Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #391  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:39 PM
OscarShooter OscarShooter is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 11
Default

That's terrible
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:39 PM
baddog377 baddog377 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodHound70 View Post
More? How about some. Why is it necessary for regular citizens to have access to stuff like AR15's and the like, or to able to have a side arm walking into a local 7-11? They are so gun crazy down there that the first thing that crosses someones mind is to grab my gun and "make'um pay!!!".
I for one would love to carry a sidearm while out in the bush, but unfortunately it is the donkeys of the world that ruin it for everyone.
The "right to bare arms" in the states is just carried way to far. They need some sort of happy medium.
To expect everyone will be responsible in the future so 'keep everything the same' is ridiculous. Something needs to change. Burying your head in the sand thinking something will change without doing anything is the definition of insanity.
Go to a birthday party of 8 year old in someones back yard and give them all baseball bats. It won't take long before little Johnny smashes someone over the head with his. Is it the fault of all the other kids that Johnny did it, no, but do you let everyone keep walking around with their bats, nope........Its a sad reality we live in now.

BH
Without a doubt you are correct ,however There is another side to that equation, the FBI itself acknowledges that there are tens of thousands (actually a lot more) of defensive firearm uses every
year which undoubtedly has saved many lives as well.
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 02-19-2018, 11:51 PM
baddog377 baddog377 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_W View Post
How would people speed if they didn't have a car?
So you intend on removing access to anything that people can and have used to harm each other ? That would be a very long list indeed with bare hands being at the top and quite a way down would be guns. Nice world you would build. PS you know you need to show id and be 18 to buy scissors in England now ?
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:24 AM
vcmm's Avatar
vcmm vcmm is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Vulcan Ab
Posts: 3,871
Default

The blame game. It's the human factor that's always the problem.
Not the tool

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-us-hospitals/

"By combining the findings and extrapolating across 34 million hospitalizations in 2007, James concluded that preventable errors contribute to the deaths of 210,000 hospital patients annually.

That is the baseline. The actual number more than doubles, James reasoned, because the trigger tool doesn't catch errors in which treatment should have been provided but wasn't, because it's known that medical records are missing some evidence of harm, and because diagnostic errors aren't captured.

An estimate of 440,000 deaths from care in hospitals "is roughly one-sixth of all deaths that occur in the United States each year," James wrote in his study. He also cited other research that's shown hospital reporting systems and peer-review capture only a fraction of patient harm or negligent care"
__________________
"It's like bragging that it's 10 CENTIMETERS LONG! (when really, it's 4" dude, settle down)"
Huntinstuff


"Me neither but it's all in the eye of the beer holder"
norwestalta

.....out of bounds.....but funny none the less!

LC

"Funny how when a bear eats another bear, no one bats an eye, but......

when a human eats another human, people act like it's the end if the friggin world. News coverage, tweets, blogs, outrage, Piers Morgan etcetc.

Go figure." -Huntinstuff
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:27 AM
vcmm's Avatar
vcmm vcmm is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Vulcan Ab
Posts: 3,871
Default

Medical Errors Are No. 3 Cause Of U.S Deaths, Researchers Say - NPR

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...medical-errors
__________________
"It's like bragging that it's 10 CENTIMETERS LONG! (when really, it's 4" dude, settle down)"
Huntinstuff


"Me neither but it's all in the eye of the beer holder"
norwestalta

.....out of bounds.....but funny none the less!

LC

"Funny how when a bear eats another bear, no one bats an eye, but......

when a human eats another human, people act like it's the end if the friggin world. News coverage, tweets, blogs, outrage, Piers Morgan etcetc.

