|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 03 2014 05:40 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 04:50 farvacola wrote:
He doesn't need to claim that the medication caused shootings in order to raise concerns over the coincidence of the taking of mood altering psychotropics and violence in young adults. Yes I think he does - unless you are abusing, you aren't taking prescription drugs without legitimate reason. Pointing out the correlation therefore isn't relevant on its own. What's the purpose of pointing out a correlation if there's no causation? It would be quite a tall order to "prove" without a doubt that medications "caused" mass shootings. The exact effects of mood altering medications are little understood, and vary wildly between individuals. I've been put on medications following a suicide attempt and experienced extreme mania on them. I also had, for the first time in my life, homicidal thoughts that I almost acted upon. It's certainly an area that doesn't receive enough research, considering how liberally these drugs are prescribed these days. If they're proposing to force the mentally ill to be incarcerated and take meds, then I think they have a greater responsibility to prove causation in regards to untreated mental illness and mass shootings, and they must clearly establish that their "treatment" does not actually make the patient more prone to violence.
I wasn't asking for proof without a doubt. I was asking for any proof at all. Some posters have since provided plausible causation which is all I asked for. Why some people have gone nuts over that request is beyond me.
|
On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please.
Yeah I can... First because I agree the left does over politicize tragic shootings in order to attempt to bolster their positions on guns many of which I disagree with. But, despite the support of around 90% of the population and the combined powers of all legions of the dark empire known as the 'Liberal Media' we couldn't even pass background checks.
Whereas thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly people have been, and still are, imprisoned just for possessing/distributing marijuana which by any possible measure is categorically safer than the medications we are basically forcing children to take.
So I certainly don't share in that 'Hippocratic philosophy' but guns are really a separate issue anyway.
|
On May 03 2014 05:50 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 05:45 Sermokala wrote:
Johhny isn't advocating that the medications caused the shootings green horizon is doing that. Johhny is saying that the mentaly ill are the ones that are causeing the mass shootings. He is further saying that they don't get treatment beacuse they only become violence when their judgement becomes impaired enough that they don't want treatment.
There isn't much research on what putting new chemicals in your brain does, but thats as much of a knock on the people who want to legalize drugs and at the same time ilegalize them. saying those things are wrong doesn't really change anything it just makes things more wrong. I take those drugs volontarily you know... That graph Johnny posted is in fact the HUGE scandal in term of correlation-causation btw.
The graph wasn't meant to show correlation or causation. It was meant to show that mentally ill people have already been going to jail in droves, which is a form of forced treatment. Worries over forced treatment should then be diminished because we aren't likely to be forcing treatment any more than we already are.
|
On May 03 2014 05:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. The "liberal left" doesn't have to invent "boogeymen for guns". Firearm injury and death are topics of epidemiological study and the data necessitates that changes be made to firearm ownership and prevalence in the US. Here's one of many peer reviewed studies on the matter. Feel free to counter with your own peer reviewed evidence to the contrary: Show nested quote +
Repeal of the concealed weapons law and its impact on gun-related injuries and deaths.
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1108 (SB-1108) allows adult citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit and without completion of a training course. It is unclear whether the law creates a "deterrent factor" to criminals or whether it escalates gun-related violence. We hypothesized that the enactment of SB-1108 resulted in an increase in gun-related injuries and deaths (GRIDs) in southern Arizona.
METHODS:
We performed a retrospective cohort study spanning 24 months before (prelaw) and after (postlaw) SB-1108. We collected injury and death data and overall crime and accident trends. Injured patients were dichotomized based on whether their injuries were intentional (iGRIDs) or accidental (aGRIDs). The primary outcome was any GRID. To determine proportional differences in GRIDs between the two periods, we performed χ analyses. For each subgroup, we calculated relative risk (RR).
RESULTS:
The number of national and state background checks for firearms purchases increased in the postlaw period (national and state p < 0.001); that increase was proportionately reflected in a relative increase in state firearm purchase in the postlaw period (1.50% prelaw vs. 1.59% postlaw, p < 0.001). Overall, victims of events potentially involving guns had an 11% increased risk of being injured or killed by a firearm (p = 0.036) The proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same during the two periods (9.74% prelaw vs. 10.36% postlaw; RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.17). However, in the postlaw period, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased by 27% after SB-1108 (RR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.58).
