The "Fuck my life" thread

[cbre88x]

Since when did I say mental "illness". I said mental "health" or "issue" for a reason. To imply that any single mental illness or is not the sole reason for any one occurrence of violence. That's like saying GAD itself causes violence which is definitely not true. It's always a combination of factors. Like I've been trying to say..you can't simply blame the action of mass violence like this on one thing. You have to look at the big picture.

That being said..I don't ever remember mental health reforms being brought up after mass shootings. All anyone wants to talk about is gun reform.

About your nuke issue. I would equate it to how I feel about gun laws. I think any country should have a reasonable amount of arms to protect itself. If a country desires to have nuclear weapons..it should have access to them given they understand the repercussions of using them in an irresponsible manner, but I would also want to prevent a specific country from having nuclear armament. If the country shows aggression to another unprovoked I wouldn't want that country to be armed with nukes. It's the same way I feel about guns and weapons..if that person shows a tendency of violence and general irresponsible decision making..I wouldn't want that person to own a weapon. Which is why if there were to be further regulations on guns..I wouldn't mind not just registering the weapon to a person, but the person having a license to own and operate said class of weaponry...just as if it were a car.

But then again..that doesn't prevent a person from being stupid in a car...  

[Didzo]

And I'm honestly asking folks for their perspective on why one is ok and the other is not.

Talking about issues that most people are personally detached from is easier than talking about issues that people can very directly relate to.  Many people are affected by rape either directly or through someone they know, but not many  many Americans have been affected by a foreign nation stepping into their homes, using lethal force, or overall interfering in their affairs. So naturally, the first situation will be more emotionally charged than the second, despite the many parallels that can be drawn between the two situations. However, you can't exactly equate killing hundreds of thousands of people to killing or raping one.

I don't think it's any less or more okay to discuss one than the other, but the way people talk about these things differs with their personal significance.

-----------------------

I find the logic of believing that increasing the number of lethal weapons in a society will somehow decrease the risk of violence in that society as backwards. A knife is lethal tool, but using it requires you to put your own body at risk by being close to the target and is more difficult to use overall. A gun is a lethal tool, but is effective at a distance and delivers its damage almost instantaneously. You can dodge, deflect, and avoid a knife, but I don't see anyone being able to do that with hot lead shot from a gun from across the room. Knives also have a significantly lower chance of hitting an innocent bystander if someone misses with them. Basically, what I am saying is that guns allow a person to be extremely deadly while minimizing their risk of being harmed while using them.

Also, we all know what happens when every idiot is toting a firearm and trying to shoot at the same bad guy(s): Planetside 2 camping, where most of the bitching comes from either people stepping into your line of fire or people who kill you because they can't aim.

As far as psychological health care and stigmatization of receiving it in the country goes, I'm all for pushing for a society where it's considered no worse to need therapy than it is to need to go to a dentist. However, thinking that this will somehow get rid of tragedies like this completely naive and ignorant of the difficulties of psychology. Having autism doesn't make a person a ticking time bomb. Having a form of schizophrenia does not make a person a ticking time bomb. People with antisocial personality disorder who find themselves in therapy are usually those who are forced to do so after being caught doing a criminal act. Some of them commit petty theft, murder, or rape, while it is assumed that many others excel in politics and business and never find their way into a clinical setting.

In other words, psychology is extremely murky and there are very few psychological disorders that can be easily and neatly identified, classified, and treated. A person's mind is a combination of genetic and environmental factors put through an ever-changing cultural lens.

I don't have any easy solutions for any of this, but it's impossible to put shit into neatly defined boxes and say "THIS is the real issue that should be fixed."

[rumsfald]

Since when did I say mental "illness". I said mental "health" or "issue" for a reason.

Uh, right here

A person with a psychological issue. Therefore, you have overlooked the root of the issue. There are still plenty of things the person can use to harm others. To look past the mental illness further proves my original statement.

****

Also, I'm ok with having the biggest stick on the block and actively keeping other people from getting one just as big, because at some point I might have to use it and who wants to actually fight a fair fight?  

I think there's common ground here. We trust ourselves and our close kin to do the right thing with weapons, and if there's conflict, we want the advantage. I share that bias. But the question is whether when we exercise that bias we make-believe we might be exempt from the negative consequences of that position.

