Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
JOESAN21

JOESAN21

<Gold Donor>
1,069
2,502
Gavinrad_sl said:
This, nobody is willing to pay for long term psychiatric care facilities, and pretty much only poor people need long term care facilities.
Click to expand...
Isnt part of it the current law about institutionalizing someone?? Got a good friend in TX who cant legally send his paranoid schitzo wife to a home, becasue she doenst want to go. She's tried to kill him by running him over three times, but since she didnt hit him, the ACLU and the state said she was not a "real" danger to him (whatever the hell that means). I was under the impression that if someone doesnt want to go for help, you cant force them to anymore. Hence why most facilities shut down, it is illegal to keep people there against their will.
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,738
52,286
JOESAN21_sl said:
Isnt part of it the current law about institutionalizing someone?? Got a good friend in TX who cant legally send his paranoid schitzo wife to a home, becasue she doenst want to go. She's tried to kill him by running him over three times, but since she didnt hit him, the ACLU and the state said she was not a "real" danger to him (whatever the hell that means). I was under the impression that if someone doesnt want to go for help, you cant force them to anymore. Hence why most facilities shut down, it is illegal to keep people there against their will.
Click to expand...
Well there would need to be a law reform as well.
 
Ignatius

Ignatius

#thePewPewLife
4,759
6,398
Had a similar issue. My uncle decided to live with his girlfriend and her psychotic daughter. He ended up dying from cancer, but several times the daughter pulled a knife on him. He kept trying to get her arrested/committed but nothing would come from it.

Fast forward to last year, my uncle died from cancer (may he rest in peace) and the daughter ran over her mother in a fit of rage. Crazies gon' crazy, but the signs were there to have her locked away in the crazy house years ago.
 
N

Nitsude_sl

shitlord
93
0
In the late 70's Carter's administration and Congress passed an act that put the responsibility of mental health on the states. During that time there was hyperinflation, and many of those states adopted stricter fiscal policy. Funding for mental health was put under the label of social programs, and received a lot of cuts.

A decade earlier, mental health professionals were debating mental health asylums, and decided that most cases were minor and unnecessary. They released a report calling for mass integration of former patients with minor psychiatric problems into the general public.

So today, for someone to be committed against their will usually require a psychologist's opinion; in most cases as a danger to others or themselves. Even so, most will only be held for 72 hours.

More information:http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html

I know this discussion is about gun control, so I apologize for talking only about mental health, but there were a few people who posted questions that I felt I could answer. I used the above source to make sure I was correct.

Personally, I think you could lock up every single person that shows a hint of mental disorder and still have people pushed to their limit, and blaze up a school or public place. Everyone has a pre-disposition or stress level. When that level is breached (extreme stress) our minds become dysfunctional.

I don't think we truly understand what new technology does to the human psyche. The field of Psychology is still very much in the 1990's. We are more connected than ever before. All forms of tragedy are broadcasted on Facebook, Twitter, etc. All of this new information, I believe, adds new levels of stress that we previously never encountered.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Haha, you can't even admit that you fucked up and didn't know the difference.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you right now that I don't really know the difference. I don't really know what differentiates an assault rifle from a normal rifle either, my understanding is that it is something different about the stock and the clip (or magazine, whatever the fuck it is) and that is about it. To Heylel's point though, I don't think it matters that I don't know. It matters that the legislation uses the terminology correctly, it doesn't matter if I am or am not an expert on weapon terminology.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Sure, and why shouldn't it be used to invalidate their opinion? Why the fuck should I care what features someone thinks makes a gun "too dangerous to own" when they don't even know the basic parts of the gun? Big Phoenix's post was a great example, where the lady passed legislation banning guns with a part that she couldn't even define. Similarly how so many people think "semi automatic" means you hold the trigger and out flies dozens of bullets from the clip! (ha)
Click to expand...
Bro, I don't think you have to be an expert on any given situation in order to have a relevant opinion on it. Being knowledgeable of the technical workings of a gun has little to do with societal impact or prevalence of gun violence. That is like saying you can't have a valid opinion on malware unless you can accurately describe the pinout of an ethernet cable.
 
fanaskin

fanaskin

Well known agitator
<Silver Donator>
55,942
138,363
chaos_sl said:
I'll tell you right now that I don't really know the difference. I don't really know what differentiates an assault rifle from a normal rifle either, my understanding is that it is something different about the stock and the clip (or magazine, whatever the fuck it is) and that is about it. To Heylel's point though, I don't think it matters that I don't know. It matters that the legislation uses the terminology correctly, it doesn't matter if I am or am not an expert on weapon terminology.
Click to expand...
The gun has to have a intermediate round (between rifle size and pistol size bullet) and a selectable fire toggle (semi/full auto)
that allows you to engage at multiple distances effectively and give you the ability to "assault" or close distance on the target.

