*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

What you're asking is... how does someone who used to work for the FCO have a contact in the FCO?

Oh sorry I thought FCO was some gov't body that dealt with nerve agents or some such. yeah, stupid question.

But I'm guessing no-one outside the UK knows that FCO stands for Foreign and Commonwealth Office either.

[OngBonga]

The problem with Trump is he has 'I'm guilty' stamped all over him.

I'm impressed with how astoundingly biased you can start a reply about bias with.

...interfered with our election

Hasn't this been utterly debunked?

Oh sorry I thought FCO was some gov't body that dealt with nerve agents or some such.

Haha right yeah, I though at least you'd know what FCO is.

[Poopadoop]

I'm impressed with how astoundingly biased you can start a reply about bias with.

Perhaps the bias you're perceiving is due to your own bias the other way.

Hasn't this been utterly debunked?

You mean Russia interfering with the US election? Well they just indicted a dozen or so Russian nationals on that very basis so obv. you don't mean that...

Or do you mean that Trump's campaign team was complicit? Think that's up for debate. The fact that he hired certain people who are clearly dodgy, and that he himself is acting so dodgy about the whole thing, and the amount of other circumstantial evidence, makes me skeptical that he's altogether innocent. Could all just be a set of coincidences though, not sure.

Haha right yeah, I though at least you'd know what FCO is.

Don't underestimate my capacity for not knowing things please.

[OngBonga]

No it's just "he has I'm guilty stamped all over him" perfectly demonstrates the inherent bias. This should be eivdent even to those who agree with you.

You mean Russia interfering with the US election? Well they just indicted a dozen or so Russian nationals on that very basis so obv. you don't mean that...

ok well as long as we're not still flirting with the idea that the Russians "hacked" it.

makes me skeptical that he's altogether innocent.

I couldn't give a fuck if he is or isn't. Talking to potential international partners is to be expected. Of course he'd be shady about it... it will cost him votes because of the massive anti-Russia propaganda we've been exposed to for best part of a century.

[Poopadoop]

No it's just "he has I'm guilty stamped all over him" perfectly demonstrates the inherent bias. This should be eivdent even to those who agree with you.

I disagree. If I come home to find the sofa chewed up and my dog greets my at the door by grovelling at my feet, I'd say 'he has guilty stamped all over him', and that's an accurate description of his behaviour. It doesn't mean he is guilty, just that he acts guilty.

ok well as long as we're not still flirting with the idea that the Russians "hacked" it.

Interesting though that Trump doesn't seem to be doing anything to keep them from hacking the midterms.

it will cost him votes because of the massive anti-Russia propaganda we've been exposed to for best part of a century.

Wouldn't make a difference if it was Russia or Brazil or the UK or Canada. It's illegal for obvious reasons to conspire with a foreign government to receive support for your campaign in return for political favours.

[BananaStand]

The problem with Trump is he has 'I'm guilty' stamped all over him

Stamped by CNN, lol

He won't say a bad word about Russia no matter what,

False. Also, actions speak louder than words. You probably missed the part about how Trump launched cruise missile attacks against Syria and armed the Ukraine. Funny how that doesn't really make it in to the libtard news cycle.

he fired his Sec. State the day after he criticised Russia.

LOL, how do you not die of irony here? You're conflating correlation and causation.

His campaign team was full of people tied to Russia in shady ways.

Name one?

He fires anyone who is sniffing around Russia like Comey

He fires people who do a bad job. There you go again with the correlation/causation fallacy. Comey is about to be under investigation himself FFS!!!

and wants to fire Mueller

Cause Mueller is witch-hunting

and ...the list goes on and on.

Really? Keep going then. I'm pretty sure you've exhausted the list of liberal lies being propagated by the mainstream media. But please, if you know something else...tell us.

[BananaStand]

the amount of other circumstantial evidence,

Please....elaborate

Oh, and if you can....please try and identify the SOURCE of any circumstantial evidence you cite.

