05/24/22 Robb Elementary School, TX...

[BoM]

3 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

I'd like to ask that you avoid that topic out of good faith unless they offer to bring it up. I'm not going to base my perspective off one instance, and I haven't here.

 

I'm not going to sit here at let you act like it's some fringe opinion when the idea was held and campaigned by on of the most important and influential minds in psychiatry and psychology in this century and the last. It's still heavily debated by psychologists to this day the degrees to which medication is helpful, necessary, or harmful. If these members are having difficulties, assuming they have sought professional help, it's likely because they've been told that there are multiple ways to skin a cat and becoming dependent or changing your brain chemistry shouldn't always be the first. If these conditions are one of the 3-5 that affect the majority of patients seeking help, you are welcome to Google that psychotherapy is listed as an effective treatment, meaning it's not accurate to say they require meds unless you are their healthcare professional (which you are not seeing as they're not prescribed). I'm not these people and I'm not omniscient, but from the sphere I'm in, given personal experience and from the people I know, it is very easy to get prescribed medication for depression, anxiety, ADHD even day of or online.

Most, if not all of this that you've referenced is in relation to depression, anxiety, ADHD...as are any discussions of over medication and the like. However, when it comes to the rougher conditions like bi-polar, schizophrenia, or a slew of personality disorders you really can't and SHOULDN'T be out there advocating against meds. Just want that to be clear.

[Gentoo]

13 minutes ago, BoM said:

Most, if not all of this that you've referenced is in relation to depression, anxiety, ADHD...as are any discussions of over medication and the like. However, when it comes to the rougher conditions like bi-polar, schizophrenia, or a slew of personality disorders you really can't and SHOULDN'T be out there advocating against meds. Just want that to be clear.

I'll leave a disclaimer here that I think anyone who thinks they are suffering from poor mental health or one of these discussions should go to a professional, you are still able to make your own decisions about treatment and care but you should at least inform yourself to the best of your ability by seeing a professional.

 

With that out of the way, yes and no. There is less debate over these conditions for a multitude of reasons, their symptoms are less grey so it's easier to say or imagine that there is something permanently wrong with them like a disease, symptoms are more likely to have catastrophic effects on their lives so it can be easier or safer to use psychoactives to pacify these symptoms. An interesting commonality in many of these conditions is that they are triggered by trauma or long periods of stress or depression. It's inarguable that dealing with these issues - which can and are often a result of problems that could be attributed to the way our society functions - which can and are remedied with by therapy and psychotherapy - would greatly reduce the number of people that ever experience symptoms of these illnesses.

 

If you are open-minded and have the time, I recommend reading the works of Thomas Szasz and others following his school of thought. I am not saying what he has to say is 100% true; I am not saying that psychoactives don't do any good, I just feel that much of what he has to say makes sense to me and has been taken seriously - to varying degrees - by large portions of the field and could be very helpful in giving common people a better understanding of mental illness in their own lives and that of those around them.

[jazzy]

5 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

Damn bro, that's crazy. Except you forgot to take into account desertation, infrastructure, optics, foreign involvement etc.

Ok, well I'm glad we can continue down this path of complete paranoia on some illogical basis that the government went autho so hard the entire population rose up and threw down. Meanwhile the rest of the civilized world moves on without needing to tool up the entire population once over and lives without kids being shot in the face on a bi-weekly basis.

 

30 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

It's obvious that these people feel they've fallen through the cracks, been neglected, abused, or mistreated by the system/society and look to get their revenge where it's most vulnerable. Immediately everyone assumes they must've been born with a screw loose and brainwashed by internet extremists and the only plausible solution anyone can fathom is to demolish people's brain function with more drugs and make sure anyone who has grievances to air never has any access to the tools needed to make change. 

We're back to point A where I tell you this happens all across the world and America isn't the only one with people suffering these issues. But seemingly America is the only one with the school shooting epidemic. I think you could throw out some statistics I could agree with that point to this idea that Americans could potentially suffer more on average (incarceration rates, bankruptcy rates, for instance) but there are many statistics that don't align with your argument. For instance, the suicide rate, sex crime rate, serious assault rates. These all fall near or around other 1st world countries per capita.

 

Should we work to stop bullying, abuse, neglect? Of course, but we can do both. We can curb the ability for people to rapidly buy guns and use them for violent acts.

 

Like bro I got married to a foreigner and had to pay over $2k in filing fees, she had to interview at an Embassy (read: interrogated), go to the border and get questioned (read: interrogated), then we had to travel to ANOTHER STATE and had to get interviewed (read: interrogated) at the same time. Meanwhile this kid can walk into a gun store and buy a gun on his 18th birthday? Make this shit harder, seriously. I had over 200 pages presented to the feds to prove I was in a legitimate marriage with my wife and you fuckers can buy an AR15 in 20 minutes. I can't mow down 20 kids with a marriage license.