****

A hand gun and a nuke are different.  

Yes, obviously, a nuke, an abrams tank, an f-18, an m-60, an m-16, an m-15, an m67 frag, a potato masher, a colt 45, a 30-aught-six, and a .22 LR bolt action are all different. But, some of them are permissible for US civilians to own, and some forbidden. It's pretty easy to get mired in the technical details between a stock AR-15 and one modified for full-auto and equipped with an extended magazine. By anchoring the discussion at the extremes of technology, I hoped to focus the discussion on the legal and moral lines we use to justify who should have access to deadly force and who should not. Arguably, there is some logic as to why some civilians are allowed to build rocket ships (spaceX, virgin) for civilian use, but not ICMBs (which is basically the same tech) or fighter jets. I'm wanting to expose and engage in a discussion of that logic.

***

About your nuke issue. I would equate it to how I feel about gun laws. I think any country should have a reasonable amount of arms to protect itself. If a country desires to have nuclear weapons..it should have access to them given they understand the repercussions of using them in an irresponsible manner, but I would also want to prevent a specific country from having nuclear armament. If the country shows aggression to another unprovoked I wouldn't want that country to be armed with nukes. It's the same way I feel about guns and weapons..if that person shows a tendency of violence and general irresponsible decision making..I wouldn't want that person to own a weapon. Which is why if there were to be further regulations on guns..I wouldn't mind not just registering the weapon to a person, but the person having a license to own and operate said class of weaponry...just as if it were a car.

To sum up this argument: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you've proven to be irresponsible then we should limit the amount of damage you are capable of doing. If you are a sucky driver, you don't get to drive cargo vans, let alone the big rigs. If you have a history of aggravated assault and other violent provocations, maybe all the Constitution should let you get is a six-shooter revolver class or lever action. I can see logic in this approach, but this starts to get back to the assault weapons ban of the 90s. I'm sure Dtrain has opinions on this type of approach.

But then again..that doesn't prevent a person from being stupid in a car...  

We will never prevent someone from being stupid until we have a pre-crime unit. But can we limit the amount of harm they do when they decide to be stupid?

Of course, the thought of a pre-crime unit is why most in the audience would want to never relinquish their guns.

***

I love our Constitution, and I believe that the highest court has done well in protecting both the Second and First Amendments. But, clearly, technology has enabled things that the founders never envisioned that clearly don't fall within the protection of the 2nd amendment, like nukes and personal F-18s. Speaking of things our founders never envisioned, how long will it be until it's not a paintball on this hovercopter?

Citizen Drone Warfare - Dangerous Information

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=LT Crow link=topic=3709.msg258509#msg258509 date=1355592949]
Back to the shooting, the "we need better mental health" argument seems to be winning over the "we need tighter gun control" 

Which is a predictable red herring that gets trotted out every time one of these monsters does something that incomprehensibly horrid. However, the link between mental illness causing violence is just as speculative and uninformed as the purported link between violent video games and violence. Cite and cite and cite. People who try to shift the focus onto mental health issues are either ignorant of the science or deliberately trying to avoid a discussion of sensible gun policies.

It seems most have ignored my initial question in order to fall back to familiar defense lines. I asked, "Why is it ok to talk about preventing some countries from getting nuclear weapons but it's not ok to talk about preventing some people from getting guns?"

I think Kase got the closest to responding when she said, "The general selfishness of people, or their paranoia, will prevent full disarmament." The US will never fully nuclear disarm, because we as a country always want that level of lethal defense in case some other country tries to come and "rape" America.

However, when another country, like Iran, wants nukes to defend themselves, we, as Americans oppose. Even when Iran can say, "Look America, you just came over here and "raped" my neighbor, Iraq, for 10 years, I want to be able to defend myself if you come into my castle."

So, when it comes to some arms (the biggest), we as individual American citizens are comfortable with saying that "we can trust some people with this weapon, but not others."

At this point, let's reflect on the above and see if there is any dissent. Does anyone disagree that it's OK for the US to have a nuclear deterrence but to actively work to prevent other, less trustworthy, nations to obtain the same? Some of you may feel the kneejerk impulse to object to comparing nukes to handguns. Resist that urge, as there's very little difference. They are both instruments designed to project lethal force, the only real difference is how many people get kills per second you can rack up. Knives are certainly lethal too, but most people interested in self defense chose a firearm as it enables a faster kill per second than a knife. 