CONCLUSION:
Both nationally and statewide, firearm purchases increased after the passage of SB-1108. Although the proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased. Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Epidemiologic study, level III.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2014 Mar;76(3):569-74
You cited a study That has almost no connection to your statement. You didn't even say if you want more gun control or less gun control. The study you cited showed that violent crime didn't go up or down with more guns around. that the statistically ilrelevent ammount of people being killed with guns went up by 10%. IT doesn't show that the guns purchased with background checks were used in those homicides.
I mean give some context and explanation of how your evidence correlates with your argument (that you also should really include ). You can't just throw random shit at people and tell them to disprove it or they don't count.
|
On May 03 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 05:40 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2014 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 04:50 farvacola wrote:
He doesn't need to claim that the medication caused shootings in order to raise concerns over the coincidence of the taking of mood altering psychotropics and violence in young adults. Yes I think he does - unless you are abusing, you aren't taking prescription drugs without legitimate reason. Pointing out the correlation therefore isn't relevant on its own. What's the purpose of pointing out a correlation if there's no causation? It would be quite a tall order to "prove" without a doubt that medications "caused" mass shootings. The exact effects of mood altering medications are little understood, and vary wildly between individuals. I've been put on medications following a suicide attempt and experienced extreme mania on them. I also had, for the first time in my life, homicidal thoughts that I almost acted upon. It's certainly an area that doesn't receive enough research, considering how liberally these drugs are prescribed these days. If they're proposing to force the mentally ill to be incarcerated and take meds, then I think they have a greater responsibility to prove causation in regards to untreated mental illness and mass shootings, and they must clearly establish that their "treatment" does not actually make the patient more prone to violence. I wasn't asking for proof without a doubt. I was asking for any proof at all. Some posters have since provided plausible causation which is all I asked for. Why some people have gone nuts over that request is beyond me.
I think it is your language. It seems you are interchanging proof and causation with evidence, and correlation with coincidence. Generally something should only be called proven when there is overwhelming evidence in favor for it. If you had asked for evidence instead of proof I doubt people would have reacted as strongly.
|
On May 03 2014 06:15 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 05:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. The "liberal left" doesn't have to invent "boogeymen for guns". Firearm injury and death are topics of epidemiological study and the data necessitates that changes be made to firearm ownership and prevalence in the US. Here's one of many peer reviewed studies on the matter. Feel free to counter with your own peer reviewed evidence to the contrary:
Repeal of the concealed weapons law and its impact on gun-related injuries and deaths.
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1108 (SB-1108) allows adult citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit and without completion of a training course. It is unclear whether the law creates a "deterrent factor" to criminals or whether it escalates gun-related violence. We hypothesized that the enactment of SB-1108 resulted in an increase in gun-related injuries and deaths (GRIDs) in southern Arizona.
METHODS:
We performed a retrospective cohort study spanning 24 months before (prelaw) and after (postlaw) SB-1108. We collected injury and death data and overall crime and accident trends. Injured patients were dichotomized based on whether their injuries were intentional (iGRIDs) or accidental (aGRIDs). The primary outcome was any GRID. To determine proportional differences in GRIDs between the two periods, we performed χ analyses. For each subgroup, we calculated relative risk (RR).
RESULTS:
The number of national and state background checks for firearms purchases increased in the postlaw period (national and state p < 0.001); that increase was proportionately reflected in a relative increase in state firearm purchase in the postlaw period (1.50% prelaw vs. 1.59% postlaw, p < 0.001). Overall, victims of events potentially involving guns had an 11% increased risk of being injured or killed by a firearm (p = 0.036) The proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same during the two periods (9.74% prelaw vs. 10.36% postlaw; RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.17). However, in the postlaw period, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased by 27% after SB-1108 (RR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.58).
CONCLUSION:
Both nationally and statewide, firearm purchases increased after the passage of SB-1108. Although the proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased. Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Epidemiologic study, level III.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2014 Mar;76(3):569-74
You cited a study That has almost no connection to your statement. You didn't even say if you want more gun control or less gun control. The study you cited showed that violent crime didn't go up or down with more guns around. that the statistically ilrelevent ammount of people being killed with guns went up by 10%. IT doesn't show that the guns purchased with background checks were used in those homicides. I mean give some context and explanation of how your evidence correlates with your argument (that you also should really include ). You can't just throw random shit at people and tell them to disprove it or they don't count.
