The hypocrisy of the ________

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think a big thing to remember in the Gun Control argument is constitutional law.

So when we think of licenses, insurance, registrations, you gotta think about that.

But again, we aren't addressing the mass shooter issue at all. So we are actually fine with mass shooters and its more about guns, right? Kinda like the New Green Deal, its not really about climate, but imposing, forcing socialism on the country.

Seriously, this makes no sense.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Seriously, this makes no sense.

yeah...I think what im getting at is registrations, licenses, insurance, etc is not addressing this uptick in mass shootings. I think we should really focus on that rather than the gun. There is a constitutional right and gun violence dramatically drop....so why do we have an uptick in the mass shooting phenomenon?

So items like Red flag law, a concerted effort to deal with domestic terrorism such as white supremacist, mental health education starting early in school, mandatory 5 years if possessing illegal gun, etc these focus more on folks who shouldn't be in possession of a gun, mental health to help the youth, and fighting extremist ideology which is easily assessable online.

I have relatives who could arm a small country and have never even gotten a speeding ticket. What do you say to the millions of those?

[mooby]

Chico, if you want to address the underlying issue of mental health instead of addressing guns I'm all for it. First step, reversing the years of budget cuts to medicare/medicaid. Idk how you can say you want to address the issue of mental health without increasing the budget of one of the main programs that deals with it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Chico, if you want to address the underlying issue of mental health instead of addressing guns I'm all for it. First step, reversing the years of budget cuts to medicare/medicaid. Idk how you can say you want to address the issue of mental health without increasing the budget of one of the main programs that deals with it.

Mooby i know what you are saying, but i really wonder why all the answers have to be federalized programs.why cant there be block grants to local governments to find solutions for their citizens, or to charitable non profits that focus on helping others.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Mooby i know what you are saying, but i really wonder why all the answers have to be federalized programs.why cant there be block grants to local governments to find solutions for their citizens, or to charitable non profits that focus on helping others.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Idk, seems like a lot of responsibility tasking the feds with divvying up the pie for local gov't vs. increasing the budget for medicare. And non-profits? If the gov't was funding non-profits every NP would be out there asking for money. I'm also wary of giving to charity seeing as there are tons of charities out there that use very little of their resources towards the cause, like Susan G Komen for instance.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Idk, seems like a lot of responsibility tasking the feds with divvying up the pie for local gov't vs. increasing the budget for medicare. And non-profits? If the gov't was funding non-profits every NP would be out there asking for money. I'm also wary of giving to charity seeing as there are tons of charities out there that use very little of their resources towards the cause, like Susan G Komen for instance.

How much of government bureaucracy goes to the end cause?

There are solid reports on charity overhead, and the distributions could be tied to having certain percentages met.

To piggy back on Matty's SS Disability comments, I believe non-government bodies would never make the application so convoluted that you get a 30% initial success. Yes you want only qualified applicants, but you don't want to feed the bureaucratic machine and lawyers around it. For example of the 70% disapproved on round 1 I would be curious what percent got lawyers (I know tons of lawyers bottom feed on this work) and got approved "a year or two" later. If they really have disabilities, you want them to get approved and get the help they need the first go around.

There are hundreds or thousands of charities that use money effectively (far more so than the government) and you have to have some governmental bureaucracy, so let the bureaucracy churn its wheels approving charities to help, then let the charities actually help people without bureaucratic overhead.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

To piggy back on Matty's SS Disability comments, I believe non-government bodies would never make the application so convoluted that you get a 30% initial success. Yes you want only qualified applicants, but you don't want to feed the bureaucratic machine and lawyers around it. For example of the 70% disapproved on round 1 I would be curious what percent got lawyers (I know tons of lawyers bottom feed on this work) and got approved "a year or two" later. If they really have disabilities, you want them to get approved and get the help they need the first go around.

There’s nothing convoluted about the application, it’s very straight forward. Some main reasons why people get denied initially... they don’t cooperate with the process, ie don’t go to consultative exams or don’t return required forms or requests for follow up information. Also, we don’t screen out applicants. Even though you need to have a condition that is either terminal or will keep you out of work for at least a year, if you insist on filing due to your sprained pinky you can file. I’d say non cooperation and filing for mild injuries/conditions account for a significant amount of initial denials. Having a lawyer is a complete waste of money. All it buys is a false sense of security. They fill out the same paperwork we fill out for applicants and they often do a much worse job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Idk, seems like a lot of responsibility tasking the feds with divvying up the pie for local gov't vs. increasing the budget for medicare. And non-profits? If the gov't was funding non-profits every NP would be out there asking for money. I'm also wary of giving to charity seeing as there are tons of charities out there that use very little of their resources towards the cause, like Susan G Komen for instance.

Also, divvying up the pie for local gov'ts is too much responsibility but figuring out who out of 360,000,000 people is right down their alley?

Set up standards for the local governments to file requests, let them fight the federal bureaucracy and let the people who need help have local branches that suit their population. NYC needs a heck of a lot different set up then Helena, Wyoming

Not everything makes sense to federalize it. Again, the fed bureaucracy can set basic standards of service, and have their bureaucratic fun but let state and local elected officials and charities do the work at the person to person level.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

Chico, if you want to address the underlying issue of mental health instead of addressing guns I'm all for it. First step, reversing the years of budget cuts to medicare/medicaid. Idk how you can say you want to address the issue of mental health without increasing the budget of one of the main programs that deals with it.

Yep, cant say I give you any sources for funding on any of these suggestions but its worth talking about how to pay for it.

[Buffalo Bob]

Originally Posted by mooby

Chico, if you want to address the underlying issue of mental health instead of addressing guns I'm all for it. First step, reversing the years of budget cuts to medicare/medicaid. Idk how you can say you want to address the issue of mental health without increasing the budget of one of the main programs that deals with it.

For the record I first fired a .22 rifle at 7 and have been a gun owner since I was 18 when I bought a .38 revolver. That was 40 years ago. 40 years ago mass shootings were rare, also suicides by teenagers and young adults were at 1/2 the rate they are now. One of the big differences I see in that time frame is how many kids are diagnosed with ADHD and the like and medicated. I have known families where all 3 kids were on pills. I guess I am lucky being born in the early 60's. I was always on the honor roll, but wound a little too tight. My solution was exercise, that would knock the edge off so I could concentrate whether at work or school. That actually continued till I was in my early 30's. If I didn't get a morning run in before heading to work I was bouncing off the walls all day. if I was born 30 years later I probably would have been given elephant tranquilizers daily.

I just see too many parents drugging their kids as a problem. Also it seems a lot of psychologists, like that idiot on TV, Dr Phil act like pills and counseling are a cure all for everything. Dr Phil thinks there is no such thing as a bad kid. Some people are just evil and need to be monitored closely, or better yet locked up. The idea that someone who has displayed repeated past disturbing behavior is fixed by meds is absurd.