[BananaStand]

in return for political favours.

this is completely unsubstantiated, unproven, and without any degree of credible merit. It's completely made up.

What favors (spelled correctly) did Russia get?

Were they thrilled that we blew up their shit in Syria, or that we armed a hostile neighbor of theirs? Was that their plan all along? Help Trump win, then let Trump undermine Russian national security?? Holy shit Putin must be one hell of a stable genius.

[CoccoBill]

There's questionable unproven evidence that Trump has done something.

There's questionable unproven evidence that Hillary has done something.

If one's response to these is that one is without a doubt innocent and the other one guilty, the only logical explanation to that is bias.

And inb4 anyone tells me what I actually think, I don't know if Trump is guilty, but I think there's enough to warrant an investigation. I don't know if Hillary is guilty, but I'd have no objections about an investigation.

[BananaStand]

but I think there's enough to warrant an investigation.

Like what, specifically?

[CoccoBill]

Like what, specifically?

You know what, but even Comey's allegations alone. Not investigating alleged links between a foreign power and a presidential campaign would be stupendously stupid without extremely solid proof that nothing definitely happened.

[Poopadoop]

James Comey on twitter:

Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.

Ruh roh!

[BananaStand]

You know what,

But clearly you don't. You just blue-pilled yourself into believing it because you don't like Trump.

but even Comey's allegations alone

What allegations?

Not investigating alleged links between a foreign power and a presidential campaign would be stupendously stupid without extremely solid proof that nothing definitely happened.

So because Hillary alleges it....that means a multi-million dollar, 2 year inquiry has to be launched??

Just like that?????

You need to spend some time out of that tyrannical left wing echo chamber you live in.

[Poopadoop]

Trump's tweet which led to Comey's response

Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to Senator G [Chairman Charles Grassley] when asked ‘have you ever been an anonymous source…or known someone else to be an anonymous source…?’ He said strongly ‘never, no.’ He lied as shown clearly on @foxandfriends.”

Fox and Friends, that arbiter of truth, is the president's proof that Comey lied under oath.

rofl.

[BananaStand]

James Comey on twitter:
Ruh roh!

LOL, I think Stormy Daniels has a better chance of bringing down Trump than Comey does.

And her chances are approximately zilch.

[Poopadoop]

So then why aren't we investigating any Trump-Finland connections?

Because no-one has alleged any. Because none of his campaign team had shady business dealings with Finland. Because no-one lied about talking to Finns. Because the president never conspired to make up a story about why they were talking to Finns.

See how easy that is?

[Poopadoop]

LOL, I think Stormy Daniels has a better chance of bringing down Trump than Comey does.

And her chances are approximately zilch.

The cool thing is, Trump is bringing himself down every day. He barely needs any help doing it. It is almost as much fun to watch him self-immolate as it is to watch his apologists describe his self-immolation as 3D chess.

[BananaStand]

Because no-one has alleged any. Because none of his campaign team had shady business dealings with Finland. Because no-one lied about talking to Finns. Because the president never conspired to make up a story about why they were talking to Finns.

See how easy that is?

Yeah, I missed the word "alleged". I ninja-edited it. But not fast enough

The question now is....why are allegations enough?

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I missed the word "alleged". I ninja-edited it. But not fast enough

The question now is....why are allegations enough?

Because typically (and in this case) they are based on suspicions which are founded in something tangible but not conclusive. That's why you investigate allegations to see if they are true.

[BananaStand]

Because typically (and in this case) they are based on suspicions which are founded in something tangible but not conclusive. That's why you investigate allegations to see if they are true.

Shouldn't we first investigate the credibility of the person making the allegations. If they have an obvious reason to have a heavily biased perceptions of events....are their allegations credible??

Imagine if I accused you of having six heads, is your willingness to investigate influenced by the fact that you just saw me take LSD?