Wrong. The study -- one of many -- shows that, "Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.". It follows logically that reversing liberalization of gun access is associated with less firearm fatalities.
The argument is obviously that your assertion that the big bad evil liberals created a boogeyman for guns is flat out absurd. Scientifically collected data indicates that firearm prevalence and liberalized access to guns leads to higher death and injury. The paper cited is simply one of many. There are no papers published that argue for greater access to guns or that firearm prevalence is not connected to higher suicide and homicide rate. To any honest person it is beyond obvious that stricter gun control is necessary but thanks to US politics this process is slow moving, and even backwards moving.
|
On May 03 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. Yeah I can... First because I agree the left does over politicize tragic shootings in order to attempt to bolster their positions on guns many of which I disagree with. But, despite the support of around 90% of the population and the combined powers of all legions of the dark empire known as the 'Liberal Media' we couldn't even pass background checks. Whereas thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly people have been, and still are, imprisoned just for possessing/distributing marijuana which by any possible measure is categorically safer than the medications we are basically forcing children to take. So I certainly don't share in that 'Hippocratic philosophy' but guns are really a separate issue anyway.
People arn't for background checks stop being a drooling idoit. They want "background checks" that don't include a national gun registry or a system that records in effect (by storeing who wanted the background check and where they wanted it) who bought a gun and what gun they bought. Thats why the legislative effort failed (not withstanding obama having to pivot to it after his "assault weapons" ban fell flat on its face last second).
You can't say that you know that pot is safer then prescription drugs beacuse you have no idea what it does to developing minds. Beacuse people know as much about that THC does even less then they do about perscription drugs. You can't argue for the legalization of something and argue for the ilegaliation of the same thing at the same time. Thats what a Hippocratic philosophy is. Or it would be if that was a real thing and not my chromebooks spell check failing me on spelling the word you know I'm suppose to be useing.
|
On May 03 2014 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2014 05:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. The "liberal left" doesn't have to invent "boogeymen for guns". Firearm injury and death are topics of epidemiological study and the data necessitates that changes be made to firearm ownership and prevalence in the US. Here's one of many peer reviewed studies on the matter. Feel free to counter with your own peer reviewed evidence to the contrary:
Repeal of the concealed weapons law and its impact on gun-related injuries and deaths.
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1108 (SB-1108) allows adult citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit and without completion of a training course. It is unclear whether the law creates a "deterrent factor" to criminals or whether it escalates gun-related violence. We hypothesized that the enactment of SB-1108 resulted in an increase in gun-related injuries and deaths (GRIDs) in southern Arizona.
METHODS:
We performed a retrospective cohort study spanning 24 months before (prelaw) and after (postlaw) SB-1108. We collected injury and death data and overall crime and accident trends. Injured patients were dichotomized based on whether their injuries were intentional (iGRIDs) or accidental (aGRIDs). The primary outcome was any GRID. To determine proportional differences in GRIDs between the two periods, we performed χ analyses. For each subgroup, we calculated relative risk (RR).
RESULTS:
The number of national and state background checks for firearms purchases increased in the postlaw period (national and state p < 0.001); that increase was proportionately reflected in a relative increase in state firearm purchase in the postlaw period (1.50% prelaw vs. 1.59% postlaw, p < 0.001). Overall, victims of events potentially involving guns had an 11% increased risk of being injured or killed by a firearm (p = 0.036) The proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same during the two periods (9.74% prelaw vs. 10.36% postlaw; RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.17). However, in the postlaw period, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased by 27% after SB-1108 (RR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.58).
CONCLUSION:
Both nationally and statewide, firearm purchases increased after the passage of SB-1108. Although the proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased. Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Epidemiologic study, level III.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2014 Mar;76(3):569-74
You cited a study That has almost no connection to your statement. You didn't even say if you want more gun control or less gun control. The study you cited showed that violent crime didn't go up or down with more guns around. that the statistically ilrelevent ammount of people being killed with guns went up by 10%. IT doesn't show that the guns purchased with background checks were used in those homicides. I mean give some context and explanation of how your evidence correlates with your argument (that you also should really include ). You can't just throw random shit at people and tell them to disprove it or they don't count. Wrong. The study -- one of many -- shows that, "Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.". It follows logically that reversing liberalization of gun access is associated with less firearm fatalities.
