Leaderboard

Nobody is going to "stop" mass killings altogether, but why not take steps to greatly reduce the number of mass killings? I am glad you are not opposed to stricter gun laws, but when people comment "gun control is not going to stop mass killings" it gets really old. I know all drunk drivers can't be taken off the road, but let's roll back all drunk driving laws because we can't stop them all.

Good, I was hoping he wouldn't think he was rude... I'll see myself out...

Breaking news: Russians indicted in special counsel's probe for operations allegedly supporting Donald Trump in election https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/russians-indicted-in-special-counsel-robert-muellers-probe.html

Guys, it's pretty simple. Republicans need to be voted out of office at every level. These guys are insane. That's not an all-out indictment on conservatism, nor is it an endorsement of any specific branch of the opposition (though my views are clear). The GOP is not only unfit to govern, they threaten the very foundations of our democracy and our conception of America. They need to lose control of the House. They need to lose control of the Senate. They need to lose control of state houses and state legislatures. They all need to go.

The rest of the world has figured this problem out. The only dissenting opinions come from people who get paid millions by the NRA, and the sycophants who follow them.

Then, why aren't there mass killings all over Europe? To the bolded, it's actually both. Our political problem is that we have two sides that each only want to point at one of them.

One of the things I'm most passionate about is mental health especially as it relates to treatment. I usually start talking when there's a school shooting to dispell some stigma surrounding mental health. I find that folks have a lot of questions or misunderstandings, I figure it wouldn't hurt to give everyone a chance to ask questions to their heart's content. No judgment, no bs, just my opinion and any science I can find to back it up.

I know Landlord already answered this in depth, but it is worth reminding that guns are specifically designed to kill, and assault rifles with large magazines are specifically designed to slaughter as many humans as quickly and efficiently as possible. Cars, knives, and ski resorts all serve useful, non-slaughtering purposes. You could make a slightly better case for high-fructose corn syrup, but the victims have more of a choice there. You can also make a good case for a 12 gauge shotgun during hunting season. But there is not a single good scenario* for an assault rifle, much less a stockpile. I think people also blame guns in the thousands of cases where a child, a manic depressive, a jealous lover, or the home invader uses an easily accessed handgun against the wishes of the owner. Or when that easily accessed gun lets the owner make a rash decision they can't take back. I believer there are around 250 justifiable homicides a year, in which someone defends themselves or their property with a gun. There are literally 100x more people who use a gun to intentionally kill someone else, accidentally kill someone else, or kill themselves. We are bombarded with images of cool badasses wielding guns, but the vast majority are sad f#*k-ups. We're not going to take away everyone's guns, but maybe we could successfully mock this ridiculous fetish. * I think it would be a total rush to fire one in the safety of a shooting range, but I'd be cool if the shooting range owned and kept the assault rifles there.

