2k18 /pol/

[XSI]

Bottom post of the previous page:

You can just ingest some blue colouring for food. Most of it is harmless and most of it passes through your body without changing. But we don't eat enough blue-coloured food to really effect what comes out the other end

[Grazyn]

Anti-malarial drugs also have mindbreaker-level side effects

[Malkevin]

I wonder if thats the real reason they recalled the blue smarties...

[Screemonster]

I mean you could just buy a box of these

[D&B]

Saw a greentext of a guy putting a shit ton of those of different colors in his toilet and then melting his asshole off when it splashed on him.

[cedarbridge]

Speaking of guns

Dude films himself for facebook doing this:



Posts the video to facebook for that sweet FB like.
But wait, what's that?



I hope this guy doesn't own a dog.

[Incomptinence]

Your hunting rifle would be Australia legal cedar you poser.

[cedarbridge]

Your hunting rifle would be Australia legal cedar you poser.

I'm sure that will be important when and if I ever renounce my citizenship and move to a former prison colony.

[ShadowDimentio]

They weren't allowed anyways, supposedly.

[cedarbridge]

Will Murica revert their repeal of the law that stops the mentally concerning from owning firearms?

I presume this was supposed to say something else but it feels like two sentences ran into eachother part way.

[cedarbridge]

Apparently Twumpy wumpy repealed a law that stopped the mentally unstable from buying a gun, before the shooting by the mentally unstable lad.

I'm not familiar. I do have reservations about a law that would provide a blanket ownership ban to all "mentally unstable", however. Broad language there would 1) put a barrier to care into a system that already doesn't really do well providing for mental healthcare needs and 2) prohibit ownership by those treated or in treatment and managing their symptoms. 3) prohibit ownership by anyone with any sort of mental condition even if that condition would not actually impact their ability to own control or safely possess/carry a firearm.

[CitrusGender]

I don't think people understand that your medical information is kept private unless you're declared by the government to be mentally insane. Then you're usually kept in a facility or something.

The type of people that shoot up places like this are often people who are suffering from an internal trauma that ussually is unreported.

You hear shit all the time like "THEY HAD WARNINGS BUT DID NOTHING" but often times those warnings are very vague and similar to normal shit that happens all the time. Hindsight is a bitch.

[Grazyn]

Gun ownership is a constitutional right, so a doctor can't be allowed to revoke it anyway. A diagnosis of a mental disorder may be taken into account but at the end of the day the decision should come from a judge.

[Malkevin]

Yeah... no. Fruitcakes shouldn't be allowed guns, especially those under active treatment.

"The type of people that shoot up places like this are often people who are suffering from an internal trauma that ussually is unreported."

I've read the opposite, that most of the kids were on anti-depressants.

[cedarbridge]

Yeah... no. Fruitcakes shouldn't be allowed guns, especially those under active treatment.

"The type of people that shoot up places like this are often people who are suffering from an internal trauma that ussually is unreported."

I've read the opposite, that most of the kids were on anti-depressants.

Define "fruitcake" in a way that doesn't immediately disqualify yourself and 90% of the country from gun ownership.

I don't think people understand that your medical information is kept private unless you're declared by the government to be mentally insane. Then you're usually kept in a facility or something.

As I understand it, the only way to make this enforceable is to require a judicial declaration and court order requiring surrender of all possessed arms and prohibition from purchase/ownership. Its also why anyone who owns substantial numbers of guns or any of particular value keep them held in special property trusts.

[Grazyn]

I remember when they tried to revoke gun rights from people on no-fly lists, it turned out that a private airline company's decisions can't affect a constitutional right. I assume the same would go for a psych evaluation. Also, people with mental illness are usually vulnerable to anyone who tries to abuse or otherwise take advantage of them, taking their guns away will make them even more vulnerable especially when those abusers are made aware that their victim isn't allowed to have guns.

[cedarbridge]

I assume what he said, mental medication for the unstable rather than for the quirky (ADHD), wouldn't disqualify 90% of the country. Unless antidepressants are being handed out more than antibacterial medicine across the pond.