The media distorts and uses the word because the word assault sounds aggressive and hostile, that's it.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
And see, even the official definition from the US Code does not meet the definition that fanaskin just provided. Shit is too vague, but of course that is the way both sides of the debate probably want it.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
chaos_sl said:
Bro, I don't think you have to be an expert on any given situation in order to have a relevant opinion on it.
Click to expand...
You are of course correct. You shouldn't have to be an expert. However, knowing what the technical definition of an assault rifle is from how the media uses the term isn't "expert" knowledge. It just requires a basic understanding of the terminology.

After all, the bills we are mainly talking about are "assault" weapons ban bills. If you can't understand what they are describing (and how it relates to the guns most people have), then is it really possible for you to have a relevant opinion on the impact of said legislation?
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
khalid_sl said:
You are of course correct. You shouldn't have to be an expert. However, knowing what the technical definition of an assault rifle is from how the media uses the term isn't "expert" knowledge. It just requires a basic understanding of the terminology.

After all, the bills we are mainly talking about are "assault" weapons ban bills. If you can't understand what they are describing (and how it relates to the guns most people have), then is it really possible for you to have a relevant opinion on the impact of said legislation?
Click to expand...
Well, as I've said, I know enough to understand that the media representation of "assault rifles" is bullshit. But I don't need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine to know that. Of course you can have an opinion. The bill is not about the inner working of assault rifles, it is about violence perpetrated by "assault rifles as defined by the law" which is a different thing. I don't need to understand how a particular device works in order to understand what differentiates it from other devices. In this case, the important factor is what does the law specifically consider an "assault weapon".
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
This will of course be posted sooner or later, Alex Jones "debating" with Piers Morgan about gun control:



Of course Alex Jones says some extremely crazy shit. But it's funny listening to because Jones knows all the stupid questions Morgan is going to ask. But Jones comes across as crazy with his "mass suicide pills" and shit (LOL.) It's funny listening to Morgan because Morgan is such a hack that he only has the few typical retard questions to ask that have all been sufficiently answered. Funny when Jones says that Morgan fled the UK because of his hacking scandal. (I love that Morgan is scum in the UK, but comes to America and is somehow regarded as a judge of talent and is given a talk show?) Jones' 911 conspiracy theories are so fucking pathetic though. It sucks because his information on crime statistics is correct, but he is a nut.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
chaos_sl said:
But I don't need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine to know that.
Click to expand...
Well, I also don't think that the difference between a clip and a magazine is that big a deal. At least not until they talk about banning one vs the other or something (in the current legislation its both). I had an even more ridiculous version of the clip vs magazine snobbery when I bought my shotgun. I asked them if they had a magazine extender for it and the guy acted like he didn't know what I was talking about. Then when I said "magazine tube extender", suddenly he knew. If I hadn't already purchased the shotgun at that point I might have just walked out.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
chaos_sl said:
Well, as I've said, I know enough to understand that the media representation of "assault rifles" is bullshit. But I don't need to know the difference between a clip and a magazine to know that. Of course you can have an opinion. The bill is not about the inner working of assault rifles, it is about violence perpetrated by "assault rifles as defined by the law" which is a different thing. I don't need to understand how a particular device works in order to understand what differentiates it from other devices. In this case, the important factor is what does the law specifically consider an "assault weapon".
Click to expand...
I think the media spreading this bullshit about "assault weapons" is incredibly irresponsible. They are knowingly influencing peoples opinions on these issues and yet they themselves are completely ignorant on them. I'm always interested in reading headlines and listening to blurbs, because they can influence your opinion on the story. I always find it interesting when they basically tell you what to think before you've heard the story. I find it interesting when they refer to the culprit as a "shooter" instead of a "killer" or "psychopath" or "murderer."

And when I listen to the stories, it's always so funny how fucked up everything they've said is. I know a very little tiny bit about guns, and I can hear when they report that they are fucking retards. When they report on health issues, I honestly get such a rise in my blood pressure that I'm scared I'll have a stroke and bitch about it to my wife until she's bored to tears, because the shit that comes out of their mouth is so fucking stupid and blatantly wrong. And then we have dozens of patients come in "I heard this on TV (or on the internet!)" and it's something completely retarded. (Don't even get me started on retards coming in with stupid shit they've read on all these "natural" websites that is completely false and, if followed, would kill the patient.) I went on 1.5 dates with a local reporter when I was in college. While she was very personable, charismatic, and friendly, she was a complete idiot.