No it doesn't. None of the evidence shows anything about the effects of reveriseing liberablizeing of gun access. It doesn't even show from a real angle that the increased gun purchases effected the increased gun violence. Its a perfect example of assuming causation from corelation. When hundreds of other things could have affected an increase in gun violence (which is still wholely overstated for the ammount of effort being put in about it) The fact that arizona has the most liberal gun control laws in the country doesn't really saw anything about the whole country. I can get a permit from my local shariff to conceal and carry even if I'm taking anti depressents beacuse that doesn't show up on a background check.
Show evidence on how legal guns are being used more in gun violence and then you have a point. simply saying that you can carry a gun without an permit increases gun violence doens't say anything other then that you should need a permit to do that.
|
On May 03 2014 06:19 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 05:40 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2014 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 04:50 farvacola wrote:
He doesn't need to claim that the medication caused shootings in order to raise concerns over the coincidence of the taking of mood altering psychotropics and violence in young adults. Yes I think he does - unless you are abusing, you aren't taking prescription drugs without legitimate reason. Pointing out the correlation therefore isn't relevant on its own. What's the purpose of pointing out a correlation if there's no causation? It would be quite a tall order to "prove" without a doubt that medications "caused" mass shootings. The exact effects of mood altering medications are little understood, and vary wildly between individuals. I've been put on medications following a suicide attempt and experienced extreme mania on them. I also had, for the first time in my life, homicidal thoughts that I almost acted upon. It's certainly an area that doesn't receive enough research, considering how liberally these drugs are prescribed these days. If they're proposing to force the mentally ill to be incarcerated and take meds, then I think they have a greater responsibility to prove causation in regards to untreated mental illness and mass shootings, and they must clearly establish that their "treatment" does not actually make the patient more prone to violence. I wasn't asking for proof without a doubt. I was asking for any proof at all. Some posters have since provided plausible causation which is all I asked for. Why some people have gone nuts over that request is beyond me. I think it is your language. It seems you are interchanging proof and causation with evidence, and correlation with coincidence. Generally something should only be called proven when there is overwhelming evidence in favor for it. If you had asked for evidence instead of proof I doubt people would have reacted as strongly.
Are you really argueing that everyone else in this thread is so dumb that they can't tell the difference between evidence and proof and would have acted wholely differently if they read it as evidence instead of proof?
|
On May 03 2014 06:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. Yeah I can... First because I agree the left does over politicize tragic shootings in order to attempt to bolster their positions on guns many of which I disagree with. But, despite the support of around 90% of the population and the combined powers of all legions of the dark empire known as the 'Liberal Media' we couldn't even pass background checks. Whereas thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly people have been, and still are, imprisoned just for possessing/distributing marijuana which by any possible measure is categorically safer than the medications we are basically forcing children to take. So I certainly don't share in that 'Hippocratic philosophy' but guns are really a separate issue anyway. People arn't for background checks stop being a drooling idoit. They want "background checks" that don't include a national gun registry or a system that records in effect (by storeing who wanted the background check and where they wanted it) who bought a gun and what gun they bought. Thats why the legislative effort failed (not withstanding obama having to pivot to it after his "assault weapons" ban fell flat on its face last second). You can't say that you know that pot is safer then prescription drugs beacuse you have no idea what it does to developing minds. Beacuse people know as much about that THC does even less then they do about perscription drugs. You can't argue for the legalization of something and argue for the ilegaliation of the same thing at the same time. Thats what a Hippocratic philosophy is. Or it would be if that was a real thing and not my chromebooks spell check failing me on spelling the word you know I'm suppose to be useing.
I have a hard time believing you are using spell check at all but I'll take you at your word on that.
I good sir am not the 'drooling idoit'. First http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/
And if you read it close you'll realize it wouldn't change how records are currently kept sooo....It even expressly outlawed what you fear in further amendments.
As for cannabis and THC I can... People have been using it for thousands of years...."ilegaliation" I just don't have time for the rest of that kind of stuff.
