kelpdiver 2 #476 July 30, 2012 Quote Psychiatrists are MDs, generally highly paid, who treat mental illness. Clinical psychologists provide counseling. The likelihood of a psychiatrist giving routine school counseling is somewhere close to zero. Which is cheaper - a psychiatrist alone, or a psychiatrist + a psychologist? Don't forget the cost of office space in the equation. Due to privacy laws, I doubt we'll know much of anything about their relationship unless the defense chooses to call her to the stand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #477 July 30, 2012 QuoteDue to privacy laws, I doubt we'll know much of anything about their relationship And that's what it all comes down to really. The "struggle" between people's right to privacy, the people's right (in the US anyways) to arms and the people's right not to get shot while watching a movie. There is no right answer and no wrong answer, just what society is willing to put up with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #478 July 30, 2012 I hope we are all considering everyone of those rights as well. Nicely said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #479 July 30, 2012 QuoteWhy would I do that? Because you replied to me replying to him. Simple really. QuoteHe believes (and I agree with him) that regulations pertaining to the purchase of guns should not be less lax than those pertaining to beer. The regulations pertaining to guns are already MORE restrictive than pertaining to beer. I have shown that already. For example: * There is no background check to buy beer. * There are no forms that are filled out to buy beer. * If you look over the age of 21 - They do not ask to see ID to buy beer at a store, yet I have to show ID to buy a gun at a store. * I can make a give away beer all day, I am not allowed to do the same with firearms. Firearms are ALREADY more restrictive than beer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #480 July 30, 2012 113 people have been killed in mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years. 115 people have been killed skydiving in N. America in 5 years. 228 people have been killed by guns in Chicago from Jan 1 to June 16th this year. Skydiving kills more people and gun laws clearly do not work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #481 July 30, 2012 That is one of the more useless uses of data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #482 July 30, 2012 QuoteThat is one of the more useless uses of data. No more useless than trying to disarm honest citizens to try and stop criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #483 July 30, 2012 QuoteNo more useless than trying to disarm honest citizens to try and stop criminals. I think most adults are trying to discuss disarming not so honest citizens to try and stop them from becoming criminals like mass murderers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #484 July 30, 2012 I agree, but it sparks a thought in my mind. Firearms are a tool with both good and bad applications. Some things, like cigarettes, have no good applications. Seems to me that before we get too hot about firearms, we should eliminate deadly things with absolutely no beneficial properties whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you put in your body (until I am responsible for paying your health care costs). But it seems we get backwards on some things. Since the guns vs beer argument has come up, there is no utilitarian purpose for adult beverages. They contribute to lots of societal problems. Before we try to restrict or ban guns, why don't we fix that little problem? Again, I tend toward the libertarian and don't care to ban either. I just find it an interesting argument.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #485 July 30, 2012 QuoteI agree, but it sparks a thought in my mind. Firearms are a tool with both good and bad applications. Some things, like cigarettes, have no good applications. Seems to me that before we get too hot about firearms, we should eliminate deadly things with absolutely no beneficial properties whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you put in your body (until I am responsible for paying your health care costs). But it seems we get backwards on some things. Since the guns vs beer argument has come up, there is no utilitarian purpose for adult beverages. They contribute to lots of societal problems. Before we try to restrict or ban guns, why don't we fix that little problem? I believe you took your argument a bit too far. "Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #486 July 30, 2012 Fine. Swap the argument to cigarettes. I really don't care. I just find pursuing one thing while ignoring another kind of odd. Like states where seatbelts are mandatory and motorcycle helmets are not.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 800 #487 July 30, 2012 Fine then. Stop the discrimination and make everyone wear helmets! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #488 July 30, 2012 QuoteFine. Swap the argument to cigarettes. I really don't care. I just find pursuing one thing while ignoring another kind of odd. Like states where seatbelts are mandatory and motorcycle helmets are not. I think many states and local governments are reducing smoking, little by little, via education, taxation, and inconvenience.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #489 July 30, 2012 Quote Fine then. Stop the discrimination and make everyone wear helmets! I think there are some that might need a helmet to operate their computer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #490 July 30, 2012 QuoteThat is one of the more useless uses of data. Disagree The post paints the perspective picture very well If crying over deaths is what is important, then, the same uproar should occur over the deaths he posted about But, if all that is important is what deaths are caused by firearms, well, the topic stinks of hypocrisy"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #491 July 30, 2012 Quote Quote Fine then. Stop the discrimination and make everyone wear helmets! I think there are some that might need a helmet to operate their computer. No, just tin foil hats "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #492 July 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteI agree, but it sparks a thought in my mind. Firearms are a tool with both good and bad applications. Some things, like cigarettes, have no good applications. Seems to me that before we get too hot about firearms, we should eliminate deadly things with absolutely no beneficial properties whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you put in your body (until I am responsible for paying your health care costs). But it seems we get backwards on some things. Since the guns vs beer argument has come up, there is no utilitarian purpose for adult beverages. They contribute to lots of societal problems. Before we try to restrict or ban guns, why don't we fix that little problem? I believe you took your argument a bit too far. "Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers." The problem there is that while everyone thinks they are a