[Poopadoop]

Shouldn't we first investigate the credibility of the person making the allegations. If they have an obvious reason to have a heavily biased perceptions of events....are their allegations credible??

When the former head of the FBI swears under oath about the president asking him to let his buddy (Flynn) off the hook, then I think no matter what you think of either Comey or Trump you should investigate it, yes.

[CoccoBill]

But clearly you don't. You just blue-pilled yourself into believing it because you don't like Trump.

Cute. I just said I don't "believe" them, I just think there's enough to warrant an investigation. You on the other hand have decided to believe without a doubt they're false, without any tangible proof.

What allegations?

You know what allegations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_..._investigation

So because Hillary alleges it....that means a multi-million dollar, 2 year inquiry has to be launched??

Just like that?????

You need to spend some time out of that tyrannical left wing echo chamber you live in.

I said nothing about Hillary alleging anything.

It is sorta fun to watch you squirm though.

[Poopadoop]

Imagine if I accused you of having six heads, is your willingness to investigate influenced by the fact that you just saw me take LSD?

Not even close to being a valid argument, since no-one witnessed Comey take LSD prior to his meeting with Trump and there's no reason to think therefore that he hallucinated the alleged words that Trump allegedly said to him.

[Poopadoop]

I said nothing about Hillary alleging anything.

It is sorta fun to watch you squirm though.

Lol ya I don't know where Hillary fits in all this unless banana thinks she's a shape-shifter who assumed Comey's form for the express purpose of making the allegations.

[BananaStand]

When the former head of the FBI swears under oath about the president asking him to let his buddy (Flynn) off the hook, then I think no matter what you think of either Comey or Trump you should investigate it, yes.

That's just a legal magic trick. They can't get an obstruction charge without proving intent. And since intent can't be proven...that should be the end of the investigation. Instead, people like you have blue-pilled themselves to try and prove intent by showing that the Russia stuff is true.

[Poopadoop]

That's just a legal magic trick. They can't get an obstruction charge without proving intent. And since intent can't be proven...that should be the end of the investigation. Instead, people like you have blue-pilled themselves to try and prove intent by showing that the Russia stuff is true.

I'm not the one in charge of the investigation, so what I think has zero influence on how it all shakes out.

You should instead maybe be talking to your congressman if you feel the investigation is such a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

[BananaStand]

i didnt say you, i said people like you and that includes my congressperson

mueller is department of justice. thays the executive branch. congress is the legislative branch.

congress has already concluded its investogation and released its findings. did you happen to catch what that report said????

[wufwugy]

When Trump tweets about something he thinks has happened, it is likely that he already knows it happened. This has revealed several times in the past. Like when he tweeted about being illegal spied on by the Obama administration, he already knew he was because of his clearance. The media called him a stupid liar but then months later after reports were released by Congress that confirmed what Trump said, mum's the word.

[wufwugy]

Apparently just before Mueller was appointed, he was working for the same firm that represented Manafort.

+1 for the theory that Trump (and Flynn/others) implemented a sting with the ultimate goal of getting Obama and his fellow criminals to illegally spy on him.

I'm not sure if I believe that one. I'm more partial to the one that I think is more or less confirmed, that Trump was informed by the admiral head of the NSA after he won that Obama illegally bugged Trump Tower (illegally using FISA).

[BananaStand]

I just watched AirForce one arrive for Trump's scheduled visit to NH. My office window is about 20 inches from the runway so I got a first hand view of the operation.

If you saw what I just saw, you wouldn't be worried about "who pays" for school security.

[BananaStand]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20...-confirms.html

The Associated Press reported one of the three people injured is the shooter. The shooter's identity was not immediately available. ABC 7 reported a school resource officer jumped into action to bring the situation to an end.

Obviously this is a developing story and details are still forthcoming. So nothing definitive yet. But if this is a case where a qualified, well-trained, armed school resource officer turned this from a situation with dozens of potential fatalities to a situation with only two injuries....then I want to hear Poop and Oskar explain why having armed school staff is a bad idea.