|
On May 03 2014 06:19 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 05:40 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2014 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 04:50 farvacola wrote:
He doesn't need to claim that the medication caused shootings in order to raise concerns over the coincidence of the taking of mood altering psychotropics and violence in young adults. Yes I think he does - unless you are abusing, you aren't taking prescription drugs without legitimate reason. Pointing out the correlation therefore isn't relevant on its own. What's the purpose of pointing out a correlation if there's no causation? It would be quite a tall order to "prove" without a doubt that medications "caused" mass shootings. The exact effects of mood altering medications are little understood, and vary wildly between individuals. I've been put on medications following a suicide attempt and experienced extreme mania on them. I also had, for the first time in my life, homicidal thoughts that I almost acted upon. It's certainly an area that doesn't receive enough research, considering how liberally these drugs are prescribed these days. If they're proposing to force the mentally ill to be incarcerated and take meds, then I think they have a greater responsibility to prove causation in regards to untreated mental illness and mass shootings, and they must clearly establish that their "treatment" does not actually make the patient more prone to violence. I wasn't asking for proof without a doubt. I was asking for any proof at all. Some posters have since provided plausible causation which is all I asked for. Why some people have gone nuts over that request is beyond me. I think it is your language. It seems you are interchanging proof and causation with evidence, and correlation with coincidence. Generally something should only be called proven when there is overwhelming evidence in favor for it. If you had asked for evidence instead of proof I doubt people would have reacted as strongly.
I can sort of understand that. Though the word proof does mean evidence and I did use the word in that context (e.g. " do you have any proof" rather than "can you prove that").
|
On May 03 2014 06:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 03 2014 06:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2014 05:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. The "liberal left" doesn't have to invent "boogeymen for guns". Firearm injury and death are topics of epidemiological study and the data necessitates that changes be made to firearm ownership and prevalence in the US. Here's one of many peer reviewed studies on the matter. Feel free to counter with your own peer reviewed evidence to the contrary:
Repeal of the concealed weapons law and its impact on gun-related injuries and deaths.
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1108 (SB-1108) allows adult citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit and without completion of a training course. It is unclear whether the law creates a "deterrent factor" to criminals or whether it escalates gun-related violence. We hypothesized that the enactment of SB-1108 resulted in an increase in gun-related injuries and deaths (GRIDs) in southern Arizona.
METHODS:
We performed a retrospective cohort study spanning 24 months before (prelaw) and after (postlaw) SB-1108. We collected injury and death data and overall crime and accident trends. Injured patients were dichotomized based on whether their injuries were intentional (iGRIDs) or accidental (aGRIDs). The primary outcome was any GRID. To determine proportional differences in GRIDs between the two periods, we performed χ analyses. For each subgroup, we calculated relative risk (RR).
RESULTS:
The number of national and state background checks for firearms purchases increased in the postlaw period (national and state p < 0.001); that increase was proportionately reflected in a relative increase in state firearm purchase in the postlaw period (1.50% prelaw vs. 1.59% postlaw, p < 0.001). Overall, victims of events potentially involving guns had an 11% increased risk of being injured or killed by a firearm (p = 0.036) The proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same during the two periods (9.74% prelaw vs. 10.36% postlaw; RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.17). However, in the postlaw period, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased by 27% after SB-1108 (RR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.58).
CONCLUSION:
Both nationally and statewide, firearm purchases increased after the passage of SB-1108. Although the proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased. Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Epidemiologic study, level III.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2014 Mar;76(3):569-74
You cited a study That has almost no connection to your statement. You didn't even say if you want more gun control or less gun control. The study you cited showed that violent crime didn't go up or down with more guns around. that the statistically ilrelevent ammount of people being killed with guns went up by 10%. IT doesn't show that the guns purchased with background checks were used in those homicides. I mean give some context and explanation of how your evidence correlates with your argument (that you also should really include ). You can't just throw random shit at people and tell them to disprove it or they don't count. Wrong. The study -- one of many -- shows that, "Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.". It follows logically that reversing liberalization of gun access is associated with less firearm fatalities. No it doesn't. None of the evidence shows anything about the effects of reveriseing liberablizeing of gun access. It doesn't even show from a real angle that the increased gun purchases effected the increased gun violence. Its a perfect example of assuming causation from corelation. When hundreds of other things could have affected an increase in gun violence (which is still wholely overstated for the ammount of effort being put in about it) The fact that arizona has the most liberal gun control laws in the country doesn't really saw anything about the whole country. I can get a permit from my local shariff to conceal and carry even if I'm taking anti depressents beacuse that doesn't show up on a background check. Show evidence on how legal guns are being used more in gun violence and then you have a point. simply saying that you can carry a gun without an permit increases gun violence doens't say anything other then that you should need a permit to do that.