They did the same thing with Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman. They (NBC) edited audio to make him sound racist when he was anything but. They tried so hard to make him be "white." They would sit there and repeat completely false information "The police ordered Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon" (100% untrue - the 911 operator (not a police officer) said "we don't need you to do that".) Etc. Just completely misinforming the public with blatant lies and misinformation, without any (minimal) repercussions.

So yeah, maybe I'm being ridiculous, but I believe that people should know what they are talking about when informing the public about it. I sure as fuck better know what I'm talking about when I talk to a patient. I'm always the first to say "I don't know" when a patient asks me something I can't comprehensively answer.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
This will of course be posted sooner or later, Alex Jones "debating" with Piers Morgan about gun control:



Of course Alex Jones says some extremely crazy shit.
Click to expand...
He may have destroyed the gun control talking points but in the end Piers Morgan won the "debate" because he doesn't come across as a total nutjob. We really need some ambassadors that are more from the shooting sports/hunting and less from the fringe conspiracy theory nuts.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
khalid_sl said:
He may have destroyed the gun control talking points but in the end Piers Morgan won the "debate" because he doesn't come across as a total nutgun. We really need some ambassadors that are more from the shooting sports/hunting and less from the fringe conspiracy theory nuts.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And I'm sure it was part of Piers' strategy to have a known nutjob on his show and let him rant.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
So yeah, maybe I'm being ridiculous, but I believe that people should know what they are talking about when informing the public about it. I sure as fuck better know what I'm talking about when I talk to a patient. I'm always the first to say "I don't know" when a patient asks me something I can't comprehensively answer.
Click to expand...
But you don't have to be a pathologist to diagnose the flu. No one expects you to be a virology expert, and still you can have an opinion. If we expect people to be experts in every facet of public discourse, we'll always be let down. I know that feel, I get the same one whenever Congress starts talking about technology or copyright law. You can't expect people to do be experts, it just won't happen. You can expect a basic level of information, but again, in this case that basic level won't pertain to the technical workings of weapons.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Agreed. And I'm sure it was part of Piers' strategy to have a known nutjob on his show and let him rant.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think Alex Jones realizes that when 1776 commences his husky ass is going to have to be able to run around the block if he wants to overthrow the government. If your jowls shake when you angrily rant about open rebellion, it becomes more adorable than inspiring.

Seriously, that guy going on a major show like he is some kind of important figure, best thing that could happen for gun control advocates.
 
M

Mythas 5thboardnow

Silver Knight of the Realm
414
72
No one is asking anyone in congress to be John Browning, but people are asking people to understand what an assault weapon is before they make a law banning them. I just asked 8 of my co workers what an "assault weapon is" and they said anything semi automatic. I showed them a picture of a Remmington 870 Express ( the most sold shotgun of all time ) with a synthetic stock / pump, and they all thought it was an assault weapon.

No you don't need a phd in virology to think you have a cold, but you are really mistaken if you are bleeding from your orifaces and just think, well golly this sure is a bad cold.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Sure, legislation needs to be written in the proper language. I can't imagine how it can survive a legal test if it isn't. But us just talking about it, the public discourse? I don't think that really figures in until you get to the extremes, like people thinking any black rifle is a fully automatic assault rifle. If your knowledge of weaponry primarily comes from Halo and Call of Duty, you shouldn't be writing legislation. But that doesn't disqualify you from engaging in debates about weapons in our society.
 
Z

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
The term "Assault Weapon" is pretty much just fabricated by the media. The "Assault Rifle" term comes from the end of WW2 with the German Sturmgewehr 44 (Sturmgewehr means storm or assault). The STG44 was a rifle that bridged the gap between the larger and heavier Main Battle Rifles and the smaller submachine guns. The STG44 fires a 7.92x33 round, which is shorter than the standard 7.92x55 used in the K98k (thier battle rifle). The benefit was you have a weapon that handles like a sub gun but has range/accuracy/stopping power similar to a rifle.

The modern example to this would be the AK, firing a 7.62x39 round. It is an intermediate round based off of the 7.62x54R and shorter than our 7.62x51 NATO (.308)

The media definition of Assault Weapon is basically any Airgun/.22/Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun that has anything but wood furniture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.