Thus far the only argument they've made is that the potential for accidents would result in more deaths. This shooting today could have been 20 deaths, or 50. The worst result of an accident so far was when some broken ceiling tiles fell on a kid's head.

[oskar]

Since we have already established that it costs exactly zero dollarinos to put armed officers in every school, I don't see why not. The more shootings there are, the more officers you put in place. Thus solving the problem once and for all. You have made a great case and I must concede my point. I don't even know why we don't just gift guns to mentally unstable people since it will create jobs and cost zero lives.

[OngBonga]

I have no argument therefore allow me to be absurd.

[oskar]

Banana said exactly that. It costs literally no money, but also: Trump lives vicariously so there's infinite money for everything anyway. I'll just go with that. You want me to seriously argue against that? I feel more productive licking a window.

[BananaStand]

Since we have already established that it costs exactly zero dollarinos to put armed officers in every school,

movicus el goalpostium

What we established, was that if the officer is already there, the marginal costs of keeping that officer's training up to an acceptable standard of performance is negligibly small.

[OngBonga]

If banana was arguing that training teachers will cost nothing, then that is indeed absurd. However, as I recall, he was talking about guards (even you said officers, not teachers), who already undergo training, therefore the additional cost of training guards should be zero because they should already be being trained to a high standard. What extra cost is there? The extra cost is the salary of the guard.

Teachers, well if we're training them, then sure that costs more money, but it might be less than an "officer" whose sole duty is to guard the school, as opposed a teacher who has duties beyond being a guard, such as teaching. Perhaps there will be greater value.

One way or another, I don't see that cost is really a relevant issue. The morality and sanity of arming teachers is open to debate, but surely you take the extra cost on the chin? It'll be peanuts compared to what governments collect in tax revenue.

[BananaStand]

If banana was arguing that training teachers will cost nothing, then that is indeed absurd. However, as I recall, he was talking about guards (even you said officers, not teachers), who already undergo training, therefore the additional cost of training guards should be zero because they should already be being trained to a high standard. What extra cost is there? The extra cost is the salary of the guard.

Teachers, well if we're training them, then sure that costs more money, but it might be less than an "officer" whose sole duty is to guard the school, as opposed a teacher who has duties beyond being a guard, such as teaching. Perhaps there will be greater value.

One way or another, I don't see that cost is really a relevant issue. The morality and sanity of arming teachers is open to debate, but surely you take the extra cost on the chin? It'll be peanuts compared to what governments collect in tax revenue.

Even you have been deluded by the propaganda man. Fortunately though, you're not hopelessly lost like some others.

The phrase "arm teachers" is literally incorrect. No one is talking about drafting teachers to some kind of task force, training them like soldiers at boot camp, and then unleashing them as Gestapo hall monitors. That's what the left wants you to believe. They want you to think that schools are going to ask frail, timid, white-haired english teachers to get strapped. They want you to imagine this whole new ominous responsibility being imposed on educators. That's not the case at all.

Lots of teachers already own guns. All they want to do is bring their guns to school. If they can demonstrate a record of responsibility and a knowledge of appropriate safety measures, then why wouldn't the school let them? Furthermore, why wouldn't the school WANT that?

And how the fuck does that cost money?

[BananaStand]

More details rolling in now. The shooter was indeed engaged by an armed officer. He did fire, and so did the shooter. Though it's not clear if the officer killed the shooter, or if the shooter killed himself. Either way, it was the engagement with the officer that ended the shooting and the shooter.

What's the over/under on how long it takes for the left to suggest that Trump set this whole thing up?

[oskar]

If banana was arguing that training teachers will cost nothing, then that is indeed absurd. However, as I recall, he was talking about guards (even you said officers, not teachers), who already undergo training, therefore the additional cost of training guards should be zero because they should already be being trained to a high standard. What extra cost is there? The extra cost is the salary of the guard.