Happy to offer something of interest. Question 1: Does the USA have more of a mental health problem than other countries: To answer your question, I think it's extremely important to understand mental health and mental illness. The too long didn’t read is, it’s really hard to tell, but it’s possible (though there may be a better explanation, see below). In a 2004 study published in the Journal of the American Association, The World Mental Health Survey Consortium found “The prevalence of having any WMH-CIDI/DSM-IV disorder in the prior year varied widely, from 4.3% in Shanghai to 26.4% in the United States, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 9.1%-16.9%. Between 33.1% (Colombia) and 80.9% (Nigeria) of 12-month cases were mild (IQR, 40.2%-53.3%). Serious disorders were associated with substantial role disability. Although disorder severity was correlated with probability of treatment in almost all countries, 35.5% to 50.3% of serious cases in developed countries and 76.3% to 85.4% in less-developed countries received no treatment in the 12 months before the interview. Due to the high prevalence of mild and subthreshold cases, the number of those who received treatment far exceeds the number of untreated serious cases in every country.” A 2014 meta-analysis published in the international journal of epidemiology published by Steel et al., supported this conclusion. “There was also evidence of consistent regional variation in the prevalence of common mental disorder. Countries within North and South East Asia in particular displayed consistently lower one-year and lifetime prevalence estimates than other regions. One-year prevalence rates were also low among Sub-Saharan-Africa, whereas English speaking counties returned the highest lifetime prevalence estimates.” So why am I skeptical? The DSM-5 (Diagnostics and Statistics Manual; and the previous iterations) is a document that was designed as a descriptive rather than explanatory text. To make a diagnosis, you observe a set of behaviors and you say "oh we call these things occurring together major depressive disorder". This is in the direct contrast to the medical model which is explanatory where you observe a set of behaviors and say "You're doing this because you're depressed". Within psychology, there is more or less a consensus to reject the medical model. There is ongoing research to justify the medical model that is primarily conducted by psychiatrists but so far the results do not support an underlying disorder (equivalent to having a virus or bacterial infection) that would explain alterations in human behavior. The rest of the world (for the most part) uses a different standard of diagnosis which is the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) manual. There have been continued efforts to synchronize these texts, but I do not believe they're at 100% (not my specialty area). What this means is that even from our starting point what we in the USA recognize as a disorder or mental illness is not always (though it is most of the time) what other parts of the world view as mental illness. That is to say, we're comparing apples to something that's very similar to an apple, but not quite an apple. The next thing we have to understand why people are diagnosed. If we look at diagnostic criteria for a disorder, you regularly encounter something like this: there are 12 possible symptoms, if you endorse 8 of them you “have” the disorder, if you diagnose 7, you don’t. This doesn’t mean that people who are sub-clinical aren’t distressed. It just means that they don’t meet that criteria. To go back to our medical model example, imagine going to the doctor with a bunch of symptoms that are similar to the flu, but you’re told you come back negative for the flu. Would you expect insurance to pay for your flu treatment (that they don’t think you need…because you don’t have the flu)? So psychologists and others will routinely have some flexibility in diagnosis in order to give distress individuals access to treatment. This artificially inflates numbers. It’s also important to note that lots of people just plain suck at diagnosing. You’ll get a lot of things like PTSD diagnosis for individuals who experienced a “social trauma” which is not a diagnostic criteria. The bad diagnosis problem is further complicated by the people who give the most diagnoses and treatment; primary care providers. Even psychiatrists don’t’ receive any training in mental health until after they’re done with med school. Most PCPs have a very limited understanding of mental health despite the fact they are almost always the first point of contact. They want to prescribe meds to help (that’s the tool they have), so they need to provide a diagnosis that justifies the use of meds. All in all, the impact of our insurance system has a HUGE impact on diagnostic over expansion. Question 2: Are people with various “mental health” issues more dangerous? The long and short is no. You’ll see certain symptom presentations that do predict an uptake in this such as paranoid features and command hallucinations (a voice telling you to do something). However, research suggests that overwhelmingly individuals diagnosed with a mental health disorder and likely to be the victims of a violent crime rather than the person who commits the crime. The biggest predictors of violent behavior is a past history of violent behaviors and substance use. Violent acts are overwhelmingly committed against people you know as well instead of strangers. I need to step out of my office so I don’t have the time to find the citation right now, but I’ll search for that in a bit. Question 3: “ How often does a severe "mental health issue" go undiagnosed until after the fact? “ Diagnosing “after the fact” cannot be done. The people who do this are acting unethically. To make a diagnosis you need to sit down and talk to the person. It’s the same reason people making diagnoses re: Trump or Charlie Sheen are full of BS. You cannot diagnose unless you sit down and talk to a person.

i reread the 2nd amendment and realized something. why do the first 4 words get left out of all the discussion about gun control? "A Well regulated militia". it seems that it wasn't meant to be an unregulated free for all to me.

Time to be blunt.

