• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook: Beyond gun control, disease control

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
http://www.jewishjournal.com/david_suissa/article/sandy_hook_beyond_gun_control_disease_control

Ever since last Friday's murderous rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the primal scream of "We need tougher gun control laws!" has been heard throughout much of the blogosphere, social networks and mainstream media.

If it weren't so easy to obtain lethal weapons, the argument goes, it wouldn't be so easy to commit these horrific crimes.

This is a powerful argument, so powerful that it can blind us to a deeper argument- the notion that mass violence is very much a disease, and until we treat it as such, gun control and law enforcement can only do so much.

......

In a seminal study published in 2000 by The New York Times that examined 100 rampage attacks over 50 years, the authors noted our lack of knowledge on this subject: "While many possible causes have been cited, including violent video games, a decline in moral values and the easy availability of guns, there has been little serious study of this explosive violence."

We have "overlooked a critical issue," the study pointed out, which is that "at least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems."

The study adds: "Society has turned to law enforcement to resolve the rampage killings that have become almost a staple of the nightly news. There has been an increasing call for greater security in schools and in the workplace. But a closer look shows that these cases may have more to do with society's lack of knowledge of mental health issues, rather than a lack of security.

......
 
Here's a solution for you: implement a five cent tax on gunpowder to restore the mental health services Ronald Reagan gutted in the 1980s.

But that's pragmatic, and doesn't lend itself well to moralistic shrieking.

EDIT: Of course, this has also been proposed by the fellows at the Democratic Underground, so you may rest assured that fault will be found with the proposers of this policy, rather than the policy itself.
 
Last edited:
I think it is time for a mental health database. Anyone who has shown any sign of or who has sought treatment for mental health issues with a violence component should be put in the database with criminals and prohibited from buying any guns. The mentally ill often receive publicly funded healthcare--the diagnosis codes need to go in the database.
 
Here's a solution for you: implement a five cent tax on gunpowder to restore the mental health services Ronald Reagan gutted in the 1980s.

But that's pragmatic, and doesn't lend itself well to moralistic shrieking.

Except the democrats controlled the Congress and wrote the laws in the 1980's.
 
Strange, that, considering the concept of a gunpowder tax was first proposed by the laissez-faire Gladstonian Liberals in Britain in the 1890s.
 
Here's a solution for you: implement a five cent tax on gunpowder to restore the mental health services Ronald Reagan gutted in the 1980s.



There is always someone who claims the solution to everything is another and more taxes.

I think they are called "Democrats" or something like that. :confused:
 
There is always someone who claims the solution to everything is another and more taxes.

I think they are called "Democrats" or something like that. :confused:

And again: the idea of a gunpowder tax originated in Britain. In the 1890s. In the Party that at the time was associated with low-taxes.

Though, of course, that said, in a modern context, the Democrats did win the last election. Quite handily, too, might I add.
 
And Ronald Reagan openly championed 'deinstitutionalization' from his bully pulpit.

But all's well and good. The Republican Congress is responsible for Obamacare, after all. We all know that. The President's virtually powerless, isn't he?

Except to say no. But without Nancy in the pulpit, he isn't getting what he wants, including gun control.
 
Except to say no. But without Nancy in the pulpit, he isn't getting what he wants, including gun control.

Ah, I see. The real purpose of this thread reveals itself, and spares no time in doing so: a diversionary attempt to move the discussion away from gun control. "We need more mental health services! But we will take precisely no steps towards actually funding them!"

So shallow. And, God, you're so easy.
 
Ah, I see. The real purpose of this thread reveals itself, and spares no time in doing so: a diversionary attempt to move the discussion away from gun control. "We need more mental health services! But we will take precisely no steps towards actually funding them!"

So shallow. And, God, you're so easy.

