EPTBut well, constant pain probably makes you mentally ill after some time.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10700 Posts
But well, constant pain probably makes you mentally ill after some time. | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
The "guilty" people who are affected by this ban are the mentally ill and the drug dealers to some extent (although i'm sure they have other means of procuring a firearm), I think on paper that this is a good idea, but it's too soon to tell. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 01 2016 16:29 Velr wrote: Isn't medical pot used for pain relief and not against mental illness? But well, constant pain probably makes you mentally ill after some time. I'm pretty sure that mental illness can be classified as painful. Not in all cases, obviously. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
EDIT: There is a distinction to be made between distress and pain - most mental illness will cause the first, but not the second. | ||
|
Hier
2391 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23221 Posts
On September 02 2016 02:22 Hier wrote: Well, the ban clearly has absolutely nothing to do with any medical reasoning. It's purely political. Quite clearly. It doesn't even match basic common sense. If you are consuming cannabis under the supervision of a medical professional you can't buy a gun, but if you get it from some trustafarian on campus or a retail outlet, you can buy as many guns as you want. Cannabis policy in this country is incomprehensibly stupid. A kindergarten class could write laws that make more sense. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
Edit: Here's the specific figures. Try to always question what the media is telling you. They never tell the whole story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Accidental_and_negligent_injuries | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so. | ||
micronesia
United States24676 Posts
On September 25 2016 12:02 Sermokala wrote: Thats not as good of an argument as it sounds though. If they didn't have access to guns those deaths wouldn't happen and that is the goal of gun control people. Granted the big problem with gun control people is that they almost always argue for policies that won't help the situation in either case but thats the issue we've been aruging about for 600 pages or so. I know we'll just end up going full circle again, but your counterargument doesn't stand alone... you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents. If people didn't have access to knives, nobody would die from knife-related injuries. If people didn't have access to toilet tank covers, nobody would die from getting hit in the head by a toilet tank cover. Of course, you can clarify the position to make a real argument. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote: you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents. All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough. A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had. As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On September 25 2016 12:14 micronesia wrote: I know we'll just end up going full circle again, but your counterargument doesn't stand alone... you could use it for every death. If people didn't have access to cars, nobody would die in car accidents. If people didn't have access to knives, nobody would die from knife-related injuries. If people didn't have access to toilet tank covers, nobody would die from getting hit in the head by a toilet tank cover. Of course, you can clarify the position to make a real argument. Well I guess I left out that the rate of a successful suicide or accident with a deadly weapon is lower then with other things people could use to attempt suicide with or have an accident with. Its like lowering the speed limit by 10 across the board might as well as roundabouts instead of lighted intersections kind of argument. Gun control is really small potatoes compared to other losses of life in america. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm If you're interested in saving peoples lives the CDC keeps track of what kills people. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44311 Posts
On September 25 2016 11:52 ClanRH.TV wrote: I just wanted to get this out there, because you hear it in news articles (like the one above) and Hillary harps on it all the time without actually knowing what shes saying. When they say 30k related deaths from gun violence, the large majority of these are either accidental deaths (from guns not being locked up properly and the like) and suicides. If I remember correctly something like 19-21k of the 30k gun related deaths fall under one of these two categories with something like 9-12k being actual "gun violence." Now I'm not saying this is great, but in a country of 330 million, 9-12k is a measly number. Edit: Here's the specific figures. Try to always question what the media is telling you. They never tell the whole story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Accidental_and_negligent_injuries It's common knowledge that about 2/3 of gun-related deaths are suicides while about 1/3 are murders/ other violent crimes. That being said, even 10,000 gun-related non-suicidal killings is disproportionately high and, quite frankly, 10,000 too many! It's a multi-faceted issue, however: 1. We need universal background checks and waiting periods; gun shows and online shops and other avenues don't always require background checks, and an obligatory waiting period will force an emotional customer to cool off before doing anything hasty with a gun. This is what gun control advocates consider to be "common sense gun reform", and even the vast majority of gun owners and NRA members agree with this (which makes sense, considering the smart and safe gun owners don't want the reckless ones giving gun owners a bad name). 