Teachers, well if we're training them, then sure that costs more money, but it might be less than an "officer" whose sole duty is to guard the school, as opposed a teacher who has duties beyond being a guard, such as teaching. Perhaps there will be greater value.

One way or another, I don't see that cost is really a relevant issue. The morality and sanity of arming teachers is open to debate, but surely you take the extra cost on the chin? It'll be peanuts compared to what governments collect in tax revenue.

So let me break this down again:

This is a localized problem within the US.
Countries that are culturally and economically comparable don't have these types of shootings.
In multiple of these shootings, the shooter had been diagnosed with a mental illness, but was still able to legally purchase a firearm.
Unless you have been institutionalized you can probably still legally purchase a firearm regardless of your medical history.
In many of these shootings the assailant was reported for saying they will carry out an attack, yet no further action was taken by the authorities.

With all of that, my first go-to wouldn't be to arm teachers or put more armed guards in schools. Even SWAT teams that presumably receive adequate training, still run the risk of executing innocent unarmed people based on a fake report. Cops do kill kids with toy guns occasionally. So yes, I think security officers pose an unnecessary risk to an environment that should not be at risk given reasonable gun laws and competent reaction to terroristic threats.

[OngBonga]

This is a localized problem within the US.

Well I'm not arguing in favour of arming anyone in English or Finnish schools. USA is unique, and requires a unique solution.

I just find it strange that a lot of people seem to be more horrified at the thought of allowing teachers to have guns than they are about some nutjob wiping out a load of kids. If the former stops the latter, then what's the problem?

[oskar]

Because it's the epitome of symptomatic problem solving. Europe has had school shootings. Not anymore. You just recently ran into one of the consequences.
Unless you want to pull a wuf and say the 2011 norway shooting or the Charlie Hebdo shooting would have happened in schools if the whole of europe wasn't a "soft target", we're comparing a shooting every couple of weeks to one a decade. The difference to me seems obvious: much tougher background checks and proactive psychological evaluation of students.

Yes, sometimes an armed guard can intervene and there's only 3 dead kids instead of 20. But sometimes there are 20 dead kids. Unless you can put one Jack Bauer in every classroom, that's not a very effective solution.

[oskar]

Well I'm not arguing in favour of arming anyone in English or Finnish schools. USA is unique, and requires a unique solution.

In what way are they unique?

[Poopadoop]

In what way are they unique?

You already answered this. Any nutjob can purchase a gun legally.

The solution obviously isn't to address that fact, it's to make sure the ratio of lethally armed non-nutjobs to lethally armed nutjobs is high enough to reduce the number of deaths from dozens to a few every time, assuming the non-nutjob in question puts on their big boy pants and confronts the nutjob.

Sheesh.

[BananaStand]

So let me break this down again:

Yes please, let's do that.

This is a localized problem within the US.

Is it? The numbers don't support that conclusion. Perhaps if you're going to narrow the criteria to be just "school shootings", you might have some numbers. But even that data looks like swiss cheese when you consider what 'counts' as a school shooting

Furthermore, the comparison you're making ignores significant factors. In a country where guns are allowed, shootings are going to be most concentrated in the softest targets. If your whole country is a soft-target, then your shootings are going to be more disbursed.

Countries that are culturally and economically comparable don't have these types of shootings

.
Not true. See the links above. The US ranks 11th. But let's assume for a minute that it were true. Does that mean that the US is somehow "worse off"? Look at Ong's situation. He's potentially got criminals poking around his property and the best he can do is buy a Louisville Slugger.

In multiple of these shootings, the shooter had been diagnosed with a mental illness, but was still able to legally purchase a firearm.

So? The DSM-V contains enough mental illnesses to diagnose 70% of the population. I'm almost more concerned about the other 30%. What kind of sick sociopath do you have to be for a psychologist to declare you "normal".

Unless you have been institutionalized you can probably still legally purchase a firearm regardless of your medical history.

