Air Guns now being targeted to fall under GCA…

[Mannyy]

Saw this video had no idea this was in the works and of course it had to be a CA Rep

 

[MattB]

This has a zero chance of becoming federal law.

 

[Mannyy]

This has a zero chance of becoming federal law.

and because it didn’t they’ll just try pass it in California as usual…

 

[MysteryScienceHeater3000]

If crazy people were mitigated earlier, they wouldn’t be ordering air rifles to “self-delete” in the first place or blasting civilians in mass shootings.

It’s really annoying that suicide is categorized as gun violence. My understanding is that the mentally unwell are disproportionately represented in both gun suicides and pvp gun violence, but they are lumped together with normal crime to make it a safety issue instead of a healthcare issue.

 

[riceman]

Who need a real handgun when you have this.

 

[treelogger]

It’s really annoying that suicide is categorized as gun violence. My understanding is that the mentally unwell are disproportionately represented in both gun suicides and pvp gun violence, but they are lumped together with normal crime to make it a safety issue instead of a healthcare issue.

Suicide is both a gun control issue AND a healthcare issue. Countries and US states with tighter gun control laws have fewer successful suicides. As do countries with better (mental) health care systems. Simply saying that we will ignore one form of suicide prevention (namely gun control) because another one MIGHT BE implemented in the future is simply illogical.

As is blaming all of suicide on guns. This issue is not black and white.

 

[mbuss101]

Speaking as someone who has had a parent take their life with a firearm the notion that suicide is a gun issue is very disingenuous. People dead set on taking their life for whatever reason will find a way.

On the legislative side, it’s low hanging fruit most people can envision what a suicide by firearm would look like in their minds. It’s messy heartbreaking and grotesque. It’s very easy to pull on heartstrings with something like that, as opposed to trying to advocate for legislation against people sitting in their vehicle in their garage to kill themselves.

 

[MysteryScienceHeater3000]

Suicide is both a gun control issue AND a healthcare issue. Countries and US states with tighter gun control laws have fewer successful suicides. As do countries with better (mental) health care systems. Simply saying that we will ignore one form of suicide prevention (namely gun control) because another one MIGHT BE implemented in the future is simply illogical.

As is blaming all of suicide on guns. This issue is not black and white.

I think we actually agree

I didn’t mean to make it black and white, but to highlight that the politicians do to avoid the healthcare aspect.

 

[EDGMS]

If crazy people were mitigated earlier, they wouldn’t be ordering air rifles to “self-delete” in the first place or blasting civilians in mass shootings.

It’s really annoying that suicide is categorized as gun violence. My understanding is that the mentally unwell are disproportionately represented in both gun suicides and pvp gun violence, but they are lumped together with normal crime to make it a safety issue instead of a healthcare issue.

irl pvp is a wild statement haha. Player vs player

 

[treelogger]

but to highlight that the politicians do to avoid the healthcare aspect.

Imagine you are a politician. You can do:

• Spend billions of $ on mental health care, with very uncertain returns, like reduction in homelessness and suicides. Both are issues which people CLAIM to care deeply about, but in reality if both were reduced by 30% or 50% they wouldn't really notice, unless they actually study statistics.
• Spend very little money, pass a law which pisses off the opposite side of the political spectrum, that other side is guaranteed to be powerless anyway in this state. It makes your core supporters happy, increases fundraising for elections, and has likely no effect.

That's a very simple intelligence test, isn't it?

 

[Gawernator]

Suicide is both a gun control issue AND a healthcare issue. Countries and US states with tighter gun control laws have fewer successful suicides. As do countries with better (mental) health care systems. Simply saying that we will ignore one form of suicide prevention (namely gun control) because another one MIGHT BE implemented in the future is simply illogical.

As is blaming all of suicide on guns. This issue is not black and white.

Yeah and forks make people obese. Let's keep the disingenuous NPC arguments to ourselves

 

[Gawernator]

Imagine you are a politician. You can do:

• Spend billions of $ on mental health care, with very uncertain returns, like reduction in homelessness and suicides. Both are issues which people CLAIM to care deeply about, but in reality if both were reduced by 30% or 50% they wouldn't really notice, unless they actually study statistics.
• Spend very little money, pass a law which pisses off the opposite side of the political spectrum, that other side is guaranteed to be powerless anyway in this state. It makes your core supporters happy, increases fundraising for elections, and has likely no effect.

That's a very simple intelligence test, isn't it?

We already spend trillions on health care. It is the biggest budget item in the entire nation. More money spent on homelessness does nothing to improve it. Both hard facts.

 

[Darqhelmet]

We already spend trillions on health care. It is the biggest budget item in the entire nation. More money spent on homelessness does nothing to improve it. Both hard facts.

