US continues to go backward...

[milehighpoke]

I also see the party of free speech, law and order, rebuking cancel culture, and loving the constitution strikes again.

It's honestly terrifying how quickly MAGA willingly gives up their rights for their cult leader.

 

[cowboyinexile]

I also see the party of free speech, law and order, rebuking cancel culture, and loving the constitution strikes again.

It's honestly terrifying how quickly MAGA willingly gives up their rights for their cult leader.

Republicans: Kirk stood for free speech
Also Republicans: Talk bad about him and we will ruin you

That's not exclusive to MAGA

 

[steross]

Occam’s Razor

I don’t care what the DSM says. Someone who can shoot at a group of people indiscriminately has mental issues.

And the “it’s the guns” argument doesn’t work for me. They’re an inanimate object.

For me it’s both. First, mental health. We live in a society with a lot of sick people right now brought on by a thousand different things. Second, the guns. The sick people in our society have just about unfettered access to them.

A solution is likely multi-pronged and would take decades to “fix.”

Ok, but if you define mental health that way then it is unrealistic to think that any treatments, which are all studied and guided by DSM diagnosis, will be at all effective. You would also change it from a primarily criminal issue to a primarily health care issue by definition. I don’t think that is a good idea.

Guns are inanimate objects. As are cannons, tanks, Apache helicopters and nuclear bombs. All governments pick a level of lethality in inanimate objects that the citizens of the country are allowed to have or at least be very regulated. Our country chooses to be one of if not the most liberal on firearms and are also a country that faces the mass shooting issue more than most others. You can argue that is coincidence, but you will have a hard time convincing those that don’t have liberal gun laws.

Nobody is saying that there doesn’t need to be a multifaceted approach. You know I already think health care in this country is a disaster and MH is a big part of that. But, pointing to MH care as if it alone or even as the driving force is going to prevent these is very unrealistic to me having worked in two nations with very different MH and gun control. And, of course, extremely different murder rates.

 

[GratefulPoke]

I also see the party of free speech, law and order, rebuking cancel culture, and loving the constitution strikes again.

It's honestly terrifying how quickly MAGA willingly gives up their rights for their cult leader.

They were never about any of those things. Its just naked factionalism.

For the record, I think cancel culture is a good thing. Its how ideas resolve themselves in the marketplace of ideas.

The alternative is through the state. And the outcomes are much worse.

 

[steross]

Weak? In 48% of mass shootings, the perpetrator commits suicide or does suicide by cop. That is just about half of them.

We don't understand a lot about depression other than it is a collection of symptoms at this point. I don't think one can be hopeless and suicidal and not be depressed. Those are the hallmarks of severe depression.

How Often Do Mass Shooters Die In Their Attacks?

Almost half of mass shooters die during the attack, but certain factors raise the likelihood of that happening.

www.popsci.com

And what percent of them play video games?

If you look at the real factors that are commonly associated it isn’t severe mental health or overuse of video games. It is social isolation, firearms access, ideology, history of violence that hint at the problem.

And, even if they could show that mental health is a more primary issues than these other factors, half of the attackers had mental health treatment. Doesn’t mean we should leave people untreated, but should make us realize that treatment may not be enough to overcome the other issues that have been shown to be more prominent.

People tend to be self serving. Don’t you find it strange that the very mental health worker community that would benefit from focused funding for this issue is the one saying that they don’t see it as the primary issue?

To me, this would be like funding more cardiac cath labs to prevent sudden death because it is cardiac so that is the treatment needed. And, there are times we can’t get people to a cath lab so more cath labs are not a horrible idea. But, realistically we would prevent more sudden cardiac death by changing our food, exercise, sedentary lifestyle, diabetes, blood pressure control etc But, that’s a lot harder nut to crack than to want to fund more health care.

 

[Bowers3]

Ok, but if you define mental health that way then it is unrealistic to think that any treatments, which are all studied and guided by DSM diagnosis, will be at all effective. You would also change it from a primarily criminal issue to a primarily health care issue by definition. I don’t think that is a good idea.