moderate drinker, the level of consumption that actually may provide a health benefit is substantially less. And while red wine has actual physical elements to provide some benefit, for the others I suspect it's more that living an uptight life isn't particularly healthy, not that the 8oz of Guiness (as if) is doing the job. The death toll from alcohol greatly exceeds that from guns, so it's still fair game, imo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #493 July 30, 2012 QuoteBut, if all that is important is what deaths are caused by firearms, well, the topic stinks of hypocrisy And that is not data he posted. And deaths in skydiving for instance are certainly looked at and rules and regulations changed, altered and/or instituted. So even if he had provided the right data, it would have been a false comparison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #494 July 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteBut, if all that is important is what deaths are caused by firearms, well, the topic stinks of hypocrisy And that is not data he posted. And deaths in skydiving for instance are certainly looked at and rules and regulations changed, altered and/or instituted. So even if he had provided the right data, it would have been a false comparison. Ok. maybe I am a bit confused as to exactly what data you are talking about But let me ask you this Are 100 deaths (or one) by gun fire more significant than 100 deaths (or one) cause by drunk drivers? If so, why?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #495 July 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI agree, but it sparks a thought in my mind. Firearms are a tool with both good and bad applications. Some things, like cigarettes, have no good applications. Seems to me that before we get too hot about firearms, we should eliminate deadly things with absolutely no beneficial properties whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I really don't care what you put in your body (until I am responsible for paying your health care costs). But it seems we get backwards on some things. Since the guns vs beer argument has come up, there is no utilitarian purpose for adult beverages. They contribute to lots of societal problems. Before we try to restrict or ban guns, why don't we fix that little problem? I believe you took your argument a bit too far. "Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers." The problem there is that while everyone thinks they are a moderate drinker, the level of consumption that actually may provide a health benefit is substantially less. And while red wine has actual physical elements to provide some benefit, for the others I suspect it's more that living an uptight life isn't particularly healthy, not that the 8oz of Guiness (as if) is doing the job. The death toll from alcohol greatly exceeds that from guns, so it's still fair game, imo. Have you simply stopped reading conversations to understand context of a comment? Besides, the death toll from alcohol / the death toll from firearms is the wrong ratio to examine. Much more relevant is the ratio of person years gained from moderate alcohol use / person years lost from alcohol use. From the article: An Italian study of 1,536 men aged 45-65 found that about two years of life were gained by moderate drinkers (1-4 drinks per day) in comparison with occasional and heavy drinkers. … Alcohol prevents more deaths than its abuse causes in the United Kingdom, according to research from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Scientists at the University of London concluded that light and moderate drinking saves more lives in England and Wales than are lost through the abuse of alcohol. If everyone abstained from alcohol, death rates would be significantly higher. The Cancer Council of New South Wales concludes that "If the net effect of total alcohol consumption on Australian society is considered, there is a net saving of lives due to the protective effect of low levels of consumption on cardiovascular disease." In the context of the conversation, banning alcohol would be a bad idea, since there is strong, credible evidence showing that it's health benefits outweigh its health costs.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #496 July 30, 2012 Not sure how this figures in, but my sidearm has extended my life more than once! :) Admittedly, it hasn't done the same for some others.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #497 July 30, 2012 Quote In the context of the conversation, banning alcohol would be a bad idea, since there is strong, credible evidence showing that it's health benefits outweigh its health costs. Seems then that the 100k-millions of DGUs/year measure up pretty well against the number of deaths, most of who are low lifes killing each other. It's called a tangent, btw. If you raise a new, interesting subject, we might detour towards it. I haven't seen anything speaking to the benefits of 4 drinks per day. The ones that spoke favorably pointed to much lower consumption - 1 or less per day. 4 is just short of binge drinking. London certainly hasn't reached a consensus - lots of proposals to dramatically increase alcohol taxes due to the excessive consumption. The wine industry of America, particularly CA, was eager to put positive 'warning' labels on bottles talking about the health benefits. But Strom squashed that till the day he died...no small amount of irony of Senator Tobacco raging against alcohol because he lost a loved one to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #498 July 30, 2012 QuoteIn the context of the conversation, banning alcohol would be a bad idea, since there is strong, credible evidence showing that it's health benefits outweigh its health costs. Oops. I think you overreached on that one. How can the health benefits outweigh death? Hundreds of people a year manage to drink themselves to death. Tens of thousands die in alcohol related driving accidents. Many of the gun deaths lamented herein involve alcohol. I'm not sure 1.5 ounces of red wine helping your heart is going to balance that scale. I guess if you used a broken wine bottle to stop an assailant? Nah....I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #499 July 30, 2012 Quote113 people have been killed in mass shootings in the US in the last 10 years. 115 people have been killed skydiving in N. America in 5 years. 228 people have been killed by guns in Chicago from Jan 1 to June 16th this year. Skydiving kills more people and gun laws clearly do not work. The skydiving laws absolutely work because it pretty much only kills the people who have willingly participated in the event. The same is not true at all of mass murders by gun.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #500 July 30, 2012 Quote The skydiving laws absolutely work because it pretty much only kills the people who have willingly participated in the event. The same is not true at all of mass murders by gun. Indeed this is true. But there's only 20,000 skydivers plus the tandems, versus 1.3 BILLION movie tickets sold, so rates are dramatically different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