Though how you track that is probably unreliable since I assume you don't do heavy medication by prescription but over the counter or across the web. It would probably cause an uproar if the gubberment were to demand private medical companies to gib deets, at least if allowing mental health to take away your right to shoot one another didn't cause an uproar first.

Even then, the idea is that you want people with mental illnesses to be treated for those illnesses, not incentivized not to seek treatment. That includes depression and anxiety. I should not be prohibited from gun ownership for having either of those conditions nor be punished for seeking treatment and thus revealing those conditions.

And no, it would go in the face of a lot of long standing medical law for the government to about-face on medical records privacy and start demanding that everyone who wants a gun has to tell anyone who wants to know their full history.

[Grazyn]

>be autistic and even mildly retarded
>know you are vulnerable to abuse from bad people
>feel safe because you have a gun to scare bad people away
>government says you have to give up your gun because you have a mental illness
>now you are defenseless and bad people still have guns, also they know you are an easy prey because your condition has been made public

if you don't see how this is wrong and cruel, I really can't help you

[cedarbridge]

I suppose we shouldn't have criminal records because criminals are incentivised to not do crimes if they want to keep job options open afterwards. Unless owning a gun is a source of great pride, I don't see why the threat of removing it from an unstable individual will cause more harm than them owning it can and does. After all, mental health services are a joke anyway, why would the gun loss be the straw that breaks the camel's back and not the endless amount of people listening to you but hearing the clock ticking closer to the day's end?

You've yet to define "unstable individual" so if we're counting everything from anxiety to manic schizophrenia together then you're painting with far too broad of strokes in the first place.

The comparison between having a mental illness and being a criminal isn't apt at all. Criminals are punished with records for doing things that society does not approve, and a lasting record remains that says "this person committed offenses in the past, we should punish them more if they do more of them." In this instance I agree that criminal records do create a negative incentive but only in the sense that employers using criminal history in an exclusive sense where the past offenses don't actually have anything to do with current employ except say "this is a bad guy or was a bad guy in the past" merely encourages recidivism. The concept of rehabilitative justice is that the criminals are put through the system to put them back out into society having paid their debt to that society and as reformed beings prepared to perform normal, non-offending roles in that society. If we merely barred them from all employ after serving their sentences (or did it constructively through NIMBY hiring practices) then we might as well have just executed them and been done with it. At least then we'd ensure they didn't re-offend rather than create the conditions wherein they can do nothing but re-offend. In the case of mental illness, the person has done nothing wrong in the majority of cases. Mental illness is fickle and strikes at any and all inopportune times. Its also not a binary switch that flips and says "now you're mentally ill to X degree." The feelings of certain conditions can come and go. Some manifest at different times and some only under certain circumstances. To say "mental healthcare is just a joke anyway" is to undercut the fact that its frankly not provided at all or sought out by a large number of patients for manifold reasons. One is your own statement, "mental healthcare is a joke so why bother" and thus they don't because they believe (or their condition leads them to believe) that help is hopeless so better to conceal it and go on. Others include the social stigma of having a mental illness in the first place. Who wants to hire a lawyer with depression or an accountant with anxiety. Thus its concealed and never spoken of until something happens and it festers without treatment.

So no, its not merely "lets stop having laws and criminal records so we can not have criminals" incentive line. Its adding yet another reason for mentally ill people not to seek out treatment for conditions we should be working to de-stigmatize and encourage research and treatment for. People like to say "oh well the gunman was mentally ill/crazy/a nutjob" but then poo-poo the need for actual mental health care and actually doing something about that mental healthcare condition that leads people to destructive ends. Removing a Constitutionally protected right from law abiding citizens will not make mentally impaired people seek the help they need and it won't make people safer.

To your other point about why gun ownership should matter or somebody or if its a point of pride to own a gun, that really doesn't matter in an American context. Gun ownership and the right to bear arms is a recognized and protected right. The burden of proof in that context shifted over 200 years ago. We don't ask "why do you need a gun" but rather "what about you allows infringement of your right" and in this case, it would only be a mental illness of sufficient severity that the person is a present danger to themselves or others and without treatment to curb that threat. Anything less of that will frankly not pass Constitutional muster.