Guns are inanimate objects. As are cannons, tanks, Apache helicopters and nuclear bombs. All governments pick a level of lethality in inanimate objects that the citizens of the country are allowed to have or at least be very regulated. Our country chooses to be one of if not the most liberal on firearms and are also a country that faces the mass shooting issue more than most others. You can argue that is coincidence, but you will have a hard time convincing those that don’t have liberal gun laws.

Nobody is saying that there doesn’t need to be a multifaceted approach. You know I already think health care in this country is a disaster and MH is a big part of that. But, pointing to MH care as if it alone or even as the driving force is going to prevent these is very unrealistic to me having worked in two nations with very different MH and gun control. And, of course, extremely different murder rates.

Oh I think access to guns does lead to more gun violence of course. But it’s not a cause. That’s what I mean. I’m looking for what makes a person want to go shoot a bunch of people.

 

[OrangeFan69]

When are we going to get the toxicology reports to prove how much fentanyl was in Charlie Kirk's bloodstream at the time of his incident?

 

[steross]

Oh I think access to guns does lead to more gun violence of course. But it’s not a cause. That’s what I mean. I’m looking for what makes a person want to go shoot a bunch of people.

Not sure that I agree with you that access isn’t a cause. I suppose it depends on how you define cause.

For example, from my wheelhouse, people with ready access to highly palatable foods will overeat. This has been studied in many ways so could easily say easy access to certain food is causal of weight gain. However, there is a relative value system within us that drives some people to eat more than others. We have some of these mechanisms worked out and involve the hypothalamus and leptin ( part of ozempic is action at the hypothalamus). So, in theory we could block this desire, is the food then causal or not?

A part of the gun problem is our glorification of these tragedies and it becomes a perverse desire to go out infamously. If there was no access, no glorification, no desire. Or, if we could block whatever makes it desirable to these troubled people then it would not be a problem. But, until then, to me, access is causal. I don’t believe they would just find another method. It would be more lethal to blow up a school. That isn’t their goal.

 

[Big Huck]

Welp pulled up a Kirk video titled "Immigration without assimilation is invasion" and yeah, this dude's pretty damn racist. At 5:19 he plays a clip of Omar Fateh, Muslim Senator from Minnesota calling out white supremacy and standing up for immigrants. Kirk intentionally misquotes (lies) about what Fateh said and tells his audience his quote was "The real domestic threat in America is whites." Kirk then goes onto say. "Only in America do we import our biggest problems" and "THEY come here because of OUR generosity and they heap disdain on us." All because a Muslim Senator dared to call out white supremacy. So it took me 6 minutes of watching Kirk to find him A. lying to his audience to B. get them to hate a Muslim while C. Ignoring that he was calling out white supremacists. If conservatives looked up to this guy it's no wonder we are where we are as a country.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Ive come to the conclusion that the political leanings of Kirks killer don't matter. Too many people are sticking with the "this is war" thing or just completely believing that a white Mormon from rural Utah whose dad is a sheriff is a social democrat from a super liberal family.

I had to ask one person I know why they are blaming the left on this when every piece of evidence on this so far indicates no one on that side had anything to do with this.

Also I got a feeling bots are in full force right now pushing the dude was a secret leftist narrative.

 

[Propoke]

This was his schtick. He was a talented debater and purposefully picked on people he knew he could "win" a debate against. IIRC, he would avoid people like Dean Withers on his "tour".

This is like praising LeBron for going to a college campus to play basketball against ordinary people.

As a side note and unrelated to the topic, I enjoy watching ordinary people take on people who are ultra talented in a field. It makes me appreciate how talented professionals truly are.

Again, I’m not referring to Kirk. I’m more talking about a normal HS kid challenging LeBron to a pickup game.

 

[Bowers3]

Not sure that I agree with you that access isn’t a cause. I suppose it depends on how you define cause.

For example, from my wheelhouse, people with ready access to highly palatable foods will overeat. This has been studied in many ways so could easily say easy access to certain food is causal of weight gain. However, there is a relative value system within us that drives some people to eat more than others. We have some of these mechanisms worked out and involve the hypothalamus and leptin ( part of ozempic is action at the hypothalamus). So, in theory we could block this desire, is the food then causal or not?

A part of the gun problem is our glorification of these tragedies and it becomes a perverse desire to go out infamously. If there was no access, no glorification, no desire. Or, if we could block whatever makes it desirable to these troubled people then it would not be a problem. But, until then, to me, access is causal. I don’t believe they would just find another method. It would be more lethal to blow up a school. That isn’t their goal.