[Gentoo]

I am out of steam for the night but will pose this as a final thought until morning.

 

Mental health requirements as a deterrent for people to seek treatment, go!

[Frostbitten]

 

[Mace]

11 hours ago, Jazzyy said:

Does anyone here ACTUALLY think if the government went full autho that the population would even have a remote chance? Bro you literally armed them with the best jets, tanks, kevlar, rifles, tacticool gear, drones, satellites. Oh and after the military gets done with all that shit they give it to the local police forces in your very county so THEY have some of the best gear that's only 10 years old.

I’m only gonna respond to this section but yes it would be difficult I’d say. 
It would turn into guerilla warfare amongst the population.

In rural regions it would be easier to assert dominance but in urban areas it would be difficult. Even an authoritarian US gov wouldn’t be dropping bombs on major cities to root out resistance.

It would be close quarters fighting in the streets and in buildings. Imagine Stalingrad or Leningrad with a more armed civilian population. 
Yes the military would be better trained, have better resources and equipment but the people would have higher moral as they’d be fighting for the principles that make up the US. (Freedom and equality)

Military personnel would be fighting to restore order on behalf of a tyrannical gov, going against their moral objectives of fighting for freedom and protection of their population.

Its likely that aspects of the Armed Forces would rebel and join the side of the American population as their reasoning to revolt align. 

[Ender]

On 5/25/2022 at 2:12 PM, delirium said:

Somewhat agree. I’m all for psychological evaluations, raising the age limit on rifle purchases from 18, more in-depth background checks, ect.

 

completely banning firearms in America should not be on the table though. Guns are not the problem, people who have issues or that have been radicalized will inflict as much damage as possible with the tools they have available to them, banning guns only hurts law abiding, responsible gun owners.

This. If you want shootings as a whole to lower, you need to be placing firearms into the hands that will respect them. This is not important only while it is wielded, but also during storage. Give whatever tests and courses and checks that need be.

I also find the idea anyone wants less guns in American homes to be uninformed. American land will never be marched on by a foreign force, ever, as long as the world believes we have a gun in every home.

 

17 hours ago, Jazzyy said:

Most americans are unsuitable to actually use firearms
 ~~~Objection: Hearsay, Lack of foundation
The problem here is you can get a gun in under 24 hours.

I agree with the second part here. Some sort of government/police proctored week-long camp where people applying for gun ownership are tested to their core is what I think I'd like to see, obviously without understanding the cost or the risk. However, this is probably the hardest part to change. Firearm vendors are obligated to make the sale, naturally, and so the verification process needs to be streamlined by the time it makes it to them. Outsourcing to private 'firearms tutors' is a breeding ground for fallacies, and local polices would need more resources to host any sort of public courses.

 

21 hours ago, Gentoo said:

How do you intend to do that? Voting? lol

How else would you like to voice your opinion? Declaration says "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government," you wanna revolt? That went well for the Area51 raiders, and the Capital Building rioters. You should get up on the podium and ask for votes.

 

 

As for protecting schools, it's a hard one. Honestly the best way I can figure is school branded TSA, checking bags with metal using xray, and hand scanning bodies. It would be another expense for schools, sadly, but there isn't a cost effective solution if you don't want students bringing what they want.

[Bondairy]

13 hours ago, Jazzyy said:

I can't mow down 20 kids with a marriage license.

I don’t support this fucktard of a shooter but I don’t think when he got his gun license it stated that he could “mow down 20 kids,” hey, I could be wrong though.

 

[delirium]

2 hours ago, Bondairy said:

I don’t support this fucktard of a shooter but I don’t think when he got his gun license it stated that he could “mow down 20 kids,” hey, I could be wrong though.

 

Don't need a license to purchase or carry a rifle in texas. Open/concealed carry for handguns okay without a license as well but age requirement is 21 instead of 18.

 

[Bondairy]

1 hour ago, delirium said:

Don't need a license to purchase or carry a rifle in texas. Open/concealed carry for handguns okay without a license as well but age requirement is 21 instead of 18.

 

Yeah no, I’m not arguing with you, that’s pretty fucking bad and I realized that a long time ago, but it’s pretty sensible to know that even with a gun you should know responsibilities come along with it, obviously there are those that don’t but that’s not my point. I’m talking to Jazzy about how he/she said “ ‘my marriage license doesn’t allow me to mow down 20 kids, ‘ “ like no shit. Again, I don’t agree with some of these really unstrict gun laws but to say what they said was really ignorant Imo.

 

feel free to argue me