One piece of "this gun violence sprang from the climate of hate, so conservatives should shut up now" drivel sounds pretty much like another, so let's quote former Mayor Paul Helmke of the Brady campaign just to give a nod to a hometown boy trying to make his mark:
We also are deeply concerned about the heated political rhetoric that escalates debates and controversies, and sometimes makes it seem as if violence is an acceptable response to honest disagreements.
I don't know if the shooter is indeed a paranoid schizophrenic, as this psychiatrist says, but it's pretty clear he suffers from some major mental illness, which means searching for a rational explanation for his actions is pretty pointless. There is a needed discussion or two to have, and maybe we can get to them once the political opportunists wind down: 1. How do we act on "warning signals" to try to prevent someone from acting out his violent fantasies without violating the rights of those who might have the signals but not the fantasies? 2. How do we do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the unbalanced without violating everyone else's rights?
Comments
Phil Marx:
"Again, the question which larsen has repeatedly asked of you, and which I now ask, is how much money is too much to spend on health care?"
My point was taking health care away was not a good idea. There's no way to answer "how much is too much?" because that's just a way of avoiding saying spending less might be a bad idea, and that the money will still be spent on it through the judiciary, law enforcement and incarceration.
Which I have stated before, in this thread, repeatedly.
"I also ask you once again to explain how funds being cut in Indiana has any relevance to the incident in Arizona."
I never claimed there was a direct correlation to the specific case, which I have once again, stated repeatedly. Especially since the point was, cutting funds here isn't going to help in avoiding a similar outcome here.
I mean, are you just purposely being dense about this?
As for Larsen: I don't really care what he did before. What he's saying now is disconnected from reality and dodging the point, so I don't see how his past has any bearing at all on that. My point about his not being elected is me stating that I'm glad he's not actually in charge of any public policy, not that what he's saying should be discredited.
And really Marx, are you trying to be hilarious? Earlier you said to me:
"If you ever decide to seek help for the mental health issues which you appear to be suffering from, let me know. I will personally write a letter to the Governor requesting that he pay for your medication."
Then you come around with:
"I realize it
Michael says:
"What I actually said - taking away mental health care from people who need it, who were already getting it, isn
"Yes, Michael, I
"Michael, I have repeatedly asked you if you have any reason to suspect that Loughner (the original focus of this thread) had ever sought or been denied mental health care. If not, then the issue of funding (anywhere) has absolutely no relevance to Loughner
Michael, you just said:
"My point was taking health care away was not a good idea..."
Again, as there is no evidence that funding (or lack thereof) for mental health care was an issue with the Loughner case, this goes back to relevance to the issue - or in your case, lack of relevance.
Marx, this is comedy. Does the last paragraph of this post not exist for you? XD
Michael says:
"I never claimed there was a direct correlation to the specific case..."
Then why did you bring it up?
Since there seems to be little effort on your part to focus on the issues currently being discussed, would you like to begin talking about the birds that recently fellfrom the skies?
You can start by blaming it on the greedy Republican Daniels. I'll take the counter position that all evil in this world today is because of Obama. Larsen can chime in anytime with the psycopathic Libertarian position.
Michael says:
"And really Marx, are you trying to be hilarious? Earlier you said to me:
Marx, Leo's going to get upset if you don't stop focusing entirely on Loughner and ignoring his two questions at the end of his post.
"That is why my overall focus has been with the ideas, not your personality disorders."
He says as he basically states I have a personality disorder. XD
Michael says:
"So you made a point that is demonstrably not about the article being biased, but you still think it
Michael says:
"...Yeah, you
I just wanted to be the first one to post comment #101 on Leo's blog!
Carry on!
Michael says:
"Marx, Leo
Congratulation, Tim. I've got dibs on #200.
By the way, I have to leave my computer now and will not be able to return until tomorrow evening. So if anyone directs any comments at me, please don't mistake my lack of response for being ignored.
"So, logically speaking, how can laws that make it tougher for people to get their drug ingredients and easier for them to be caught ever going to be responsible for causing an increase of the use of those drugs?"
Because the dealers and manufacturers reacted to the law, adjusted their plans, and still make and sell meth.
And not only did the law not curb meth production or sales, the use actually increased. That's not saying the law directly caused the rise, but demonstrably did not do anything to stop it.
So, tell me - given the number of labs busted, how many fewer labs are there now? Because the number busted doesn't tell us if the actual overall number is more or less. Unless you happen to know exactly how many meth labs there are to start with... you don't actually know if there are fewer or more labs out there now with these laws in place.
Marx, you're not even in the game.
But at least you finally tried to answer Leo's questions - 100+ comments in, and you're finally getting that this post isn't entirely about Loughner? You sir, are an idiot, but at least you're an entertaining idiot. XD
"I agree that there has been little focus on this question. Mental health programs may be underfunded, I have actually not expressed an opinion on that matter here, but that does not appear to be the issue with Loughner."
I mean, you even admit you've been dodging the point the entire thread as you continue to do so.
You sir, are a never-ending source of comedy.
Larsen: It seems you and Marx being clueless is some sort of new record.
What I actually said - taking away mental health care from people who need it, who were already getting it, isn
Michael,
I realized yesterday that you were unable to keep up the pace, so I decided to give you a break for the rest of the day. My hope was that you would take the time to reflect a bit and then actually be able to present a coherent thought. I
"I realized yesterday that you were unable to keep up the pace, so I decided to give you a break for the rest of the day."
Oh really?
"My abscence [sic] was intended to give you time to reflect."
Phil Marx, you can't spell absence much less plan one.
You stated before that you were butthurt that I wasn't being nice to you...
"I
That's funny Michael. I recognized you as the nutbag bicyclist from the start.
Leo began with writing;
"I don
"I believe that is when Michaelk42 began responding to my comments commenting on Daniels cut to mental healthcare."
Hrmm.
"As for spending money on Healthcare and psychiatric care, maybe the reason behind all the stress in this country is the government has attempted to due everything for people and the people have forgotten how to fend for themselves. We as a nation have become weak. Now after seven decades of government handouts, we are addicted to a government that can no longer afford to hand out free stuff Too many people feel entitled to entitlements and those who protest paying for these handouts are seen as uncarring, selfish and loonies."
Actually, you're saying here that mental health care is some kind of "handout" (also implying it's one of many others, unnamed) that makes people weak, and try to justify your "Fuck You, I Got Mine" outlook.
Never mind that my point was taking away care from people who already are diagnosed with a mental illness is not a good idea for them or society in general. William FYIGM Larsen has a narcissistic agenda of whining about his monies being used in some imaginary scheme that doesn't currently exist to screen people for mental illnesses.
Sure, keeping people who need medication on that medication (and seeing doctors, who need to monitor that medication's effectiveness, and to help them stay stable) does actually have a concrete effect on keeping people with mental problems from harming themselves or others.
But dammit, William FYIGM Larsen has conspiracy theories to rant about, and since we can't identify all threats beforehand we should just give up.
Ok boys, I'll just answer the dam* questions!!
Question #1 "1. How do we act on
And all I was adding to #2 was And don't take away supervision from people you actually already do know have issues.
Criminy, I don't know why Larsen and Marx can't clue into this.
Tim, after all this, good answer - I was wondering when someone would get to it and stop all the bickering - good job.