[Grazyn]

Also it's really easy to go from "crazy people can't own guns" to "only crazy people can support communism/Nazism, therefore they can't own guns". Medicalization of dissent is a problem when it is used to discredit political opponents, but it's even more serious when it is used to strip them of their rights.

[Malkevin]

>Be depressed
>Be given a cocktail of random drugs in hopes one of them fixes the mentals.
>oh dear, they've made things worse and made you mentally unstable
>shoot yourself because you had easy access to guns

Look up the amount of gun deaths that are suicide and tell me that person suffering depression was safer because he had a gun

[ShadowDimentio]

I mean a noose or jumping off a bridge kills you just as efficiently. It's not really the gun's fault that a suicidal person suicides with the gun they have.

[onleavedontatme]

Jumping off a bridge takes significantly more planning than picking up an object in your home and applying 5lb of force to a trigger. Strangling yourself also takes quite a bit more work and is less likely to succeed.

Most suicide attempts are very impulsive and most people who try it don't do it again afterwards, so if they're talked down or live through the attempt it gives you a chance to treat them.

If you want to make a "freedom vs security" argument or whatever, go ahead, I'm not gonna get into the philosophical weeds with you, but "suicidal people are unstoppable Terminators bent on self destruction, we are helpless" is one of the dumber talking points that keeps popping up in gun debates.

Doubt you'll click through to either link but they'll make my post look nicer so

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21034205 IDF suicide rates drop after restricting access to firearms on the weekends

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/ Citations for the stuff about suicide being impulsive + the methods mattering

[BeeSting12]

Evidence in a political argument?? Hahahhahaa.

My honest opinion is that we shouldn't tighten gun control based only on suicidal people. Theres a ton of other valid reasons to tighten it though.

[cedarbridge]

>Be depressed

Are you actually using this as an point because you give a shit about the depressed person or because they're an easy prop to hold up to get rid of guns you don't like?

>Be given a cocktail of random drugs in hopes one of them fixes the mentals.

Guess that answers that. Psychiatry is not giving somebody "a cocktail of random drugs in hopes one of them fixes the mentals." If you think this is the case then you're proving my point earlier that we might as well just skip to offing them because society has already written them off for merely having depression.

>oh dear, they've made things worse and made you mentally unstable

Were they unstable before or after the depression? If it was before then we're still at "depression is a write-off" If it was after medication then its a medication issue. It is true that certain medications have side effects that can exacerbate symptoms, but that's hardly "psychiatry exists to make patients worse."

>shoot yourself because you had easy access to guns

Look up the amount of gun deaths that are suicide and tell me that person suffering depression was safer because he had a gun

Or throw yourself off a building, consume large numbers of pills (a method still preferred by women even when guns are available), walk into traffic, dive into a train, etc. Guns did not create suicide so banning the tool will not stop suicide. I'm actually kinda fascinated at this discussion because (as I predicted) the discussion is so far and gone from "There are mentally ill people who need help with their conditions and should get and be encouraged to seek help for those things." and "We need to restrict everyone's rights including those of the mentally ill person in order to further stigmatize mental illness and ensure this keeps happening."

You're looking at a problem and proposing a solution to the problem that doesn't solve the actual problem.

[leibniz]

Jumping off a bridge takes significantly more planning than picking up an object in your home and applying 5lb of force to a trigger. Strangling yourself also takes quite a bit more work and is less likely to succeed.

Most suicide attempts are very impulsive and most people who try it don't do it again afterwards, so if they're talked down or live through the attempt it gives you a chance to treat them.

If you want to make a "freedom vs security" argument or whatever, go ahead, I'm not gonna get into the philosophical weeds with you, but "suicidal people are unstoppable Terminators bent on self destruction, we are helpless" is one of the dumber talking points that keeps popping up in gun debates.