But 100% of people in the US have the same access to guns…

Yeah maybe we just do have a different definition of “cause.”

 

[HacklemanPoke]

Fox News host casually floats "involuntary lethal injection, just kill them" for homeless people. That's not hyperbole that is a direct quote.

John Curtis (@wartoothglass) on Threads

Fox News host casually floats "involuntary lethal injection, just kill them" for homeless people. That's not hyperbole that is a direct quote.

www.threads.com

I just watched the video. A FoxNews host just advocated for murdering homeless people. How is he not fired and never works again? We have an admin who wants to revoke fcc licenses bc they don’t like the tone of the news while state sponsored media openly advocates for genocide.

This is just evil and it’s not even a blip on our radar.

But sure only one side is radical and advocates violence for solutions.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

And what percent of them play video games?

If you look at the real factors that are commonly associated it isn’t severe mental health or overuse of video games. It is social isolation, firearms access, ideology, history of violence that hint at the problem.

And, even if they could show that mental health is a more primary issues than these other factors, half of the attackers had mental health treatment. Doesn’t mean we should leave people untreated, but should make us realize that treatment may not be enough to overcome the other issues that have been shown to be more prominent.

People tend to be self serving. Don’t you find it strange that the very mental health worker community that would benefit from focused funding for this issue is the one saying that they don’t see it as the primary issue?

To me, this would be like funding more cardiac cath labs to prevent sudden death because it is cardiac so that is the treatment needed. And, there are times we can’t get people to a cath lab so more cath labs are not a horrible idea. But, realistically we would prevent more sudden cardiac death by changing our food, exercise, sedentary lifestyle, diabetes, blood pressure control etc But, that’s a lot harder nut to crack than to want to fund more health care.

I have never been an advocate of “it’s the video games” as a systemic underlying cause. Other countries have this and it doesn’t seem to be an issue.

Should we responsibly study this? Sure. Make it a global effort.

Also I know 2 doesn’t make a pattern, but both shootings on Tuesday had a few commonalities. Isolation and alleged exposure to some extreme on line ideologies.

Maybe we should take a look at just how tech contributes to isolation and radicalization?

My guess is Tech bros don’t want this. Yet???

 

[steross]

But 100% of people in the US have the same access to guns…

Yeah maybe we just do have a different definition of “cause.”

And none of the people in Australia have that level of access and their rate is drastically lower. Their gun access isn't zero and their rate isn't zero. It is just much lower.

Causal to me does not imply that if the factor is present the outcome must happen. Cigarette smoking is causal of lung cancer, but not every smoker gets lung cancer. If other countries highly regulated access to cigarettes and had lung cancer rates at 1/5 of ours and we said, "It isn't the cigarettes" it would be fairly similar to the current situation. Granted, cigarettes hare addictive, but have you seen how absolutely infatuated some people are with guns?

 

[steross]

I have never been an advocate of “it’s the video games” as a systemic underlying cause. Other countries have this and it doesn’t seem to be an issue.

Should we responsibly study this? Sure. Make it a global effort.

Also I know 2 doesn’t make a pattern, but both shootings on Tuesday had a few commonalities. Isolation and alleged exposure to some extreme on line ideologies.

Maybe we should take a look at just how tech contributes to isolation and radicalization?

My guess is Tech bros don’t want this. Yet???

I'm not either. Yes, I do agree with what you are saying is a more likely large factor.

 

[Bowers3]

And none of the people in Australia have that level of access and their rate is drastically lower. Their gun access isn't zero and their rate isn't zero. It is just much lower.

Causal to me does not imply that if the factor is present the outcome must happen. Cigarette smoking is causal of lung cancer, but not every smoker gets lung cancer. If other countries highly regulated access to cigarettes and had lung cancer rates at 1/5 of ours and we said, "It isn't the cigarettes" it would be fairly similar to the current situation. Granted, cigarettes hare addictive, but have you seen how absolutely infatuated some people are with guns?

Ok so I think we’re still talking about different things. I’m in agreement that more access to guns leads to more gun violence.

But in no way do I think access to guns is what compels an individual to shoot and kill people.