2. We need to take depression, bullying, suicidal tendencies, and other emotional issues very seriously. The reason why guns are used in the vast majority of suicides is because they're quick and easy and lethal. People aren't forced to reflect as long with such an efficient killing machine, nor are they as likely to mess up the suicide/ only injure themselves (which can happen during overdoses, knife wounds, hangings, etc.). Also, shooting someone with a gun out of anger or hate or revenge is much easier to psychologically and physically do than stab someone with a knife or use other weapons because of the distance you can keep from a victim. 3. We need to lift communities out of poverty, because a huge amount of gun-related deaths are related to gangs and drugs and a need for money or status. This ties in closely with systemic prejudice against poor families and certain races, as well as a lack of emphasis on good and safe schools. Ending systemic bigotry and focusing on education and safe havens for kids in poor communities are of paramount importance. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 25 2016 12:31 Nebuchad wrote: All right, but go further than that. It is true that people wouldn't die in car accidents if they weren't using cars. However, as a society, we have acknowledged that the benefits of using cars largely outweigh the inconvenients of using them. Which is why we accept that number. Sure, we try and limit it as much as we can, but we aren't ready to stop using cars entirely, which is the only way to eliminate this number entirely. It might sound harsh to say it like that, but the problem just isn't important enough. A conversation on gun control will happen between someone who thinks that the same standard of utility is met when it comes to gun possession or gun proliferation (depending on whether the argument is about gun control or gun bans), and someone who doesn't. I think this is a discussion worthy of being had. As a sidenote, it's why it always annoys me when people oppose the death penalty "only because you can kill innocents", or use innocents being killed as the center of their argument against it. That's not in itself an argument against the death penalty. No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument. Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms? Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it. The absolutely only issue with firearms is when they are used for murders and massacres. Those are terrible events which are precisely why intelligent regulation is needed. Accidents are accidents however, there is no malicious intent. "Accidents wouldn't happen if there were no guns in the first place" is a disgusting thing to think; we live in free societies. You could argue that people need to go through courses before being allowed to have a firearm, or that they need a license, etc. But you can't argue "no guns whatsoever" that's an absolute silly way to look at it. Suicide is a terrible thing however the root cause to suicide is the depression and events which take place before the suicide. The gun is merely the tool. E: Darkplasmaball hits the nail on the head. I very much agree with him. I would also like to reference this article I read: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2016/Chicago-Gangs/ | ||
|
JWD[9]
364 Posts
Suicide is a terrible thing however the root cause to suicide is the depression and events which take place before the suicide. The gun is merely the tool. First, I know I single out one thing you said and I do not mean to discredit your standpoint as a whole by doing so. The success rate of a suicide attempt with a gun is really stellar. Many of these mentally confused persons can be helped to overcome the root of their depression, after they go through a suicide attempt, so they can realise how badly they need help and so that "society" will even consider providing the help needed. For those people the gun is not merely, but rather the most terrible tool. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 25 2016 17:38 JWD[9] wrote: First, I know I single out one thing you said and I do not mean to discredit your standpoint as a whole by doing so. The success rate of a suicide attempt with a gun is really stellar. Many of these mentally confused persons can be helped to overcome the root of their depression, after they go through a suicide attempt, so they can realise how badly they need help and so that "society" will even consider providing the help needed. For those people the gun is not merely, but rather the most terrible tool. Yeah that makes sense. We can compare it to Europe if you want. In Europe it's possible to obtain a lethal firearm if you want, it's just not as readily easy as it is in the USA. I think that if we want to help with firearm related suicide, you make guns less easily accessible. Say, firearm licenses with obligatory courses on firearm safety. Makes it harder to just go to Walmart and buy a hand-gun for suicide. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On September 25 2016 16:55 Incognoto wrote: No this is an absolutely silly and hypocritical argument. Let's change "cars" to alcohol or tobacco. Where's your argument now? Where is the "benefit to society" from those? There's no utility to alcohol yet the death toll is pretty much x10 that of firearms? Let's take it a step further. Whether or not firearms have actual "uses" is completely and entirely irrelevant to the argument. We live in FREE societies, not Soviet Russia or bad countries like the UK or Australia which has a bad history of impeding on individual rights. If someone wants to own and use a firearm, he is entitled to do that, so long as he is responsible in how he uses it. Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them. Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Also, the freedom of not having to deal with instant life-or-death decisions during random 3 AM confrontations involving alcohol, fenderbenders, "respect" or promiscuous partners is also up there with the nicer freedoms of the modern age. It's not about the individual and their right to own a gun, it's about the conscious decision whether an armed civilian population makes for a happier, safer and more fulfilling society. Any other angle of this debate is meaningless. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 25 2016 18:13 Nebuchad wrote: Alcohol allows you to get drunk, which I'm told is a state people enjoy being in given that they have consistently gotten in that state for thousands of years. Society recognizes that certain things are pleasurable, and as such allows for them. Freedom has always had limits and will always have limits. Where that limit is set is a matter of debate and doesn't in any way mean that we aren't a free society. Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine? You think that incapacitating yourself with stupid substances (which, by the way, still kill x10 more people every year than firearms do) is somehow better than my responsible sport shooting? Where that limit is set is a matter of debate I don't think it's a matter of debate, it's a matter of "you can do what you want as long as you don't impede on the rights of others". If I own a firearm and I'm responsible about gun safety, keeping it in safe location and am not inclined to go on mass shooting sprees, then that is my right. In the same vein that I'm allowed to drink alcohol as long as I do not drive and I'm not binge drinking. There is your "limit". Don't impede on the rights of others. Responsible firearm owners are just that: responsible. On September 25 2016 19:08 Kickboxer wrote: The freedom to live in a society where not every irresponsible, psychotic and/or choleric individual has a "god given" right to carry around technology specifically designed to kill people is pretty important to some. Also, the freedom of not having to deal with instant life-or-death decisions during random 3 AM confrontations involving alcohol, fenderbenders, "respect" or promiscuous partners is also up there with the nicer freedoms of the modern age. It's not about the individual and their right to own a gun, it's about the conscious decision whether an armed civilian population makes for a happier, safer and more fulfilling society. Any other angle of this debate is meaningless. Completely disagree with that bolded statement. An armed civilian isn't an issue so as long as they don't use that firearm to commit crime. Just look at Europe, where there are many armed civilians; sport shooters, collectors, hunters. There are many, many firearms in Europe. They don't really cause problems though, because firearms are only attributed to individuals who have proven that they are responsible enough to wield them. You may argue that firearms and "free, safe societies" are mutually exclusive. That would be factually incorrect. A fulfilling society is one where you're fine with your neighbor owning high powered hunting shot-guns designed to kill boars, because you KNOW that your neighbor is responsible. A shitty society (like in the UK) is where the only reason your neighbor isn't a threat to you is because he can't get a gun in the first place. Honestly I'd rather live with the responsible, friendly, shotgun-wielding neighbor than the neighbor who is likely to get in a drunken fit of rage with me and stick me with a knife. I'm not talking out of my ass either, I've already been to rural areas during hunting season. They're responsible in how they use the guns. The firearms are pointed at the ground, unloaded. Very little risk to other humans, absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever. All armed to the teeth. On the contrary, I've had relatives who had their lives ruined due to a drunk driver. Terrible car accident, heart transplant, the family business was without its boss for a period of time, so it ended up closing (since yeah, the boss actually runs things..), the government was kind enough to begin seizing family assets because of the way the company was set up. They lost their company, they lost their house, they lost another shop that they had (unrelated to the first company. One drunk driver. Alcohol is much more ingrained in our societies, thus taken for granted. People get complacent around it and it becomes very dangerous very quickly. This issue isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. Firearms aren't the bane of civilized society. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12172 Posts
On September 25 2016 23:20 Incognoto wrote: Why precisely are you allowed to enjoy yourself being drunk and I am not allowed to enjoy my sport shooting or hunting? Why is YOUR pleasure somehow better than mine? I don't drink much. This isn't about your pleasure or mine, this is about discussions that deserve to be had. When we discuss gun control or gun bans, the discussion that is being had is "Are guns beneficial enough to society to justify the harm that they are causing." We can have the same discussion about cars, and we will find that they are, which is why what micronesia pointed out isn't exactly relevant to the gun situation. We can have the same discussion about alcohol, and I would assume that we find that it is beneficial as well. Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you think that alcohol is a net loss for humanity. If that is the case, what you have here is an argument for limiting alcohol consumption, not an argument for dismissing benefits and losses in other contexts. | ||
| ||
