe this to mental illness because mass murder is not a symptom of any singular mental illness.

Mental illness is a convenient distraction from the real cause of gun violence, which are the guns.

So if we want to stigmatize mental illness as the excuse for gun violence, then taking that through to its most reasonable conclusion, would mean that in order to get a gun, you would need to first pass a mental health examination.

And we would need to do that for every single gun owner in the US, AND it would need to be repeated every year. So those millions of gun owners would need to go see a shrink every single year. That's where the "mental health" excuse goes...to mandatory, annual (or semi-annual) mental health screenings.

Realistically, do you think most gun owners would submit to annual or semi-annual mental health examinations and evaluations?

Of-course not, and not feasible. We already have laws against someone that has been diagnosed as having a mental illness from buying a firearm.

 

[Damocles]

When you blame mental illness for gun violence, what you are arguing for, whether you realize it or not, is mandatory, recurring mental health evaluations for every single gun owner in the US.

Now, there are going to be A LOT of those gun owners who do not pass that mental health evaluation, and those gun owners will lose their guns because of it.

So every single time you try to pin gun violence on mental illness, what you're saying to gun owners is that you believe some of them are mentally ill and that they should lose their right to own a gun if a doctor thinks so.

In my opinion, the appropriate action would be to hospitalize folks who are a danger to others or themselves. While you are hospitalized you do not have access to guns... and you should remain hospitalized as long as you are a danger to yourself or others. Folks that want to kill many folks do not always use guns and are still a danger to others, taking away one tool from the toolbox doesn't mean you can't make a doghouse.

I support actually helping folks with mental illness.

I also look to causation for other violence, for instance, legalizing drugs could take the reason for violence from street gangs, just as it did for gangsters when alcohol prohibition was lifted.

 

[LV426]

Yes proof can be offer, there are other pople that would know who the owner was, you don't know how courts work if you you can just steal something.

I mean that's all hearsay and possession is 9/10 of the law.

If the gun ain't in your possession anymore, it ain't you gun, is it?

It is not Free money

Sure it is. A free check for your gun. Why would anyone turn that down?

I just do not want to Sell, and as such would not, especially if I know I cannot replace it ever.

But you don't need it, so why have it?

And I think it's foolish to say you would never sell, because you don't know what circumstances may arise that could prompt your sudden need for cash.

And just because YOU might not need the money, doesn't mean other people don't.

I don't see a whole lot of people turning down an overpayment for a gun. Particularly if their friends and neighbors did and put that money towards things like home renovations or a new car or something.

I think FOMO is a lot stronger than people give it credit for; I think that if a lot of people turn in their guns for cash early on, it will prompt others to do the same because people are natural followers with FOMO.

Actually when it comes to Money, no everyone does not have a Price.

Yes, everyone has a price. Everyone.

 

[LV426]

Of-course not, and not feasible.

OK, so then mental illness is not the excuse for gun violence.

If you're not willing to take the steps to prevent mentally ill people from getting a gun, then you obviously do not believe mental illness is the cause of gun violence.

So it must be something else.

We already have laws against someone that has been diagnosed as having a mental illness from buying a firearm.

But those laws only apply to people who have been screened for mental illness.

If you're mentally ill and undiagnosed, then how are you prevented from getting a gun that you will end up turning on a group of people because apparently, all mass shootings are explained by mental illness?

 

[LV426]

In my opinion, the appropriate action would be to hospitalize folks who are a danger to others or themselves.

So you want to grab people off the street and throw them into Briarcliff because you think they're crazy?

But you still want those people to be able to get a gun if they're undiagnosed.

So that's not appropriate action at all.

You can't tell if a gun owner is "mentally ill" unless they commit some gun violence after getting the gun; THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING HERE.

So I think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your entire position here because what you're doing is arguing for more people to lose their right to a gun while accusing me of wanting to do that.

 

[Damocles]

Do you think the NFA making fully automatic weapons a hassle to own is infringement?

I would personally err on the side of freedom in every case were I a Justice on the SCOTUS, but I am not. I do believe that they did not think it was an infringement.