Now, when it comes to small arms, it seems that we, as Americans, often take the opposite view of nuke control, and don't want to talk about preventing any group of Americans access to lethal force. While it is ok to fear that Hizbollah Terrorists will come and nuke our city, it's not ok to worry that our neighbor's kid will bring dad's gun to school and take out his classmates.

Schizophrenia means "split mind." If there is schizophrenia here, it's double standard between how we talk about international violence (war) and how we talk about violence at home (crime). And I'm honestly asking folks for their perspective on why one is ok and the other is not.

***

Because, we gun owners learned through the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s that it doesn't stop with "some people".

I must have slept through the great gun prohibition, because I have no idea what you are referring to. What are these bad regulations that you allude to and what deleterious effects did they have on society?
[/quote]

Brief history of gun control since the 60s:

1968 Gun Control Act (forced guns to be sold only with a federal license, banned selling guns via mail order, created the "prohibited persons" concept, created the "sporting purpose" requirement for imported firearms, and created the requirement that all new firearms bear a serial number.

1986 Hughes Amendment banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after May 19th, 1986

1993 Brady Act forced people buying a gun to undergo a criminal background check.

1994 Assault Weapons Ban prohibited ownership of pistols and rifles having certain cosmetic features and accepted a detachable magazine.

1997 Lautenberg amendment added a person who is subject to a restraining order from possessing firearms. Note that the person does not need to be convicted or even charged with a crime.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[KarthXLR]

My Grandfather's alzheimers has advanced. He can't remember his friends or co-workers; his short-term memory is practically gone. My Grandma pretty much has to take complete care of him.

I don't think I've seen them in two years and I may not get a chance to this year either.


fuck.

[Dtrain323i]

My Grandfather's alzheimers has advanced. He can't remember his friends or co-workers; his short-term memory is practically gone. My Grandma pretty much has to take complete care of him.

I don't think I've seen them in two years and I may not get a chance to this year either.


fuck.

Fuck indeed. Alzheimer's sucks a fat one

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[cbre88x]

[quote author=cbre88x link=topic=3709.msg258538#msg258538 date=1355609197]
Since when did I say mental "illness". I said mental "health" or "issue" for a reason.

Uh, right here

A person with a psychological issue. Therefore, you have overlooked the root of the issue. There are still plenty of things the person can use to harm others. To look past the mental illness further proves my original statement.

[/quote]


oops. dats a slip.

[StolenToast]

My suitemate and best friend failed out this semester and is not returning next semester.  Or ever.  He was the only person I could talk about webcomics and video games with and the only one I could geek out at MSPaint with.  He was also my only equal in Brawl and shared my sense of humor - to the point where we could laugh at unsaid jokes - and he loved watching Adventure Time and Regular Show with me.

But now he is gone...

[k0ala]

The fear of a slippery slope, leading from common sense gun regulation to the loss of hunting firearms, is a fear that the NRA uses to sell its political agenda.  It is false.  A gun is a tool, like a hammer -- but unlike other tools, guns are designed and optimized to deliver projectiles for the purpose of killing efficiently.
In the context of hunting, this efficiency is needed to ensure that an animal dies as quickly and humanely as possible.  However, this is also the reason why the "guns don't kill people, people do..." line of reasoning rings hollow.  One can kill another person with a hammer, or with a car, but that is not what hammers or cars are designed to do.  Guns are a special case and we should start by acknowledging that.

[HeK]

A gun is a tool, like a hammer..

It can be a tool and a hammer!

[Versus]

wat

[Dtrain323i]

The fear of a slippery slope, leading from common sense gun regulation to the loss of hunting firearms, is a fear that the NRA uses to sell its political agenda.  It is false.  A gun is a tool, like a hammer -- but unlike other tools, guns are designed and optimized to deliver projectiles for the purpose of killing efficiently.
In the context of hunting, this efficiency is needed to ensure that an animal dies as quickly and humanely as possible.  However, this is also the reason why the "guns don't kill people, people do..." line of reasoning rings hollow.  One can kill another person with a hammer, or with a car, but that is not what hammers or cars are designed to do.  Guns are a special case and we should start by acknowledging that.