Paper upon paper demonstrates the correlation between increased gun prevalence and more liberalized gun acquisition with higher suicide and homicide, not to mention injury. You are on the side of the aisle without evidence and with, to borrow from you, boogeymen FOR guns.
|
On May 03 2014 06:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:30 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2014 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 03 2014 06:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2014 05:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. The "liberal left" doesn't have to invent "boogeymen for guns". Firearm injury and death are topics of epidemiological study and the data necessitates that changes be made to firearm ownership and prevalence in the US. Here's one of many peer reviewed studies on the matter. Feel free to counter with your own peer reviewed evidence to the contrary:
Repeal of the concealed weapons law and its impact on gun-related injuries and deaths.
BACKGROUND: Senate Bill 1108 (SB-1108) allows adult citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit and without completion of a training course. It is unclear whether the law creates a "deterrent factor" to criminals or whether it escalates gun-related violence. We hypothesized that the enactment of SB-1108 resulted in an increase in gun-related injuries and deaths (GRIDs) in southern Arizona.
METHODS:
We performed a retrospective cohort study spanning 24 months before (prelaw) and after (postlaw) SB-1108. We collected injury and death data and overall crime and accident trends. Injured patients were dichotomized based on whether their injuries were intentional (iGRIDs) or accidental (aGRIDs). The primary outcome was any GRID. To determine proportional differences in GRIDs between the two periods, we performed χ analyses. For each subgroup, we calculated relative risk (RR).
RESULTS:
The number of national and state background checks for firearms purchases increased in the postlaw period (national and state p < 0.001); that increase was proportionately reflected in a relative increase in state firearm purchase in the postlaw period (1.50% prelaw vs. 1.59% postlaw, p < 0.001). Overall, victims of events potentially involving guns had an 11% increased risk of being injured or killed by a firearm (p = 0.036) The proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same during the two periods (9.74% prelaw vs. 10.36% postlaw; RR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.17). However, in the postlaw period, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased by 27% after SB-1108 (RR, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.58).
CONCLUSION:
Both nationally and statewide, firearm purchases increased after the passage of SB-1108. Although the proportion of iGRIDs to overall city violent crime remained the same, the proportion of gun-related homicides increased. Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:
Epidemiologic study, level III.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2014 Mar;76(3):569-74
You cited a study That has almost no connection to your statement. You didn't even say if you want more gun control or less gun control. The study you cited showed that violent crime didn't go up or down with more guns around. that the statistically ilrelevent ammount of people being killed with guns went up by 10%. IT doesn't show that the guns purchased with background checks were used in those homicides. I mean give some context and explanation of how your evidence correlates with your argument (that you also should really include ). You can't just throw random shit at people and tell them to disprove it or they don't count. Wrong. The study -- one of many -- shows that, "Liberalization of gun access is associated with an increase in fatalities from guns.". It follows logically that reversing liberalization of gun access is associated with less firearm fatalities. No it doesn't. None of the evidence shows anything about the effects of reveriseing liberablizeing of gun access. It doesn't even show from a real angle that the increased gun purchases effected the increased gun violence. Its a perfect example of assuming causation from corelation. When hundreds of other things could have affected an increase in gun violence (which is still wholely overstated for the ammount of effort being put in about it) The fact that arizona has the most liberal gun control laws in the country doesn't really saw anything about the whole country. I can get a permit from my local shariff to conceal and carry even if I'm taking anti depressents beacuse that doesn't show up on a background check. Show evidence on how legal guns are being used more in gun violence and then you have a point. simply saying that you can carry a gun without an permit increases gun violence doens't say anything other then that you should need a permit to do that. Paper upon paper demonstrates the correlation between increased gun prevalence and more liberalized gun acquisition with higher suicide and homicide, not to mention injury. You are on the side of the aisle without evidence and with, to borrow from you, boogeymen FOR guns.
I'm on the side that is telling you that you're overreaching by saying that your evidence says things that it doesn't. You havn't even stated why those things that the papers you're quoting (without actualy quoting but just vaugly refereing to) is bad and we should stop.
Should people have the choice to commit suicide if they want to? Your post says homicide and injury without saying that its firearm homicide and gun related injury, both of which are statistically ilrelevent reasons to violate peoples constitutional rights compared to other constitutional rights we could violate to save more lives in comparison. We could quarter the national guard in inner city homes that are abandoned that people own and lower gang violence. We could just shoot the people who are convicted of murder and use the money we'd spend on his jail sentence on education and infrastructure to prevent some guy doing the same thing.
