This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Since Israel kind of beat Syria, Jordan and Egypt, all at the same time, in less than a week...
Well, I'd say that they're perfectly fine without the US.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
For a change of pace and a change of topic:
I read this article at the BBC a couple of days ago but have only now had time to drop it here.
Will gun laws hurt the mentally ill?
Addressing Magician's point (and others) about restricting gun control only to mentally ill patients, rather than gun control more generally.
Post by
Magician22773
I just get the impression that a lot of places (Iran) would've started a blown out war if it wasn't for the fear of America.
You acknowledge this, but you go on and on about US being in SK?
Without the US, SK would have been eliminated in the 1950's, or without our continued presence there, would have fell at some point since.
As a superpower, the US helps protect many countries,
your's included
.
Also, I do not think anyone here, myself included, is advocating to just "go nuke NK". My only point is, NK needs to cool its jets a little. We are used to their sabre-rattling, but they are stepping up a notch this time. And I do not think we should be forced to wait and see if they really are serious about a first strike nuclear attack. If you go back to my initial post on this, I started it by saying I am sick of war. The last thing I want is to end up at war with NK, because it is not going to be pretty.
Post by
Magician22773
For a change of pace and a change of topic:
I read this article at the BBC a couple of days ago but have only now had time to drop it here.
Will gun laws hurt the mentally ill?
Addressing Magician's point (and others) about restricting gun control only to mentally ill patients, rather than gun control more generally.
Like nearly everything else government gets involved in, it is a slippery slope, and needs to have common sense applied...something that seems to be completely lacking from most government regulation...of anything.
I, like millions of other people out there, have a chemical imbalance that requires me to take SSRI medication (Paxil daily, and occasionally Xanax when needed). This condition, and these medications would both be considered a "mental" condition, by most physicians. However, in my case, and in most cases, the condition is nearly fully controlled by medication, and even without my medication, all that happens is I get a very "disconnected" feeling. (severe inability to concentrate, unable to focus my vision, very "panicked" by crowds or visual / audible stimuli).
Other people can have some pretty severe "mental" issues that are situational, and once that situation has been remedied, they are fine. (think, severe depression during / after a divorce or death). So while people in this category should not have weapons while they are ill, they should have that right after they are better.
My concern is, that government will just look for the easy way out, and lump everyone that takes certain medications, or in under the care of a psychologist / psychiatrist as "mentally ill". Just look at how they handle felons rights. I had to fight like a madman to get my rights reinstated, and by some metrics, I still do not have them back fully.
(I have received a full commutation of my conviction, and most "normal" background checks will show nothing, however, some Federal background checks , including the NICS check required to purchase a firearm, or to receive a Concealed Carry permit will still show me as invalid)
So even after 11 years of sobriety, full service of my sentence, and thousands of dollars in attorney fees and a crazy process to get the commutation, I still do not fully have my 2nd amendment rights restored.
I have a feeling that the government will do something very similar with mental illness restrictions on firearms. The government seems to take the position that the more people they can "legally" strip of their 2nd amendment rights, the less they have to worry about "illegally" stripping. That position is made pretty clear by the fact that the ATF 'could' fully reinstate my, or any other non-violent felons, rights, but the program that allows for this, has been completely defunded by Congress. So while I can request a reinstatement, the ATF literally does not have anyone on the payroll to even look at the application.
Post by
MyTie
Why would SK
need
the US? Only country I can think of that truly needs the US is israel because without you they'd be blown off the planet ages ago.
You don't know what you are talking about, do you? Hilarious. There are no US bases in Israel. What, do you have a bunch of anti-western emo self loathing western Swedish kids that sit around with you and dish about your views on foreign policy, built on an arsenal of diplomatic realities that you made up between pancakes and meatballs?
You didn't read any of that info I linked, did you? Here, just read
this
one. I mean, it's very entertaining for me to see you make these kinds of assertions, hilarious, really, but if you don't at least read the information I link, then this isn't going to go anywhere. Here, I'll quote the most relevant tidbit:However, lack of reciprocity from the DPRK led President Lee Myung-bak, elected in 2007, to stop providing unconditional aid and investment. The North responded angrily, but little changed in terms of the military situation. North Korea’s armed forces are large but decrepit. Pyongyang could wreak enormous havoc while losing any war. The South has a more modern, better-trained force, including navy. Even so, the ROK remains heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defense.If you want to read more,
here
is an article about the necessity of US bases in South Korea for Japan's international security.