Where are you going with this? An episode of mental illness in one's past automatically precludes them from buying a gun ever? That's not a world I want to live in. Do you know how many soldiers come back from war with PTSD? Are we really saying they can't have a gun??

How about your medical history doesn't mean shit. How about if you're a free citizen, you can exercise your rights as you see fit, including owning a gun. If some crazy people get guns, so be it. That's a FAR better alternative then letting ideologues with medical licenses become arbiters of freedom.

In many of these shootings the assailant was reported for saying they will carry out an attack, yet no further action was taken by the authorities.

Really bud? Really? Didn't you just rail against me for half a dozen posts about "who pays" for something as simple as providing active shooter training to a school resource officer? Now you want to have law enforcement take action every time someone makes a shitpost on the internet?

With all of that those potential means to infringe on the rights of an innocent person, my first go-to wouldn't be to arm teachers or put more armed guards in schools security.

Fixed your post

Even SWAT teams that presumably receive adequate training, still run the risk of executing innocent unarmed people based on a fake report. Cops do kill kids with toy guns occasionally. So yes, I think security officers pose an unnecessary risk

SO? SWAT teams and cops do a hell of a lot more good than bad. No system is perfect. Human beings make mistakes. Now we have data that shows what things look like when mistakes are made and risks are realized. When guns were brought to school, a risk was taken, and that risk was realized when a broken ceiling tile fell on a kid's neck he got cuts and scrapes. The benefit of taking that risk...of having armed security in schools.....was shown today in the potential saving of dozens of lives.

You don't think the risk is worth it? Really???????????????? x?^100000000000

to an environment that should not be at risk

Pollyanna talk. C'mon man. one of the reasons there are so many school shootings...is because it happened once. After Columbine got so much attention, any kid who is thinking "How am I gonna cause massive chaos on my way out?" now has something to look at for inspiration.

given reasonable gun laws and competent reaction to terroristic threats.

More liberal propaganda. Why do you get to claim the words "reasonable" and "competent" for your views? I think your proposals sound oppressive and invasive. I think you're playing a dangerous game with people's fundamental rights, in the name of a phenomenon that claims, on average, less than 50 lives a year. Nothing you've said sounds "reasonable" to me.

[BananaStand]

proactive psychological evaluation of students.

Worst idea ever.

Do you have kids?

[BananaStand]

You already answered this. Any nutjob can purchase a gun legally

who decides who is a "nutjob" and who isn't?

What about the nutjobs that you don't know are nutjobs?

Does the statistical fact that a nutjob is more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a perpetrator matter to you? How do you propose the nutjobs protect themselves?

[Poopadoop]

who decides who is a "nutjob" and who isn't?

Not someone who's diagnostic criteria put 70% of the population in the nutjob category.

What about the nutjobs that you don't know are nutjobs?

What about them?

Does the statistical fact that a nutjob is more likely to be a victim of a shooting than a perpetrator matter to you? How do you propose the nutjobs protect themselves?

Is that a statistical fact, and if so, where did you get it?

[oskar]

I'm not running in circles with you. I've already explained why these statistics aren't useful when wuf posted them.

Where are you going with this? An episode of mental illness in one's past automatically precludes them from buying a gun ever? That's not a world I want to live in. Do you know how many soldiers come back from war with PTSD? Are we really saying they can't have a gun??

Yes
Here's a video of a cop who was later diagnosed with having had PTSD from a previous incident going about his duty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE

[BananaStand]

I'm not running in circles with you.

You mean, you have no defense of your incorrect, statistically disproved, claims. Gothcya

Yes

That's insane.

Here's a video of a cop who was later diagnosed with having had PTSD from a previous incident going about his duty:

movicus el goalpostium

We're not talking about PTSD and fitness for duty in law enforcement. We're talking about PTSD and a person's right to defend life and property.

[BananaStand]

Not someone who's diagnostic criteria put 70% of the population in the nutjob category.

Who then?

What about them?