Go figure." -Huntinstuff
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:13 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered user View Post
None of the sensationalised school shootings would "Of" happened with a law that prevents mentally ill people from acquiring guns. Provided the shooter obeys laws, like, don't murder people.
Can't disagree with that on principle. NRA should never of lobbied against that law I guess. It may be backfiring on them and the republicans as a result. The majority of republicans also agree mentally ill should not be allow to buy and possess guns.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:50 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Can't disagree with that on principle. NRA should never of lobbied against that law I guess. It may be backfiring on them and the republicans as a result. The majority of republicans also agree mentally ill should not be allow to buy and possess guns.
Ok, but you need to understand why the NRA lobbied against that law. The law was flawed, it allowed pretty much anybody with a grudge to call someone in, who in result would be banned from owning firearms for no good reason.

I fully support banning people who are a risk to themselves or others from owning firearms, but only with proven evidence. This is obviously not easy, and would require considerable effort from authorities to follow up with all claims, but at least it is a system with checks and balances.

One other major problem - some psychiatrists are already claiming that the desire to own firearms is a sign of mental illness. Do we trust someone with bias to make those decisions?
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:18 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Ok, but you need to understand why the NRA lobbied against that law. The law was flawed, it allowed pretty much anybody with a grudge to call someone in, who in result would be banned from owning firearms for no good reason.

I fully support banning people who are a risk to themselves or others from owning firearms, but only with proven evidence. This is obviously not easy, and would require considerable effort from authorities to follow up with all claims, but at least it is a system with checks and balances.

One other major problem - some psychiatrists are already claiming that the desire to own firearms is a sign of mental illness. Do we trust someone with bias to make those decisions?
please back up that assertion with fact. You started off interesting then fell into that paranoia realm many in the world fall prey to. A statement of "some" so let's then agree mentally ill can have guns is not the most stable fall back.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:22 AM
vcmm's Avatar
vcmm vcmm is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Vulcan Ab
Posts: 3,871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Ok, but you need to understand why the NRA lobbied against that law. The law was flawed, it allowed pretty much anybody with a grudge to call someone in, who in result would be banned from owning firearms for no good reason.

I fully support banning people who are a risk to themselves or others from owning firearms, but only with proven evidence. This is obviously not easy, and would require considerable effort from authorities to follow up with all claims, but at least it is a system with checks and balances.

One other major problem - some psychiatrists are already claiming that the desire to own firearms is a sign of mental illness. Do we trust someone with bias to make those decisions?
Exactly ^^
__________________
"It's like bragging that it's 10 CENTIMETERS LONG! (when really, it's 4" dude, settle down)"
Huntinstuff


"Me neither but it's all in the eye of the beer holder"
norwestalta

.....out of bounds.....but funny none the less!

LC

"Funny how when a bear eats another bear, no one bats an eye, but......

when a human eats another human, people act like it's the end if the friggin world. News coverage, tweets, blogs, outrage, Piers Morgan etcetc.

Go figure." -Huntinstuff
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:30 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
please back up that assertion with fact. You started off interesting then fell into that paranoia realm many in the world fall prey to. A statement of "some" so let's then agree mentally ill can have guns is not the most stable fall back.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016...ohibition-rule

Quote:
On Monday, Barack Obama’s Social Security Administration (SSA) issued the final version of a rule that will doom tens of thousands of law-abiding (and vulnerable) disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients to a loss of Second Amendment rights under the guise of re-characterizing them as “mental defectives.” The SSA, for the first time in its history, will be coopted into the federal government’s gun control apparatus, effectively requiring Social Security applicants to weigh their need for benefits against their fundamental rights when applying for assistance based on mental health problems.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/...ndment-rights/

Quote:
Have you ever thought of letting someone else manage your finances? Under finalized new rules released just before Christmas by President Obama, Social Security recipients will be banned from buying a gun if they are deemed “financially incompetent.” Some 4.2 million Social Security recipients — about 10 percent of all people 65 and older — could lose the right to own a gun as a result.
Just because someone can’t manage his finances doesn’t mean that he’s a danger to others. What is next? Keeping guns away from people who can’t drive or do math? What about other rights? Should “financially incompetent” people be forbidden from voting or making other decisions? President Obama and most other Democrats would be understandably upset if any voters were required to pass a literacy or intelligence test at the polls, but they have no problem denying millions of seniors their ability to defend themselves.
Advertisement