Your argument is one of the most uninformed arguments I've ever heard. My end goal, which should be excruciatingly easy, is to show you, with fact, how you are wrong. I can do that, by getting you to read a few articles. Why do I want you to be informed? I don't care how much Elura doesn't know. Honestly. If you went your whole life with the same level of knowledge that you have now, it wouldn't change anything for me. However, if I can demonstrate to you how uninformed you are, by holding a sort of mirror up to you, then next time I might save myself and others the hassle of educating you, because, like the rest of us, you'll read
before
you enter the discussion.
Post by
Squishalot
I have a feeling that the government will do something very similar with mental illness restrictions on firearms.
What's your current viewpoint on this, Magician? I seem to recall you supporting the idea of gun control only for the mentally ill, in lieu of gun control across the board, following the latest schoolground mass shooting when it was flagged up.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
I have a feeling that the government will do something very similar with mental illness restrictions on firearms.
What's your current viewpoint on this, Magician? I seem to recall you supporting the idea of gun control only for the mentally ill, in lieu of gun control across the board, following the latest schoolground mass shooting when it was flagged up.
It is just literally something that is too difficult to really even go into detail on. Yes, I do believe that controlling the "mentally ill" would be the most effective way to curb violence...gun, or otherwise, but the definition of "mentally ill" needs to be critically examined and defined here. Otherwise it is an open door to further strip citizens of a constitutional right.
Taking someone's constitutional rights, especially something as critical and core as the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property, is not something that should be taken lightly, or broadly. But taken too lightly, it also has potential to cause severe harm to others.
That is why I said, this requires the application of some common sense. Just about any reasonable person can look at the medical history of the Sandy Hook shooter, the Aurora theater shooter, or the Arizona shooter, and see that they should not have been legally able to purchase a weapon.
As I said, my fear is, that they will simply lump anyone taking psych medication, or that is seeing a therapist, as "ill", and that will be too overreaching. I think at the least, it needs to be case by case, and it should take more than one doctor to deem someone incompetent to own a firearm.
I also think that there needs to be more than just gun control placed on those that are actually found to be ill. Especially those that are determined to be violent, or completely out of control. I think more focus needs to be placed on having competent mental hospitals and care facilities for people that cannot safely function in society. If these facilities could be made to seem more like residential care (which is perfectly acceptable for millions of elderly people), and less like a prison, there might be less blowback from the idea.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
That is why I said, this requires the application of some common sense. Just about any reasonable person can look at the medical history of the Sandy Hook shooter, the Aurora theater shooter, or the Arizona shooter, and see that they should not have been legally able to purchase a weapon.
As I said, my fear is, that they will simply lump anyone taking psych medication, or that is seeing a therapist, as "ill", and that will be too overreaching. I think at the least, it needs to be case by case, and it should take more than one doctor to deem someone incompetent to own a firearm.
No offense to you, but this sounds very much like saying "everybody with a mental illness other than me". Are the clinically depressed more likely to commit suicide? Yes. Do I want firearms in the hands of those who want to commit suicide or otherwise put a low value on their own life? Probably not. Would it be reasonable to provide them with firearms, but not someone who was ADHD, or high-functioning autistic? I think 'competence' is a very difficult thing to determine, as someone who can function in society is not necessarily someone you want to have control over lethal weaponry.
I think more focus needs to be placed on having competent mental hospitals and care facilities for people that cannot safely function in society. If these facilities could be made to seem more like residential care (which is perfectly acceptable for millions of elderly people), and less like a prison, there might be less blowback from the idea.
I agree that society needs to have more competent mental hospitals and care facilities, but would like to point out that we wouldn't need gun control laws for the mentally ill if that were the case, because they wouldn't be registering new guns while they're living in the hospital... no?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Magician22773
No offense to you, but this sounds very much like saying "everybody with a mental illness other than me".
You know, most of the time, if you have to start a sentence with "No offence", your intention there is to offend.
I said there are millions of people out there with the same imbalance I have. Not just me...millions.
I also mentioned another situation that affects millions of people...situational depression...which is something I do not suffer with, so it affects me in no way.