 

[Damocles]

So you want to grab people off the street and throw them into Briarcliff because you think they're crazy?

But you still want those people to be able to get a gun if they're undiagnosed.

So that's not appropriate action at all.

You can't tell if a gun owner is "mentally ill" unless they commit some gun violence after getting the gun; THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING HERE.

So I think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your entire position here because what you're doing is arguing for more people to lose their right to a gun while accusing me of wanting to do that.

Not because I think they are crazy, that's an absurd strawman and a bit disingenuous. I would not suggest that you said "just because you think they are crazy" their guns are taken, so why do you need to lie about what I said?

As I said, I do not believe you are ever honest in a debate, and you do not fail to deliver dishonesty.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

I would personally err on the side of freedom in every case were I a Justice on the SCOTUS, but I am not. I do believe that they did not think it was an infringement.

Not what I asked. Do you think your rights are currently being infringed by the NFA?

 

[LV426]

Folks that want to kill many folks do not always use guns and are still a danger to others, taking away one tool from the toolbox doesn't mean you can't make a doghouse.

Ok a few things:

1. So before you can throw anyone into an asylum, you need to evaluate them because you can't tell someone is mentally ill just by looking at them. They need to be evaluated by a psychologist, AND a psychiatrist in case there needs to be medication.

2. The bar you have set for what determines a "mental illness" seems to be whether or not the gun owner decides to act violently with the gun. So that doesn't prevent that person from hurting anyone with their gun because they're ill, it is set up as an indicator after the fact, when it does no good because that person already acted violently with the gun. And I think you can see where this is going...

3. If you truly and honestly wanted to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, as you seem to want, the only way to do that is to have every single gun owner submit to a mental health examination every year, or more than every year. The inevitable results of those examinations are that some of those people will be deemed mentally unfit. So they will have their guns taken away because of you.

 

[LV426]

I also look to causation for other violence, for instance, legalizing drugs could take the reason for violence from street gangs, just as it did for gangsters when alcohol prohibition was lifted.

Oh, I agree that ending the War on Drugs would dramatically decrease overall gun violence, but it's not going to decrease mass shooting incidents like we saw yesterday.

So again, if "mental illness" is the primary cause of gun violence, then taking through to its most natural and logical conclusion would be that every single gun owner would need to have a mental health examination to determine whether or not they're fit enough to own guns. And there will be people -current gun owners- that will be found to be mentally ill and they will have those guns and their right taken away because of you.

You'd be more responsible for people losing their gun rights than me, if the above is what the solution is.

So that is what you are arguing for when you try to pin any part of the blame on mental illness.

 

[Underdog]

Interesting and telling assumption without basis.

basis is easy..... show me reported attacks on Asians there should be 3800 examples you can provide.

 

[LV426]

Not because I think they are crazy, that's an absurd strawman and a bit disingenuous.

OK, but you can't drag anyone off the street and throw them into The Cuckoo's Nest unless you have doctors evaluate them first.

So how is someone with an undiagnosed mental illness, that you blame for gun violence, prevented from getting a gun to use in a mass shooting?

How are we supposed to know who is mentally ill and who isn't before letting those people have guns in the first place?

So, you can understand how blaming mental illness for gun violence naturally leads to mental health evaluations for all gun owners, right?

According to you, we only know a gun owner is mentally ill after they commit gun violence. So that doesn't help anyone, does it?

 

[LV426]

I would not suggest that you said "just because you think they are crazy" their guns are taken, so why do you need to lie about what I said?

I see what you're doing here, and it's pretty obvious why you're doing it.

You realized that by blaming mental health for gun violence, you opened the door to the debate as to how do we determine who is mentally ill before they get the gun to commit gun violence?

If what you are saying is true, that mental illness is to blame for gun violence, then we would need to figure out who the mentally ill people are so that they couldn't get a gun to commit violence.

And the only way to do that is to mandate examinations, and the inevitable result of those exams are that some people will lose their guns.

So I'm not the only one who wants to take guns away from gun owners...YOU DO TOO!