It is a tool and they can and have been used for good. Case in point: the Oregon mall shooting the other day.

http://www.nwcn.com/news/oregon/183609901.html

A concealed carry permit holder confronted the shooter and after being faced with armed resistance, the gunman killed himself.

Look at the case of the Korean neighborhoods during the LA Riots:
Korean store owners defend their business during the 1992 LA riots.

The LAPD flat out refused to enter some neighborhoods during the riots.

Or what about the Appalachian School Shooting?

From wiki:

According to Bridges: at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms[6] placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, North Carolina[8] retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.[9] Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.[11]

As far as the slippery slope is concerned, we have the words of sitting congresspeople:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
              -Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the 1994 "crime bill", one of the largest gun control bills of the last 30 years.

[A. Crow]

[quote author=k0ala link=topic=3709.msg258608#msg258608 date=1355701147]
A gun is a tool, like a hammer..

It can be a tool and a hammer!


[/quote]

^responsible for the time that was the closest I came to shooting an Afgan worker who was actually doing work.  

No, it didn't look THAT much like a gun, but it was still a concrete nailer and he still popped one into the slab behind my back without warning.

[Luinbariel]

Honestly, I think we can search for an "answer" to crimes of all sorts; whether with guns, knives, our bodies, whatever. But I don't think it's a simple as there being one all-consuming answer that's ever going to fix everything for everyone.

How does that help? It doesn't. But I can't stand seeing all the fighting over who's right and who's wrong, because there's never a definitive answer and it all comes down to opinions and perspective.

A bad thing happened and there are as many opinions of how it should have been handled/should be handled from here as there are people who are upset about it.

[Dtrain323i]

Honestly, I think we can search for an "answer" to crimes of all sorts; whether with guns, knives, our bodies, whatever. But I don't think it's a simple as there being one all-consuming answer that's ever going to fix everything for everyone.

How does that help? It doesn't. But I can't stand seeing all the fighting over who's right and who's wrong, because there's never a definitive answer and it all comes down to opinions and perspective.

A bad thing happened and there are as many opinions of how it should have been handled/should be handled from here as there are people who are upset about it.

[cbre88x]

[quote author=Luinbariel link=topic=3709.msg258625#msg258625 date=1355719197]
Honestly, I think we can search for an "answer" to crimes of all sorts; whether with guns, knives, our bodies, whatever. But I don't think it's a simple as there being one all-consuming answer that's ever going to fix everything for everyone.

How does that help? It doesn't. But I can't stand seeing all the fighting over who's right and who's wrong, because there's never a definitive answer and it all comes down to opinions and perspective.

A bad thing happened and there are as many opinions of how it should have been handled/should be handled from here as there are people who are upset about it.

[/quote]

dawwwww

[zaneyard]

My mom just died. There was pneumonia in her lungs and as a result of heavy drinking and continual smoking her body was unable to recover. It eventually got into her bloodstream and her heart and went into cardiac arrest. She had a scare 3 or 4 months ago and they told her that she had to stop drinking and smoking but she wouldn't listen.

[KarthXLR]

My mom just died. There was pneumonia in her lungs and as a result of heavy drinking and continual smoking her body was unable to recover. It eventually got into her bloodstream and her heart and went into cardiac arrest. She had a scare 3 or 4 months ago and they told her that she had to stop drinking and smoking but she wouldn't listen.

Shit Zane, that's awful. Try to hang in there.

[at0m]

[quote author=zaneyard link=topic=3709.msg258632#msg258632 date=1355740687]
My mom just died. There was pneumonia in her lungs and as a result of heavy drinking and continual smoking her body was unable to recover. It eventually got into her bloodstream and her heart and went into cardiac arrest. She had a scare 3 or 4 months ago and they told her that she had to stop drinking and smoking but she wouldn't listen.

Shit Zane, that's awful. Try to hang in there.
[/quote]<3 man, that truly is awful.

[A. Crow]

My mom just died. There was pneumonia in her lungs and as a result of heavy drinking and continual smoking her body was unable to recover. It eventually got into her bloodstream and her heart and went into cardiac arrest. She had a scare 3 or 4 months ago and they told her that she had to stop drinking and smoking but she wouldn't listen.

Zane, my mother died very suddenly after being sick for awhile, too. 

It's going to suck. 

But the suck will end.  Hang in there man.