But your advocating that the second amendment should be violated because we could save less lives. To be mildly racist if you had evidence that showed the difference between gang related violence and general domestic violence that would help our discussion greatly.
|
There is a gun control thread somewhere.
|
Let's not pretend asylums aren't just prisons by another name.
|
On May 03 2014 06:24 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2014 05:34 Sermokala wrote:
You can't really bash o'reily for having pot in his cross hairs when all of the liberal left is trying to invent imaginary boogymen in guns. Its literaly the same Hippocratic philosophy trying to use the death of children and others in mass shootings to advance your politics when we all have the information in front of us that mental health is the real issue and at the very least needs more attention form everyone.
There was a really smart kid in Minnesota that had a ton of bomb making materials, the expertise to make them, and a plan to muder as many people as he physically could. What should scare you is that there isn't anything anyone could do to stop him before he started preparing to commit a crime.
The mentally ill are going to prison instead of asylums. Address that point he presented evidence for please. Yeah I can... First because I agree the left does over politicize tragic shootings in order to attempt to bolster their positions on guns many of which I disagree with. But, despite the support of around 90% of the population and the combined powers of all legions of the dark empire known as the 'Liberal Media' we couldn't even pass background checks. Whereas thanks to people like Bill O'Reilly people have been, and still are, imprisoned just for possessing/distributing marijuana which by any possible measure is categorically safer than the medications we are basically forcing children to take. So I certainly don't share in that 'Hippocratic philosophy' but guns are really a separate issue anyway. People arn't for background checks stop being a drooling idoit. They want "background checks" that don't include a national gun registry or a system that records in effect (by storeing who wanted the background check and where they wanted it) who bought a gun and what gun they bought. Thats why the legislative effort failed (not withstanding obama having to pivot to it after his "assault weapons" ban fell flat on its face last second). You can't say that you know that pot is safer then prescription drugs beacuse you have no idea what it does to developing minds. Beacuse people know as much about that THC does even less then they do about perscription drugs. You can't argue for the legalization of something and argue for the ilegaliation of the same thing at the same time. Thats what a Hippocratic philosophy is. Or it would be if that was a real thing and not my chromebooks spell check failing me on spelling the word you know I'm suppose to be useing.
Just to your last point.
Codeine. Oxycodone. These are synthetic opiates, that doctors can and do prescribe for even mild pain. Prescription drugs are not "safe" any more than heroin and crack-cocaine are safe. They're just regulated.
Marijuana when put next to almost any drug (and drug is a very loose term) is going to be safer by comparison, including alcohol. I do believe that marijuana possibly causes harm, especially over long-term or in developing stages of the brain, a study recently showed something to that effect. The harm it has on adults seems by all observations immeasurably trite, especially compared to the harm that can come from abuse of Schedule II prescription drugs.
I say this not just to argue for legalizing marijuana, but also because you seem to have too much faith in prescription drugs. If Fentanyl could be practically produced for the black market, you'd be seeing a lot of strung out Fentanyl junkies and Fentanyl overdoses. They're all just drugs.
|
NEW YORK (AP) — Health officials on Friday confirmed the first case of an American infected with a mysterious virus that has sickened hundreds in the Middle East.
The man fell ill after flying to the U.S. late last week from Saudi Arabia where he was a health care worker.
He is hospitalized in good condition in northwest Indiana with Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Indiana health officials, who are investigating the case.
The virus is not highly contagious and this case "represents a very low risk to the broader, general public," Dr. Anne Schuchat told reporters during a CDC briefing.
The federal agency plans to track down passengers he may have been in close contact with during his travels; it was not clear how many may have been exposed to the virus.
So far, it is not known how he was infected, Schuchat said.
Source
|
Anti-capitalist protesters clashed with police — and “superheroes” — during Seattle's May Day march, local media reported. At least nine people were arrested, police said.
“Whose streets? Our streets,” some chanted as they marched through the famously left-leaning city. Others shouted “Anarchy lives” and “The system is failing.” Some marchers handed out fliers that read “Capitalism and the state still rule Seattle.”
Seattle is home to the Rain City Superhero Movement — costumed activists who describe themselves as a crime-fighting brigade — and at one point a fight broke out between some of them and a group of anarchists. Police broke it up.
Security forces, many wearing body armor, flanked the march on bicycles and trailed protesters in patrol cars and on horseback. May Day demonstrations have become a tradition in Seattle, rapidly gaining momentum in recent years.