Make no mistake, either: That is what they are doing. Having a gun is by far the most effective way of protecting yourself from criminals. And because of disparities in physical strength, women and the elderly stand to benefit the most from owning a gun. Only with a gun can an elderly woman realistically defend herself against a young man.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-...rule-1.4538963

Quote:
Those opposed, not surprisingly, included the gun lobby group the National Rifle Association. But on this particular issue, Trump also had backing from an organization usually highly critical of him: The American Civil Liberties Union.

In a blog post last year, the ACLU said that while it does not oppose gun control laws, those laws need to be be fair and not based on prejudice and stereotype.

Thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget, the ACLU wrote.
"But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular," the ACLU said.
'Disturbing trend'
To add innocent Americans to this criminal database because of a mental disability "is a disturbing trend," it said.
The regulation was also opposed by advocates for people with disabilities and mental health issues.

"There is, simply put, no nexus between the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly own, possess or use a firearm," wrote the National Council on Disability.
I was incorrect on one part, I apologize. But I do stand behind my statement regarding Obama's law being inherently faulty.
Reply With Quote
  #401  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:37 AM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default would stopping mentally ill people from getting guns help?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/u...l-illness.html


Checking Facts and Falsehoods About Gun Violence and Mental Illness After Parkland Shooting


By Linda Qiu and Justin Bank
Feb. 16, 2018

Nikolas Cruz, the man suspected of killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. on Thursday.CreditPool photo by Susan Stocker

A heavily armed young man is accused of killing 17 people after opening fire on terrified students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Wednesday. It was the third mass shooting in the past four months in the United States.

Nikolas Cruz, who has been linked to a history of mental illness, is believed to have used a legally obtained AR-15 in the shooting. The attack has led to widespread conversations about links between gun violence and mental illness, and how lawmakers and interest groups are debating potential policy responses. Below is a look at some facts and falsehoods uttered by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin; Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont; and others in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting.

“Mental health is often a big problem underlying these tragedies.” — House Speaker Paul Ryan

There’s a link, but it’s more limited than widely thought.

Mr. Ryan’s claim reflects a common misconception. According to various polls, roughly half of Americans either believe that failing to identify people with mental health problems is the primary cause of gun violence or that addressing mental health issues would be a major deterrent.

That conclusion is not shared by experts or widely accepted research.

In an analysis of 235 mass killings, many of which were carried out with firearms, 22 percent of the perpetrators could be considered mentally ill.

Overall, mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent 1 percent of all gun homicides each year, according to the book “Gun Violence and Mental Illness” published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2016.

To be sure, gun violence experts contacted by New York Times reporters have said that barring sales to people who are deemed dangerous by mental health providers could help prevent mass shootings. But the experts said several more measures — including banning assault weapons and barring sales to convicted violent criminals — more effective.

And, as The Times has reported, Americans do not appear to have more mental health problems than other developed nations of a comparable size, which experience far fewer mass shootings.

Some further research:

•A 2016 academic study estimated that just 4 percent of violence is associated with serious mental illness alone. “Evidence is clear that the large majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violence against others, and that most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness,” the study concluded.


•A 2015 study found that less than 5 percent of gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were committed by people diagnosed with mental illness.


As John T. Monahan, a professor specializing in psychology and law at the University of Virginia, told The Times:


“Two things typically happen in the wake of a mass shooting. First, politicians claim that mental illness is the major cause of violence in America. Then, advocates for people with mental illness respond by denying there is any relationship whatsoever between mental illness and violence. Both groups are wrong. Research shows that the association between mental illness and violence is not strong, but it does exist.”


“After 18 school shootings in America in just 43 days of 2018, the Congress might want to consider common-sense gun safety legislation and save innocent lives.” — Senator Bernie Sanders

False. There have been 18 instances of weapons being discharged. It would not be fair to call them all shootings.