I have been calling for mental health changes before we knew the body count. Taxing gun powder and crying about Reagan instead of addressing the issue was your doing. Have anything to say about the OP since you have not addressed it? I do oppose gun control and I do oppose letting psychos run the streets. How do we pay for it? Eliminate the earned income credit? End federally funded flood insurance and crop insurance? Require everybody to pay some income taxes even if it a dollar. Raise tariffs. Add a sin tax to everybody's paycheck for the sin of not caring about the mentally ill. Now that is out of the way, how do we provide these services that are being paid for by all the money I have just saved the world?
 
And again: the idea of a gunpowder tax originated in Britain. In the 1890s. In the Party that at the time was associated with low-taxes.

Though, of course, that said, in a modern context, the Democrats did win the last election. Quite handily, too, might I add.


Uneducated mobs put Stalin, Hilter and Mao into power too.
 
I have been calling for mental health changes before we knew the body count. Taxing gun powder and crying about Reagan instead of addressing the issue was your doing.

It was "my doing" because it's a pragmatic idea to fund more mental health services than we presently have. I "cried about Reagan" because, at one point, we had one of the greatest mental healthcare systems in the world. But Reagan, coupled with 'countercultural' lunatics like Thomas Szasz, saw to it that that system was destroyed in the 1970s and 1980s.

Have anything to say about the OP since you have not addressed it?

Why, I thought I made my agreement quite clear. And I thought I provided a solution for funding expanded health care services that do not require expanding Obamacare at the same time.

I do oppose gun control

As do I.

End federally funded flood insurance and crop insurance? Require everybody to pay some income taxes even if it a dollar.

No, thanks. I'd rather not be part of your hairebrained Republican tax-raising schemes. A gunpowder tax is sufficient in itself. Raise tariffs.

The rest of your post is, quite literally, nothing more than a grunt of morality. "You must pay for the sin of not caring about the mentally ill!"

Again, no thanks. A small tax on gunpowder is quite sufficient to cover any overhead costs for an expanded mental health care programme. We do not need to raise income taxes. Or payroll taxes. Or raise taxes 'subtly' by abolishing the EITC.
 
Who would make this determination?

Lets say that in 5th grade, you bullied another child(ren)? Do you go in the database and lose your rights for the rest of your life? What if you get addicted to pain pills at age 33 and seek help? What if you write a crazy letter to the editor? What if you vote for Obama:roll:? Who is in charge of these evaluations? Right now we have thousands of people who can't fly because these idiots have put Robert Jackson on the "no-fly" list and you're not THAT Robert Johnson?

I can only imagine......


I think it is time for a mental health database. Anyone who has shown any sign of or who has sought treatment for mental health issues with a violence component should be put in the database with criminals and prohibited from buying any guns. The mentally ill often receive publicly funded healthcare--the diagnosis codes need to go in the database.
 
Here's a solution for you: implement a five cent tax on gunpowder to restore the mental health services Ronald Reagan gutted in the 1980s.

But that's pragmatic, and doesn't lend itself well to moralistic shrieking.

EDIT: Of course, this has also been proposed by the fellows at the Democratic Underground, so you may rest assured that fault will be found with the proposers of this policy, rather than the policy itself.

Punitive taxes on people who don't do anything wrong is pretty disgusting.
The vast majority of people who use bullets aren't breaking the law.
 
Uneducated mobs put Stalin, Hilter and Mao into power too.

You just can't keep yourself from engaging in irrelevant hyperbole, can you? I suppose you think it makes you look smart and historically informed.
 
Punitive taxes on people who don't do anything wrong is pretty disgusting.
The vast majority of people who use bullets aren't breaking the law.

Okay, then we'll hike income taxes to fund it, Harry. Will that satisfy you? Or we can expand Obamacare coverage to include comprehensive mental health coverage. If you so much as suspect you've got Asperger's, why, we'll usher you right into your friendly neighborhood psychiatric clinic.

Do you understand the principle of 'compromise', Harry? A five cent tax on gunpowder, metered by the ounce, is much cheaper than either increasing income taxes or expanding Obamacare. If we're to have a mental health system in this nation, let's fund it in a way that impacts the fewest people and costs those who it does impact the least amount of money.

Or we can continue banging our heads on our copies of The Road To Serfdom and pretend that it's intellectually stimulating.
 