Local news station KIRO 7 quoted police as saying hundreds of people wearing masks and black clothing and with backpacks marched for hours carrying signs, flags and banners denouncing the police and capitalism.
"I believe in transformative justice and community accountability," one masked anti-capitalist, who marched with a big pink banner that simply read "F--k off," told the Seattle PI newspaper. "These cops that are surrounding us right now are just the later generations of the slave-catchers that caught slaves before; you know, it's just a continuation. It's modern-day slavery, and that's what we're fighting against."
Police shot pepper spray at demonstrators, and officers said bottles were thrown at them. A splinter group of protesters set fire to garbage cans in Capitol Hill, a neighborhood known for its progressive politics.
Source
|
On May 03 2014 06:32 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2014 06:19 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 05:40 Mothra wrote:On May 03 2014 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 03 2014 04:50 farvacola wrote:
He doesn't need to claim that the medication caused shootings in order to raise concerns over the coincidence of the taking of mood altering psychotropics and violence in young adults. Yes I think he does - unless you are abusing, you aren't taking prescription drugs without legitimate reason. Pointing out the correlation therefore isn't relevant on its own. What's the purpose of pointing out a correlation if there's no causation? It would be quite a tall order to "prove" without a doubt that medications "caused" mass shootings. The exact effects of mood altering medications are little understood, and vary wildly between individuals. I've been put on medications following a suicide attempt and experienced extreme mania on them. I also had, for the first time in my life, homicidal thoughts that I almost acted upon. It's certainly an area that doesn't receive enough research, considering how liberally these drugs are prescribed these days. If they're proposing to force the mentally ill to be incarcerated and take meds, then I think they have a greater responsibility to prove causation in regards to untreated mental illness and mass shootings, and they must clearly establish that their "treatment" does not actually make the patient more prone to violence. I wasn't asking for proof without a doubt. I was asking for any proof at all. Some posters have since provided plausible causation which is all I asked for. Why some people have gone nuts over that request is beyond me. I think it is your language. It seems you are interchanging proof and causation with evidence, and correlation with coincidence. Generally something should only be called proven when there is overwhelming evidence in favor for it. If you had asked for evidence instead of proof I doubt people would have reacted as strongly. Are you really argueing that everyone else in this thread is so dumb that they can't tell the difference between evidence and proof and would have acted wholely differently if they read it as evidence instead of proof?
On the contrary, being aware of the tone and nuance behind words is not "dumb". There's a world of difference between "there is evidence to believe" and "it is proven that". The more complicated the topic, the more careful we must be with our word choices, because there will be misunderstanding regardless, plus emotions flaring when discussing politics.
|
On May 03 2014 11:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Anti-capitalist protesters clashed with police — and “superheroes” — during Seattle's May Day march, local media reported. At least nine people were arrested, police said.
“Whose streets? Our streets,” some chanted as they marched through the famously left-leaning city. Others shouted “Anarchy lives” and “The system is failing.” Some marchers handed out fliers that read “Capitalism and the state still rule Seattle.”
Seattle is home to the Rain City Superhero Movement — costumed activists who describe themselves as a crime-fighting brigade — and at one point a fight broke out between some of them and a group of anarchists. Police broke it up.
Security forces, many wearing body armor, flanked the march on bicycles and trailed protesters in patrol cars and on horseback. May Day demonstrations have become a tradition in Seattle, rapidly gaining momentum in recent years.
Local news station KIRO 7 quoted police as saying hundreds of people wearing masks and black clothing and with backpacks marched for hours carrying signs, flags and banners denouncing the police and capitalism.
"I believe in transformative justice and community accountability," one masked anti-capitalist, who marched with a big pink banner that simply read "F--k off," told the Seattle PI newspaper. "These cops that are surrounding us right now are just the later generations of the slave-catchers that caught slaves before; you know, it's just a continuation. It's modern-day slavery, and that's what we're fighting against."
Police shot pepper spray at demonstrators, and officers said bottles were thrown at them. A splinter group of protesters set fire to garbage cans in Capitol Hill, a neighborhood known for its progressive politics. Source
Jesus christ those people make me sick. They have no clue what they are saying, what they are protesting against, they have no clue about anything. Just a bunch of angry idiots looking for a reason to start damaging property and looting, which many protests eventually turn into. They want anarchy? They want no more capitalism? Lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