Well....according to a stat I just found (cited below), 95% of shootings are committed by people WITHOUT a diagnosable mental illness. So....how is denying the rights of known nutjobs going to help?

Is that a statistical fact, and if so, where did you get it?

I actually heard it from a psychologist that I know. But a quick google search turns of shitloads of confirming results, including this one:

http://behavioralscientist.org/myth-...ass-shootings/

less than 5% of shootings are committed by people with a diagnosable mental illness. Like mentally healthy offenders, the mentally ill are far more likely to shoot people they know rather than strangers. The mentally ill are also far more likely to be victims of gun violence rather than perpetrators.

EDIT: Here's some more

https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Publ...Reporting-Laws

In fact, people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence.

https://www.apa.org/advocacy/gun-vio...erceptions.pdf

persons with serious mental illness are significantly more likely to be the victims of violence than to perpetrate it

[oskar]

So, Ong. You understand why I didn't want to waste the effort. This is a lost cause.

[BananaStand]

So, Ong. You understand why I didn't want to waste the effort. This is a lost cause.

You call it a "waste of effort" but what you're really saying is that you're incapable.

You've made a number of claims and assertions. I've challenged them sincerely and honestly. You are now saying that defending those claims against that challenge "isn't worth it?". What does that say about your claims in the first place?

I mean, what the fuck man?? You said that returning soldiers with PTSD shouldn't be allowed to have guns. When asked why? You said "well here's a cop who fucked up once"

You proud of that?

[Poopadoop]

So, Ong. You understand why I didn't want to waste the effort. This is a lost cause.

Some people think shouting "You're wrong you *!(&!*!" over and over till you get sick of it and leave means they won the 'argument'.

This is a lost cause.

Pretty much.

But I am interested in whether Ong really thinks the resources are better spent on arming teachers/guard/w/e than in mental health and gun control.

[BananaStand]

mental health and gun control.

You mean 'wizardry and tyranny'

[OngBonga]

In what way are they unique?

This has been answered. USA is unique because pretty much anybody can buy a gun.

[OngBonga]

But I am interested in whether Ong really thinks the resources are better spent on arming teachers/guard/w/e than in mental health and gun control.

Yes. Gun control is too contentious an issue in USA and any effort to curb the widespread ownership of guns will simply cause friction between political opponents while ensuring the bad guy to good guy ratio is shifting ever more in favour of the bad guy.

And if you think throwing money at mental health research, facilities and treatment is going to make a blind bit of difference, you're living in a dream world.

Arming teachers is a deterrant. It might just work.

[oskar]

And why should that not be changed for people with severe mental disorders or people who have made terroristic threats? The TSC can put people on no-fly lists for way less. That's arguably a bigger encroachment on a persons freedom than their right to purchase a firearm.

[OngBonga]

I agree with oskar on that point.

[BananaStand]

And why should that not be changed for people with severe mental disorders or people who have made terroristic threats? The TSC can put people on no-fly lists for way less. That's arguably a bigger encroachment on a persons freedom than their right to purchase a firearm.

The bolded is objectively wrong.

The right to bear arms is codified into law. The privilege of flying isn't.

[BananaStand]

And why should that not be changed for people with severe mental disorders

Which mental disorders...specifically?

or people who have made terroristic threats?

So let's say you leave your facebook logged in and fall asleep. Then your ass-hole kid brother comes in and plays a prank by posting something on your feed that could be construed as violent or terroristic? You can't ever buy a gun again?

Or let's say MadMojoMonkey finally cracks under the pressure and frustration of his irrelevance here and decides to post "I wish I could shoot you in the face Banana!". He doesn't really want to shoot me in the face. It's just an expression of rage that came out in a forum where he is ostensibly anonymous. Are we really saying that's a legit, credible threat that should undermine a person's constitutional rights?

Your ideas aren't very fleshed out, and every time we try to dig into the details, we devolve very quickly into invasive oppression of people's rights.

Proactive psychological testing??

WHAT????????

The rights of people to bear arms "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". That's the law. Those exact words. But you're advocating a policy where no one has the right to bear arms unless you submit to a government evaluation. And then only people with the "correct" personality can have rights. Everyone else is fucked.

[OngBonga]

The bolded is objectively wrong.

The right to bear arms is codified into law. The privilege of flying isn't.

Freedom of movement is though.

[OngBonga]

Which mental disorders...specifically?

Let's throw paranoid schitzophrenia out there for one. You happy for someone who might think your kid is a gook soldier to carry a weapon around in public?

[OngBonga]

So let's say you leave your facebook logged in and fall asleep. Then your ass-hole kid brother comes in and plays a prank by posting something on your feed that could be construed as violent or terroristic? You can't ever buy a gun again?

It's not outrageous that it should be looked into. If it was just a prank, well they won't be google history researching school shootings, for example. A nutjob doesn't just make one shitpost and then go into hiding, he leaves a trail. A shitpost saying "Ima kill kids" might just be enough to have a look into, just to see if it's a habit.

[BananaStand]

Let's throw paranoid schitzophrenia out there for one.

Ok, that's one. It affects 1.1% of the population. Another 68.9% of the population has another disorder diagnosable under the DSM-V.

Which ones should preclude gun ownership, and which ones are ok?

[oskar]

The bolded is objectively wrong.

The right to bear arms is codified into law. The privilege of flying isn't.

It's not very specific tho, is it? There's nothing in the constitution that the 2nd amendment does not apply to convicted criminals. Neither does it specify the types of arms a well regulated militia might bear. Why not fully automatic weapons? Explosives? Bio-chemical weapons? Anti personnel mines? Why should you not be allowed to own an anti-personnel mine as a convicted felon when that right is clearly codified into law.

[OngBonga]

Ok, that's one. It affects 1.1% of the population. Another 68.9% of the population has another disorder diagnosable under the DSM-V.

Which ones should preclude gun ownership, and which ones are ok?

Any other mental illness that has a documented risk of the affected person acting in an uncontrollably violent manner. I don't think I'm casting a wide net here, I'm expecting to trim off 5% maybe.

[OngBonga]

Ok perhaps a better question to ask is...

If I was accused of murder, what mental illness would give me the defence of "diminshed responsibility"?

Let's take those illnesses as a starting point.

[oskar]

Which mental disorders...specifically?

There's a strict list of criteria that needs to be met for someone to lose autonomy. When you're forcibly admitted to an institution or for someone to gain guardianship of an adult family member. Those are a good start.

[BananaStand]

It's not very specific tho, is it? There's nothing in the constitution that the 2nd amendment does not apply to convicted criminals. Neither does it specify the types of arms a well regulated militia might bear. Why not fully automatic weapons? Explosives? Bio-chemical weapons? Anti personnel mines? Why should you not be allowed to own an anti-personnel mine as a convicted felon when that right is clearly codified into law.

It sounds like you're saying that bad laws are an excuse for more bad laws.

In reality, there are methods by which a convicted but rehabilitated felon can have their charges expunged and access firearms again.

Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?

[Poopadoop]

The privilege of flying isn't.

Isn't one of your amendments about the right to go about your business unimpeded?

[BananaStand]

When you're forcibly admitted to an institution

It's already been demonstrated that process is broken in a way that is very much corrupt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/o...-shooters.html

[OngBonga]

Also, I kinda lean towards the idea that people should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons, explosives, or whatever. If the government can have it....why can't you?

But you don't think Kim should have nukes? What sort of hypocrisy is this?

[BananaStand]

Isn't one of your amendments about the right to go about your business unimpeded?

No

[BananaStand]

But you don't think Kim should have nukes? What sort of hypocrisy is this?

he's not an American citizen. Constitution doesn't apply to him

[OngBonga]

he's not an American citizen. Constitution doesn't apply to him

Nice.