Who would make this determination?

Lets say that in 5th grade, you bullied another child(ren)? Do you go in the database and lose your rights for the rest of your life? What if you get addicted to pain pills at age 33 and seek help? What if you write a crazy letter to the editor? What if you vote for Obama:roll:? Who is in charge of these evaluations? Right now we have thousands of people who can't fly because these idiots have put Robert Jackson on the "no-fly" list and you're not THAT Robert Johnson?

I can only imagine......

Well, would you rather we have more piles of dead people? My answer is yes--if you have threatened or carried out physical violence on another person or yourself and have a known diagnosis if mental handicap then you should be in the database. It isn't like autistic kids and kids with cerebral palsy really need guns to hunt with or anything.
 
Okay, then we'll hike income taxes to fund it, Harry. Will that satisfy you? Or we can expand Obamacare coverage to include comprehensive mental health coverage. If you so much as suspect you've got Asperger's, why, we'll usher you right into your friendly neighborhood psychiatric clinic.

Do you understand the principle of 'compromise', Harry? A five cent tax on gunpowder, metered by the ounce, is much cheaper than either increasing income taxes or expanding Obamacare. If we're to have a mental health system in this nation, let's fund it in a way that impacts the fewest people and costs those who it does impact the least amount of money.

Or we can continue banging our heads on our copies of The Road To Serfdom and pretend that it's intellectually stimulating.

I'm completely fine with income taxes.
Punitive taxes for mental health services assumes that gun owners are responsible for poor mental health.
That's not a compromise, it's punitive.
 
I'm completely fine with income taxes.
Punitive taxes for mental health services assumes that gun owners are responsible for poor mental health.
That's not a compromise, it's punitive.

No, it assumes that gun owners are responsible for gun crime. Which they are.

Incidentally, I never fail to be amazed that "libertarians", so-called, can be brought around to whatever slop the Republican Party is peddling, even if it means income tax hikes.
 
Here's a solution for you: implement a five cent tax on gunpowder to restore the mental health services Ronald Reagan gutted in the 1980s.

But that's pragmatic, and doesn't lend itself well to moralistic shrieking.

EDIT: Of course, this has also been proposed by the fellows at the Democratic Underground, so you may rest assured that fault will be found with the proposers of this policy, rather than the policy itself.

why should honest gun owners pay more money to fund something you want

there already is an 11% excise tax on guns and ammo called the Robinson-Pittman tax

I suspect you are completely unaware of it
 
why should honest gun owners pay more money to fund something you want

there already is an 11% excise tax on guns and ammo called the Robinson-Pittman tax

I suspect you are completely unaware of it

I'm very aware of it. And the initial plan was to add 9% tax on top of it.

And gun owners ought to pay for it because our concern today is gun violence. Gun owners - rightly - resist any effort to impose Federal gun control, but then turn around and bellyache when the idea is broached that they perhaps ought to be required to pay to prevent gun violence. I have precious little sympathy for the stand-pats who, essentially, want to proclaim it's their way or the highway.

I oppose gun control. I also oppose the lunatic fringers who are not only unwilling to compromise but who regard the very word as tantamount to the Unforgivable Sin.
 
No, it assumes that gun owners are responsible for gun crime. Which they are.

Incidentally, I never fail to be amazed that "libertarians", so-called, can be brought around to whatever slop the Republican Party is peddling, even if it means income tax hikes.

what oozing idiocy gun owners are not responsible for gun crime any more than those who drink responsibly are responsible for drunk drivers killing people.
 
what oozing idiocy gun owners are not responsible for gun crime any more than those who drink responsibly are responsible for drunk drivers killing people.

Those who commit gun violence are gun owners. The gun owners who commit gun violence are responsible for gun violence.

Do you see how this works?
 
There is always someone who claims the solution to everything is another and more taxes.

I think they are called "Democrats" or something like that. :confused:

That and the link between mental illness and gunpowder is obviously strong. Can't tax anything else for that purpose or the lefties may have to pay a bit too. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom