US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1034

On May 03 2014 05:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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

On May 03 2014 05:40 Mothra wrote:


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.

On May 03 2014 05:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:


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:

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.

On May 03 2014 06:15 Sermokala wrote:

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:

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 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:


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 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

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 06:23 FallDownMarigold wrote:


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.

On May 03 2014 06:30 Sermokala wrote:

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 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:


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 06:19 Mothra wrote:


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.

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.