[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

I thought he was our physicist?

He's one of them.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

He's one of them.

You guys multiply quickly.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I apologize. That was supposed to say "not working very good". I am a bit preoccupied right now. Re-read it as such and see what you think.

Even with this change, I still see problems with the analogy. If the filter isn't working very good, you certainly wouldn't expect it adequately perform a task which it previously wasn't performing.Or in other words: you wouldn't put the defective system in a substantially larger pool then declare the water that passed through the pools defective filtration system to be clean enough to drink.

Right now the mental health community is not involved in the firearm purchasing process, other than it's overarching role in "filtering out the big stuff" in society at large. If we want to require a mental health element of our firearm purchasing process, then we need to ensure that the filtration system can handle the task before we install it in a new pool.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Who said I am in the game of upholding the authority and integrity of the constitution? The constitution was not intended to have the infallibility so often granted to it.

I don't disagree with that, but I'm not looking to argue that the Constitution is infallible. If we're to derive any legitimacy of it as a source of law (or more appropriately, as the absolute backbone of our system of laws), then its integrity relies upon

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

You guys multiply quickly.

Years of math will do that.

Plus we're just quarky.

Thank you, I'll be here all night. Don't forget to try your waitress and tip the veal.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

Right now the mental health community is not involved in the firearm purchasing process, other than it's overarching role in "filtering out the big stuff" in society at large. If we want to require a mental health element of our firearm purchasing process, then we need to ensure that the filtration system can handle the task before we install it in a new pool.

My entire point is that we should not stop "filtering out the big stuff" just because we haven't yet figured out a good system to "catch the small stuff". Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

I don't disagree with that, but I'm not looking to argue that the Constitution is infallible. If we're to derive any legitimacy of it as a source of law (or more appropriately, as the absolute backbone of our system of laws), then its integrity relies upon

Relies upon what?

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Years of math will do that.

Plus we're just quarky.

Thank you, I'll be here all night. Don't forget to try your waitress and tip the veal.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

You can be as prepared as possible and still be victim to the aspect of surprise.

Fact of life really.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I would be hesitant to toss those lives away as means of an end.

The ends always justify the means. This becomes easier to accept the more you understand that there are things you cannot control or change absolutely.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I have had enough discussions with you to say that I don't believe it to be the latter. It would just seem to be to be time better spent if we went straight into real discussions and avoided the nonsense.

But, none the less, your conversations have served me better than most around these parts, so who am I to complain.

But I have been engaging in real conversation. My methods may not be preferable. A matter of taste.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

The ends always justify the means. This becomes easier to accept the more you understand that there are things you cannot control or change absolutely.

What do you mean? We certainly can reduce the rates of people shot by mentally unstable people.

To be clear, my point is that I will not accept simply sacrificing those people shot by mentally unstable people because we don't want to put the effort into creating a workable mental health system.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

But I have been engaging in real conversation. My methods may not be preferable. A matter of taste.

Fine.

[TheSilentAssassin]

"I have very little hope that "get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level" will ever happen.

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

1. If you have very little hope that we can get our mental health system functioning at a reasonable level

I want to clarify something as well. Can and will are very different. I certainly do believe a working mental health system can be created. Unfortunately, I doubt it will (at least any time soon).

[Iamamartianchurch]

I'd be more worried about why a mentally ill person wishes to commit mass murder against his own community.

I think it's more of a social thing. Going back to what I said earlier with the analogy between Mayberry and a subway.

In my mind it's more complex than saying, "boom, mentally ill, that's why they did it."

But that questions too many fundamentals that have been sketched out during the course of the past handful of decades. A conversation in its own right.

[barrel roll]

Mental health system... how many years ago were electro-shock therapy and lobotomies "cool"?

[slateman]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Mental health system... how many years ago were electro-shock therapy and lobotomies "cool"?

They still use modified versions of electro-shock therapy today

[barrel roll]

I pray (because that is all you can do) that I never get Baker Act'ed.

[slateman]

If you ever wondered why gun owners are so against registration

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by slateman

If you ever wondered why gun owners are so against registration

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Anecdotes, the best basis for policy decisions.
1 out of 309,000,000 is statistically significant and a prudent choice for governing the 308,999,999 others.

God this place goes in circles.

[Iamamartianchurch]

God forbid reflexive knowledge might actually be valuable.

[TheSilentAssassin]

'Reflexive knowledge' has very different meanings in different contexts... So I must ask again, care to elaborate?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Sorry I meant reflection. My brain is poop, I haven't slept. You guys all have a boner for abstraction.

[TheSilentAssassin]

I don't see how you got that from my post. I'm simply objecting to the far-too-common practice of fear-mongering via these often hyperbolic anecdotal arguments. I believe policy decisions should be rooted in thought and statistical evidence, not sensationalized anecdotal bull****.

[Iamamartianchurch]

I'm just *****ing. Every time someone brings up an acedote, they are promptly scoffed.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I'm just *****ing. Every time someone brings up an acedote, they are promptly scoffed.

Brings up an anecdote or brings up an anecdote as the basis for sweeping policy decisions?