Doubt you'll click through to either link but they'll make my post look nicer so

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21034205 IDF suicide rates drop after restricting access to firearms on the weekends

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/ Citations for the stuff about suicide being impulsive + the methods mattering

This is correct, there are also statistics about how suicides became less common in the UK after a change in how ovens work.
"In England, death by asphyxiation from breathing oven fumes had accounted for roughly half of all suicides up until the 1970s, when Britain began converting ovens from coal gas, which contains lots of carbon monoxide, to natural gas, which has almost none. During that time, suicides plummeted roughly 30 percent — and the numbers haven't changed since."
Source

At the same time I don't think it's good to use "gun deaths" statistics in debates instead of "gun crime" ones, I believe people have a right to suicide, but it's probably a poor choice when it's an impulsive act.

[Malkevin]

I've probably been depressed longer than some of you have been alive, at my darkest point I was thinking what the best way to off myself was.

Do you know how much effort it takes to make a noose and find somewhere to tie it up? And you're probably not going to be able to make a neck snapping platform so you're stuck with choking yourself for the minutes it takes to suffocate.
Buildings - no accessible buildings or bridges near me that are tall enough to guarantee not surviving, plus I'm afraid of heights so I'd definitely be one of those that gets to the edge and chokes. That happens to a lot of people
Pills don't really work on men, too much body mass. Besides, I can't even buy more than two packets of paracetamol at a time let alone something more potent (supposedly that restriction is to prevent suicide attempts, I think it's more to stop drug dealers cutting their gear).
Jumping in front of car? Dick move, you'll probably hurt someone else in the process
Jumping in front of a train? Yeah no, don't want to force some poor sod into the task of clearing up 100m of my entrails splayed about the place.

But a gun?
Hold it under your chin, close your eyes and twitch your finger - poof, the lights go out.


There's a lot of things that could be done to help the mentally ill (dropping the stigma of mental illness would be a great start), but I don't think providing people with deep depression the most efficient means to bring about their own demise is one of them.

[Super Aggro Crag]

Dude I'm sad lol no one should be able to have something because I might hurt myself with it

[Grazyn]

Also it's really easy to go from "crazy people can't own guns" to "only crazy people can support communism/Nazism, therefore they can't own guns". Medicalization of dissent is a problem when it is used to discredit political opponents, but it's even more serious when it is used to strip them of their rights.

sliddery slode

Yes I'm sure the democrats will pass a law to not allow republicans to own guns. I also thought Murica hated the political extremes they fought a world war and a cold war against? That would be very unamerican of you to have a gun and not be dead, instead of red or be for introducing gas chambers. Do I need to hammer this point home and say you're advocating universal gun rights on the grounds that mass murderous ideologies might be left out?

Try to argue sincerely without going to the theoretical extreme. You would do better by pointing out a country where there is gun control is based on political allegiance. The UK has gun control based on need and being sound of mind.

https://www.google.it/search?q=liberali ... 8&bih=1024

Look at that. See how many people unironically believe that. Then imagine a law that says "people with a mental illness can't own a gun" and think again

[XSI]

How about we just ban everyone not mentally 100% perfect from gun ownership, and then declare [INSERT OPPOSING POLITICAL IDEOLOGY HERE] a mental illness?
Worked for the soviet union.

Also fuck psychiatry. 90% quacks and 10% overworked good people. Nobody still has any idea how the brain works and the pills they give out for it are about as much a chance of getting well as trusting the clown to drag your corpse to genetics.
Sure, he might do it. But he's just as likely to draw on your face, honk, and then run off.

[D&B]

Psychiatrists are spooks

[cedarbridge]

Psychiatrists are spooks

What isn't these days?

[cedarbridge]

Spoiler:

This is a pol thread so I assume unstable individual doesn't need definition. I'm no doctor so when I say unstable I mean will act irrationally and shoot you 4noraisin.

I didn't have a more apt comparison to hand. Yes it was a bad choice. Though I could nod towards crimes committed out of need and circumstance rather than want but heyho, I know nothing of that nor if it's a significant percentage of crimes so I'll steer clear of this.

If mental illness is never brought into the open, then their guns are never taken away. Yes that's an argument for a law being redundant but we're travelling into mental health services suck territory. But those brought to medical services by others (self harm, attempted suicide or when that something happens without it being a criminal offence) cannot hide it and are not going to benefit themself or others by holding a lethal weapon. Kerblam.

We should be working to destigmatise gun control and encourage research and treatment for loss of being able to murder someone or yourself. Yes better help for the mentally afflicted is good, I don't believe just focusing on one aspect will work. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people living in it.

As a side theoretical question which doesn't affect the rest of this so I'm not going to jump on you for deviating in answer. If mental health services become immaculate and everyone goes for an annual checkup to see if they need further help, do we take guns off anyone who fails the won't shoot you test? I imagine it'd still be in front of a judge to protect your constitutional right.


On the Malk thing, depression calls for commonly used drugs and the test to see if they affect you well are, at least over here, a two week or so course where you're supposed to stick with them until you feel better or you still feel shitty. Some antidepressants make you feel worse. I'm trying to recall from where but apparently some antidepressants make those in a dark, immobile place able to go to the effort of kerblam, though I have nothing to back up that besides hearsay but that's perfect for a pol thread.

Psychiatry doesn't exist, at least over here not until you try something stupid. I'm not sure what they try then beside surveillance and drugs because the beforehand is just drugs.

Shops and supermarkets over here are, I believe, legally required to stop you if you're buying a lot of packets. Kor already mentioned the effort difference between gun and the outside world. leibniz has just mentioned another suicide preventing measure. Though he's pointed out the problem with this thread that we're moving from unstable person who can shooty bang you to unstable person who can shooty bang self which isn't the flavour of the month drama.

I feel you've jumped from "We need to restrict the rights of mentally ill people" to "We need to restrict everyone's rights". Though restricting the rights of someone when mentally ill is restricting everyone's rights because everyone can become mentally ill. And I assume it's very hard to get anyone in the old world with strict or harsh weapon laws to concede a middle ground over what you take for granted.

The problem was cray cray man brought big boom stikk to skool. Man killed many without response. If man have no gun and man have knife, they stop be. Man in Engerlund krav maga'd four with slashy stabby and hitty bashy whilst being bonk on head many time. Man in Engerlund krava maga no stop bullets like Darth Vader.

Frankly, there's getting to be too many words in these posts even for me so I'm going to skip most of it because this is a /pol/ thread.

Going through your post I can't really tell what your end game is. You say that people shouldn't fear having their guns taken away for being mentally ill because they can just not tell anyone they have a mental illness, but then go on to talk about how destigmatizing mental illness would be pretty cool but we have to take away people's guns first. How do any of these things follow from the one before them? You're arguing the status quo only with people voluntarily holding themselves out to be disarmed while people continue to conceal mental illness and continue to harm others while concealing the illness. I'm very content that I'd much rather have a weapon myself to defend myself from that person or change social systems to encourage that person to seek treatment without criminalizing illness. That's really what I'm getting from this discussion, that people want mental illnesses like depression to be treated like criminal acts worthy of punishment. That's literally the opposite of destigmatizing mental illness and its counterproductive to treatment and encouragement of treatment.

Also, I hate to be tribal about this but countries that long since gave up their right to bear arms really don't have a dog in the race to comment about American gun ownership rights.

[XSI]

Amusingly, there was that one parasite that comes in cats that makes people more left politically when they've been exposed to it, and there's the study where magnets disabling/impeding parts of the brain related to threat processing made people more willing to support open borders
Brain science is going places and we have no idea how to deal with that yet, because as it turns out you can fuck with people's brains a lot more than we first thought, for better or worse

And some of those can be thought of as mental disorders

[DemonFiren]

the way you're presenting that makes it sound like this only applies to progressive concepts
i'm sure the fluorine in america's water makes people more conservative and unwilling to change the status quo so the 1% can remain in power
no wonder california is so liberal, they're perpetually out of water

[XSI]

It also applies to conservative concepts

Shit's fucked on all sides basically

[cedarbridge]

Or if you want a less passive aggressive argument, stop your media from broadcasting to the world each time a major school shooting happens.

Have you tried asking the Beeb to stop covering our news more than they cover local events?

[Incomptinence]

All UK local events are covered in the weather report.

