blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Ehm, no - the underlying cause is most defintely not a medical one. Where did you come up with this?
It's called science.
It's a combination of genetic pre-disposition and environmental factors - and no one knows exactly what parts are most responsible. But since we can't change genes - we have to focus on what we CAN change.
You're over simplifying it. It is primarily a medical issue. Certainly environment can influence it, and should be addressed as it is possible, but the primary driver is the medical side, otherwise we'd all be crazy.
You can't medicate people out of developing a mental illness - because you have to spot it first at which point it's often already developed or unpreventable - and medication is never a solution, simply a way to make the problem less severe.
Again, you make no sense. Medication is the best solution we have. Its not a cure, but in many cases it makes the illness controllable for the individual.
It's not about going from happy about life to pulling a gun - it's about how hard it is to detect the issues before they provoke a serious problem - and you're making it sound like it's something we can enforce. It's ridiculous. The VAST majority of people who suffer from issues like this - will never "snap" in a way that will kill other people. They'll just buckle and have a rough time for a while.
You tried to make that exact point, which is why I called you on the bullshit that it is. We certainly can do a better job of observing and combating mental illness before it gets too far though.
It's incredibly hard to detect - because people are generally very, very good at putting up appearances. It's practically impossible to come up with some way to detect it - and who would be responsible? Are we going to send out detectives for each and every individual or what? Yeah, it's ridiculous.
Unless someone is a hermit, the people around them will see changes. They may ignore them, but they see them. And that doesn't even get into the problem of people that have actually been diagnosed with a mental illness, but then refuse to stay on their medication.
How would you get trained professionals to monitor everyone?
No system will be perfect, but given the explosion of people walking around with untreated mental illness, we obviously did a better job of it in the past.
Almost none of them, that's right.
No, most if not all can be predicted if people just observe and the afflicted are given (and will accept) help.
Nice - the meds that will magically cure people and prevent them from breaking down after we've detected they will eventually break down. It would be like Minority Report for the mentally ill.
No one said anything about a cure, I said treat. Two different things. There is no good solution for mental illness.
Try reading in context. Prior to the 70's we had forcible admittance to mental hospitals.You did what? Successfully predict breakdowns and prevented them?
Yes, you're supporting murder by supporting your rights in this case. Probably not fully consciously - but ignorance is the greatest of all human problems. It's not about assigning blame - and I'm not blaming you for not being smarter than you are. But it's not going to change that your ignorance is killing people.
Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true. I am not supporting murder by supporting my rights any more than someone that supports owning kitchen knives is supporting murder. The problem is the ignorance by people like yourself that think simply banning guns is miraculously stop people from killing each other.
Don't think of it as giving up your rights - but changing the law so that everyone is safer. Rights should be changed when they're a danger to society - or don't you think so?
Again, put adequate protections in place so that I don't need a firearm for self defense or defense against tyranny and I will gladly give up my right to bear arms. I won't hold my breath.
As evidenced where? I'm talking about civilised western countries.
The link about that I quoted. Violent crime rates are higher in the UK (which I am pretty sure is considered a civilized western country but I haven't been there in a few years) than in the US.
You're exactly right about poverty, though. Poverty is a part of our societal sickness - and inequality is one of the greatest factors in people developing mental health problems. But I suppose you want to medicate people out of poverty or not getting all they were promised by Hollywood or fairy tale parents?
Wow, strawman much? Where is your evidence that 'inequality is one of the greatest factors in people developing mental health problems'? And I'm not talking about just mild depression, I'm talking about serious mental health issues.
I'm all for fixing the poverty problem, but again, people have to want to make their lives better. It's a vicious cycle (and most people in poverty don't have 'fairy tale parents', they have parents that are at best absent or at worst destructive). Fundamentally it really comes down to a culture issue.
You support the killing of innocent people by holding on to a right that's a direct cause for innocent people being killed - without giving you any advantage that's tangible or detectable.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge the benefits of gun ownership does not make them nonexistant. I support the right to bear arms. I do not support the killing of innocent people no matter how desperate you are to make that connection.
Are you a politician by chance? Because that's the exact type of connection a politician would try to make to advance an agenda.
You can have a gun and you can defend yourself against a gun. Do you think that's safer than not having a gun and defending yourself against people without guns?
Prove to me that a criminal isn't going to get a gun. Not to mention that a gun is a great equalizer. It doesn't matter if the person is twice the size of me (not likely to be fair) or there are more of them than me.
There's a reason most of the rest of the civilised world has all but banned them.
Good for you. Stay out of my country.
If you're worred about criminals getting their hands on a gun - then realise that the problem is much, much more severe because of the easy access to them. So, you're supporting a LOT more violent and gun related crimes because of your selfish ancient concept of self-defense.
Not at all. I support strict, though not overly burdensome, control of handgun and semi-automatic gun sales. The fact remains that criminals will still get their hands on guns even if you ban legal ownership of them.
There is nothing ancient about my concept of self-defense. If anything, its extremely modern. You don't see me carrying around a broadsword.