I also pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to flesh out what should be included and excluded here in the forums, both because I do not think I, or anyone here, has the time or qualifications to start listing every condition that could be construed as a "mental illness", and research the causes and symptoms to determine of those people would be a safety risk to others if the possessed a weapon.
I agree that society needs to have more competent mental hospitals and care facilities, but would like to point out that we wouldn't need gun control laws for the mentally ill if that were the case, because they wouldn't be registering new guns while they're living in the hospital... no?
this has been my main point since this topic has come up. We don't need gun control, we need to control the crazy people that have guns.
But, in all fairness, there will be people that I would say should not have weapons, that also should not be in a facility either. One example of this would be as a mentioned earlier..situationally depressed. I don't think everyone that gets depressed over the loss of a loved one, or a divorce should be in a hospital environment, but I don't think every one of them should be able to purchase a gun at that time either.
Again...case by case...and common sense.
Post by
MyTie
China moves
troops and jets
to it's Korean border, in support of North Korea. In the improbably event that there is a fight, the fight sure would be bloody, for several countries (Elura).
Post by
Squishalot
You know, most of the time, if you have to start a sentence with "No offence", your intention there is to offend.
And in this case, it really means that I mean you no offense, because I know the message can be taken the wrong way.
We don't need gun control, we need to control the crazy people that have guns.
I was discussing this with my girlfriend (a clinical psychologist) and we both agreed that the bigger issue here is the fact that society draws this boundary line as "they're the crazy people, we're not". As I mentioned before - is someone with high-functioning autism (e.g. Asperger's) competent? Are they 'crazy', in your mind? Would you trust them with weaponry? Would you confine them to a mental institution?
It's not just 'crazy' people (which I'm understanding you to mean schizophrenic, bipolar or otherwise not in control), and I'm not even counting the situationally depressed people. Now, I know you said:
I also pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to flesh out what should be included and excluded here in the forums, both because I do not think I, or anyone here, has the time or qualifications to start listing every condition that could be construed as a "mental illness", and research the causes and symptoms to determine of those people would be a safety risk to others if the possessed a weapon.
... but I think that's just papering over the discussion and throwing it in the 'too-hard' bucket. You can't make a claim that people who have a mental illness and aren't competent should be under closer monitoring, then back away from clarifying who should and shouldn't be included in that, especially when identifying yourself as someone who shouldn't.
Post by
Nathanyal
Heh
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Heh
That stuff only works in movies, starring Ben Stiller, or Adam Sandler, or some over rated actor like that.
Post by
Nathanyal
This
talks about China helping NK. I found the entire article to be an intersting read. It came out March 25th, so it is about the recent happenings. And one of the authors is
Victor Cha
. I saw him on last nights episode of The Colbert Report, and figured I would look up more about him.
We have tried helping them, but they don't want it.
From 1989 to 2010, U.S. presidents, their national security advisors, and secretaries of state have given written and verbal assurances of non-hostile intent and a willingness to engage to the North over 33 times. Pyongyang acknowledged, rejected, and ignored these assurances, all the while continuing with their nuclear and weapons programs.
And NK likes to provoke SK, it is only a matter of time before SK strikes back.
North Korea has a penchant for testing new South Korean presidents. A new one was just inaugurated in February, and since 1992, the North has welcomed these five new leaders by disturbing the peace. Whether in the form of missile launches, submarine incursions, or naval clashes, these North Korean provocations were met by each newly elected South Korean president with patience rather than pique.
The difference today is that South Korea is no longer turning the other cheek. After the North blew up the South Korean navy ship the Cheonan, killing 46 sailors in 2010, Seoul re-wrote the rules of military engagement. It has lost patience and will respond kinetically to any provocation, which could escalate into a larger conflict.
Post by
MyTie
Read about how the Korean war started in the first place. Nothing changes.
Post by
Squishalot
We have tried helping them, but they don't want it.
Well, let's put it in perspective - would you agree to a trade where the rest of the world provides the US with oil, on the proviso that you shut down all nuclear power, weapons and research, and discontinue any satellite launches of any sort (e.g. telecommunications, GPS, etc.)?
The latest aid agreement fell over when the UN Security Council started imposing more sanctions because NK tried to launch a satellite, on the basis of suspicion that it was a weapons test launch. Considering other 21st century suspicions of weapons research and the lack of subsequent evidence (i.e. Iraq), I'm not entirely convinced that it was appropriate.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.