Well I think if we had some good accounting and jailed the people embezzling we might get some good from the money we are spending on it. But yes right now we get F- all for the funds tagged to “combat homelessness”

 

[treelogger]

Well I think if we had some good accounting and jailed the people embezzling

I don't think there is very much actual embezzling going on. A little? Sure. But what is going on: a large industry of social services exists, and the people there are decently paid. Not great on a Silicon Valley scale. One example I'm quite familiar with is in Santa Cruz County, a non-profit that gets most of its ~$30M/year funding from the county and cities, and spends the first $1M roughly on the highest paid executives, administrators and doctors. Which is from one viewpoint not a lot, about 3% of the total; from another viewpoint it is a million that could have been saved.

we might get some good from the money we are spending on it. But yes right now we get F- all for the funds tagged to “combat homelessness”

Again, this is not black and white. For the most part, California (and its cities and counties, which shoulder much of the burden) are not "combating homelessness". Because doing so would require a few things that are not socially acceptable or politically viable: First, force people who are mentally ill, drug- or alcohol addicted, or seriously disabled (physically or mentally) into treatment and housing, against their wishes. That is about 3/4 of all homeless. Second, for the remaining quarter, reduce housing cost by making construction and permitting easier and cheaper, but that violates both the profit seeking of established homeowners and the drive towards city planning as high-density housing near energy-efficient transit corridors.

What we do instead (for a lot of money) is social and supportive services for the existing homeless. Which is nice, because then they aren't hungry and cold, and they get tents, and blankets, and food. But that doesn't make them any less homeless.

One of the basic problems is that the term "homeless" is already misleading. If you look at the root cause, most of the people who don't have a place to live are addicted, criminals on the run, or mentally retarded or ill. The fact that they are homeless is a symptom, not a cause; trying to treat that by giving them tents or putting them in shelters doesn't fix the basic problem.

 

[Experimentalist]

I appreciate the deeper dialog going on here.

That said, guns are a part of suicide as much as bridges and sleeping pills.

I see little effort to regulate either. It took ages for nets to be strung beneath the Golden Gate bridge, while countless other high places are left unsecured.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Might be time to buy that full auto BB gun?

 

[Gawernator]

I don't think there is very much actual embezzling going on. A little? Sure. But what is going on: a large industry of social services exists, and the people there are decently paid. Not great on a Silicon Valley scale. One example I'm quite familiar with is in Santa Cruz County, a non-profit that gets most of its ~$30M/year funding from the county and cities, and spends the first $1M roughly on the highest paid executives, administrators and doctors. Which is from one viewpoint not a lot, about 3% of the total; from another viewpoint it is a million that could have been saved.


Again, this is not black and white. For the most part, California (and its cities and counties, which shoulder much of the burden) are not "combating homelessness". Because doing so would require a few things that are not socially acceptable or politically viable: First, force people who are mentally ill, drug- or alcohol addicted, or seriously disabled (physically or mentally) into treatment and housing, against their wishes. That is about 3/4 of all homeless. Second, for the remaining quarter, reduce housing cost by making construction and permitting easier and cheaper, but that violates both the profit seeking of established homeowners and the drive towards city planning as high-density housing near energy-efficient transit corridors.

What we do instead (for a lot of money) is social and supportive services for the existing homeless. Which is nice, because then they aren't hungry and cold, and they get tents, and blankets, and food. But that doesn't make them any less homeless.

One of the basic problems is that the term "homeless" is already misleading. If you look at the root cause, most of the people who don't have a place to live are addicted, criminals on the run, or mentally retarded or ill. The fact that they are homeless is a symptom, not a cause; trying to treat that by giving them tents or putting them in shelters doesn't fix the basic problem.

forced incarceration and treatment is the only solution, and asylums

 

[Darqhelmet]

forced incarceration and treatment is the only solution, and asylums

Yup, but with the added “if you, as staff F- with these people we will jail you for the rest of your natural life” And then when one of them does, because they will (looking at you VA, you F-ing scumbags) Throw them in jail forever. If we are going to lock them down for everyones safety they have to be safe. It’s not to shove them in a dark room because I want to walk around LA without stepping in and needles.

 

[Darqhelmet]

Yup, but with the added “if you, as staff F- with these people we will jail you for the rest of your natural life” And then when one of them does, because they will (looking at you VA, you F-ing scumbags) Throw them in jail forever. If we are going to lock them down for everyones safety they have to be safe. It’s not to shove them in a dark room because I want to walk around LA without stepping in and needles.

VA to fire employee for alleged abuse of disabled vet at a state-run veterans home

The veteran's wife captured video of the incident that's now gone viral. She told Military Times that she set up a hidden camera after suspecting abuse.

www.militarytimes.com

To Fire. Not jail, not prosecute, fire. That’s not good enough and that’s not good enough for the homeless.