[Grazyn]

https://www.google.it/search?q=liberali ... 8&bih=1024

Look at that. See how many people unironically believe that. Then imagine a law that says "people with a mental illness can't own a gun" and think again

Thanks for a google image search on memes. People unironically believe in a lot of things like dick red button measuring contests on twitter. I guess that means tomorrow we'll outlaw the existence of liberals and nuke Pyongyang. Tell me why the land of the free will restrict your rights based on political allegiance without resorting to "The enemies of democracy will lose their rights!" and without resorting to anti-democratic memes.

Unless you think the land of the free is on the cusp of declaring liberals as being a mentally degenerate before the UK or Germany would.

So what you're saying is that you're fine with your political opponents losing their rights because they're already "enemies of democracy". There are people in this very thread arguing whether or not liberalism is a mental disease and you don't see any problem with a hypotetical law that restricts gun rights for people with a mental disease. I assume you lean left/center-left, don't you? You're making the age-old mistake of assuming that restrictive laws will only be used to remove undesirable extremists, but this is never the case. They will be used by fascists to remove YOU. Don't fall for that. The western world is steadily going towards a much more authoritarian society, and citizens are gonna need every gun they can put their hands on.

[XSI]

Basically that
Any law that can be used against anyone will be used by government to remove or suppress people they disagree with at some point.

This held true since Rome at the least, and probably much earlier in history as well

[Grazyn]

>"If you take guns away from mental people, nazis and communists will be deemed mental and will lose their guns!"
>could you try to not use nazis and communists to defend gun rights? They're murderous, authoritarian and overthrow democracies
>"So you're fine with taking guns away from these people?"
I proposed taking guns away from people who will shoot you out of irrational thought. I don't know why you think that covers political leaning. Though maybe you have a point if Murica's vice president wants to zap the gay out of people, they might make being gay a mental disorder again and then we'll be back to an earlier answer I gave you about the irrational person not having a gun whilst the bad people do - have no guns!

I should've explained it better, nowadays words like "communist" and "nazi" are thrown out to discredit the political opponent of the week, not to define actual members of the NSDAP. Bernie Sanders was a "communist", Trump supporters are "nazis" and so on. And at the same time, we're seeing a growing medicalisation of dissent, where opponents are often called "mentally insane": liberals have a mental disorder, christian conservatives are nutjobs or "wingnuts" and so on. In this political climate, I'm sure you will understand why I am worried when someone starts to seriously throw around the idea of stripping the "crazies" of their rights. And the fact that people like you are already swallowing it hook, line and sinker because "only extremists and enemies of democracy will be affected" is even more worrying.

[DemonFiren]

Man, it sure feels good to live in a country where the only commonly available weapon is the tactical assault truck.

[Malkevin]

Amusingly, there was that one parasite that comes in cats that makes people more left politically when they've been exposed to it, and there's the study where magnets disabling/impeding parts of the brain related to threat processing made people more willing to support open borders
Brain science is going places and we have no idea how to deal with that yet, because as it turns out you can fuck with people's brains a lot more than we first thought, for better or worse

And some of those can be thought of as mental disorders

Is that the parasite in cat shit that shuts down the threat centre of the brain and gives an attraction to cat piss, a symbiotic relationship with the cat as it makes mice less avoident of cats?

[FantasticFwoosh]

Ironically animal rights activists and people who own pets would correlate to idiotic shows of 'muh liberalism' at personal risk and complete public disregard.

Toxoplasmosis Gondii.

[Grazyn]

a handy guide on the upcoming Italian elections

[DemonFiren]

>verhofstadt
Who's that guy?

[Takeguru]

I've had cats for as long as I've been alive, and I can't really say I'm on the left

It's not a hard science if anything

Magnets make sense though, probably why so many millennials have their heads up their ass about politics

[XSI]

The cat one, yes
It apparently greatly increases someone's preference for the different and makes the danger-processing centers of the brain less active

Only if you actually get it and apparently it's subtle. Not every cat has it either

[DemonFiren]

Catty, or batty?

[XSI]

Treason lost its meaning a long time ago
It's been normalized for at least 50 years now, probably more. It's hard to point to the exact date

[cedarbridge]

Man, it sure feels good to live in a country where the only commonly available weapon is the tactical assault truck.

Are swastikas and nazi flags not weapons?
this sounded funny in my head

Wasn't it Sin City that had the throwing-star swastikas?