The figure is drawn from a list maintained by the advocacy group Every Town for Gun Safety. As the group explains on its site, the total includes “any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds.”

As The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner and other outlets have pointed out, that includes some incidents that most people would not consider school shootings. For example, the list includes suicides, like a Florida man who shot himself in the parking lot of a school while it was closed. And it also includes accidents like a Minnesota third-grader who pulled the trigger on a police officer’s holstered weapon, injuring no one.



“Israel pretty much eliminated [shootings] by placing highly trained people strategically to spot the one common thread — not the weapon, but a person with intent.” — Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas

This is an interpretation that the Israelis reject.

Israeli officials and experts rejected this version of events after a similar claim was made by Wayne LaPierre, the president of the National Rifle Association, after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 children and six adults were killed.

“Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing. They said, ‘We’re going to stop it,’ and they put armed security in every school, and they have not had a problem since then,” Mr. LaPierre said in December 2012 on NBC.

Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, told The New York Daily News at the time that the situations in the United States and Israel were “fundamentally different” and said that the measures that Israel enacted were a response to terrorism.

“What removed the danger was not the armed guards, but an overall antiterror policy and antiterror operations, which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,” Mr. Palmor said.


“Your very first acts as president, Mr. Trump, was to actually roll back the regulations that were designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.” — Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.

True, but the rule’s scope was narrow.

After Mr. Trump focused on mental health in his national address on Thursday in response to the Parkland shooting, many journalists, activists and others, like Mr. Kimmel, noted the repeal of a rule that would have prevented “seriously mentally ill” people from purchasing guns.

Federal law already bars anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution” from purchasing a gun. And a majority of states have laws requiring them to report mental health information to the national background check system. But gaps in the system still exist.

After the Newtown shooting, President Obama proposed adding another data source to the background check system: reports from the Social Security Administration of people who receive disability benefits through a third party because of mental impairments. According to a 2016 White House fact sheet, the rule would have affected 75,000 people.

It was opposed by the National Rifle Association, but also the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the rule violated civil rights. Some disability rights groups also argued against the rule on the basis that it perpetuated stigmas about mental illness.

Mr. Trump signed a congressional resolution that expressed disapproval of the proposed rule in February 2017, nine months before compliance would have been required.
__________________
It is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Charles Darwin
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 02-20-2018, 10:49 AM
fitzy fitzy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Ok, but you need to understand why the NRA lobbied against that law. The law was flawed, it allowed pretty much anybody with a grudge to call someone in, who in result would be banned from owning firearms for no good reason.

I fully support banning people who are a risk to themselves or others from owning firearms, but only with proven evidence. This is obviously not easy, and would require considerable effort from authorities to follow up with all claims, but at least it is a system with checks and balances.

One other major problem - some psychiatrists are already claiming that the desire to own firearms is a sign of mental illness. Do we trust someone with bias to make those decisions?
Newview gun control advocate .... who knew
__________________
Take a kid fishing, kids that fish don't grow up to be A-holes.
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:13 AM
dmcbride dmcbride is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bazeau County East side
Posts: 4,166
Default

"In an analysis of 235 mass killings, many of which were carried out with firearms, 22 percent of the perpetrators could be considered mentally ill."

So if 78% are not mentally ill, what is wrong with them?
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:20 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzy View Post
Newview gun control advocate .... who knew
Believe it or not, if someone wishes to shoot themself, I believe they should not posses the means to do so. In addition, if someone expresses a desire to shoot up a school, I also believe they should not posses a firearm. However, I believe the rights of those who wish to defend themselves outweighs the rights of those who wish to do harm. Not only that, those who wish to do harm to others will be more determined at the outset than those who wish to defend themselves, which brings us to the point that gun control doesn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 02-21-2018, 09:54 PM
dutch_m dutch_m is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 170
Default

Anyone know more about the kid they say now is a actor and doing all the CNN reports and interviews
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.