@schriznoeder already mentioned it on page 1, but on the subject of the NRA, I'll just leave this here without comment.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. People with bad intentions will always try to find a way. But we are long overdue in addressing the most dangerous, prevalent weapon at their disposal to accomplish those ends. I also think we need increases funding and better outcomes for mental health for all Americans. We have to approach this issue with a multifaceted approach, and this would have great societal benefit. The VAST majority (nearly 2/3) of gun deaths are suicides. Really useful graphic from 538. But of course, the GOP voted for huge cuts to mental health funding via Medicaid, which provides 28% of all mental healthcare services. Trump's budget would cut $665M in mental healthcare spending as well.

For the record, plenty of people do blame America's car culture for an unnecessary amount of car-related deaths, pollution, etc., and push to move our culture more towards public transportation. Also, nobody is blaming guns. Guns are some plastic and metal thrown together. People are blaming the obsessive culture of gun ownership, as well as greedy organizations who shut down even hypothetical research on gun violence, and partisan politics obstructing sensical and reasonable legislature to make sure guns are sold properly. You know, if a child stabs themselves, you don't blame the knife, but you do blame the people who made knives so easily accessible to that child, don't you? Guns and cars are not analogous. For so many reasons. The biggest being that guns, while possible to be safely owned and operated, are made with the purpose of killing, whereas cars are made with the purpose of safely transporting you, but also happen to be dangerous. The fundamental nature of the two is completely opposed to one another. Another way in which they are drastically different is that when cars have been the source of, or at least perceived, source of problems, we've made changes to the law to make them better, and manufacturers have constantly improved upon their safety instead of lobbying for it to be illegal to even research car-related deaths. Backup cameras, better security/locking, brake assistance, whatever the hell you call the thing that helps you stay in your lane if you doze off or whatever, etc. Do gun manufacturers have a history of using technology to improve the safety of their products? No. Because they don't care about it. Car manufacturers do, because they know nobody will buy a car that isn't safe. If you insist on making an analogy out of the two, okay, so be it. If you want to own and operate a vehicle, you have to: • Acquire a license, with written and practical tests • Renew your license every few years, and be in a state and federal database • Get specialty licensing for specialty vehicles • Have your vehicle registered, pay yearly tag fees, and have at least liability insurance • Restriction of crazy high-performance and potentially unsafe vehicles to private courses/competitions/etc. That's a good list of reasonable ways to approach something that is serious and important to regulate the right way. Does any of that seem unreasonable to apply to gun ownership? If so, could we at least research it to make sure? Well, apparently, we can't. Apparently we can't do anything, other than offer thoughts and prayers. I'm going to go ahead and offer mine up in advance to the families of the kids who get murdered 5-6 months from now.

Gotta post in this thread to simply give a shout out to Panico and his sacrifice. IIRC, that season we dropped punt after punt until Panico came in....No yards, but no dropped balls. Always glad to see a former Husker do well.

Nah...there were some good times. The skinny assassin's 57 yarder. Suh breaking gabbert in the rain. The colt ragdoll. The kstate fan's holy s*** Martinez is fast face. Actually a lot of good times...

Link

I sure just hope our 4th ranked roster can manage to knock off the MIGHTY 14th ranked Boilermakers.

Top of 9th Flyout Groundout strikeout Huskers Win 8-3

Barack Obama got a lot of heat for being overheard (and recorded) talking about how hard it is for Democrats to reach working-class voters who are frustrated about their economic conditions: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said. Hillary took him to task (it was 2008) and Obama had to apologize, but I still don't know what he got wrong.

There's a whole theory set up around identification and intervention that's really fascinating. See below, we try to do the same thing. However, group level intervention results in reduced precision in changing behavior. A good example was DARE. It was an attempt to change behavior, but it didn't work well. Everyone got it though which was good. If we developed better group level interventions that we include in school programming it could go a long way. You're starting to see some of this pop up in the form of mindfulness programs in school. Unfortunately, folks do not fully understand why we use mindfulness skills, so some of the benefits may be lost. This is a very important step for research, it's just difficult (and expensive) to track long-term outcomes of an infrequent behavior (e.g. homicidal acts of violence). https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Images/Prevention_stages_e.gif&imgrefurl=https://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Prevention_e.htm&h=529&w=945&tbnid=Kq35e7cUiNHtEM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=211&usg=__dpAaO5GGbKnCkWqvuUqLrNE9Eyo%3D&vet=10ahUKEwiTps7nn6vZAhVFR6wKHbI5ApgQ9QEIMDAA..i&docid=4rkY1iSWJDD7yM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTps7nn6vZAhVFR6wKHbI5ApgQ9QEIMDAA

6.24? (I'm not always the best at math).

Played division 1 football, challenged the ncaa, fought underground MMA fights, and now he makes a hit documentary about veganism. Santino Panico is a man of varied talents!

What is really disturbing to me as a Christian is that so many people in a twisted way think the two bolded are some how connected.

Gun culture has gone from essentially a hobby or a pastime to a full-fledged religion. People hold their guns more dearly than to their country, their fellow citizens, or their god. Maybe the first step in fixing the gun problem is to declare the NRA a Public Threat. Under their lobbying, 440,095 people died by firearms on US soil through homicide, accident and suicide. Over the same time span, 369 Americans have died overseas due to terrorist incidents. 1 The NRA is clearly far more dangerous to Americans than terrorists. Let's fight the fight that needs fighting. Ban the NRA.

Feeling Frosty this morning! My brother and I just booked our flights for the CU game. First game back since Oregon in '16. Now I need tickets, lol.

He is a must-get. He knows we are the Huskers, not Huskies.

I am pretty liberal, but when it comes to guns I am definitely a right-winger. Here's what I do not understand: why do people always blame the gun(s)? When people lose their lives in a car wreck, (assuming no manufacture defect) nobody blames the car. If you go skiing and hit a tree, no one blames the ski resort. If you get stabbed by a crazy ex, no one blames the knife manufacturure. But when people are killed by guns, most everyone blames the gun makers and it doesn't make sense. I have a conspiracy theory about why most mass shootings occur at schools but am hesitant to put it into this thread. I do agree though that Trump was 100% wrong to end Obama's ban in selling guns to people with a history of mental issues. That law/executive order should have stayed in place.

Guns don't just make it easier. They make it a lot easier. Exponentially easier. They have also been wildly over-romanticized as the equalizer for every weak and marginalized male who wants to be recognized just once, and is willing to go out in a blaze of glory.

Can I please have two votes?

I don't want to speak for everyone, but I think we are all exhausted of the prior regimes, and just want to focus on dialogue that pertains to the current era. We've been dragged around long enough. I mean that with no disrespect. I just feel like we are in a much better place currently.

The answer is no:

That was the story but I think it was actually from ESPN Stats & Info as opposed to someone on the committee. I think Boehm might have said it was from the committee but was either mis-informed or mis-spoke.

This is disturbing. But, let's remember, there are good people in these groups.

Institutionalization is an issue with a lot of information around it that you need to take into account. First, we don't really have institutions anymore, we have in-patient treatment facilities. The majority of people that are put into an in-patient setting are there voluntarily. This is important because to put someone in this type of treatment facility without their consent is taking away their constitutional rights (freedom) that are usually only taken away in the event that you violate the law. According to the 2010 annual homeless assessment report suggests that 46% of individuals in shelters (where we can collect data) can be diagnosed with severe mental illness or a substance/alcohol use disorder. We also know that crime/violence is strongly correlated with substance/alcohol use. While correlation doesn't imply causation, it seems like a reasonable step to work towards a system where we maximize access to treatment and assess the impact on homelessness and crime. With regards to macro-level treatment, I'm pretty naive about other countries ways of approaching treatment. I specialize in understanding what it is about treatment that makes a difference. So I can't say there's a way another country does things that we should emulate. What I can say is that there's a general thing that I think we should teach everyone (school age kids being the first group). Namely, we should work on validating feelings even if we don't understand or agree with why they are happening. Additionally, we should work on accepting feelings instead of working to teach people how to get rid of feelings or ignore them. There's a strong evidence base to point to that would suggest that many problems in mental health are an artifact of ourselves or others not accepting our feelings.

Put many hours into playing TMNT the arcade game. As well as Street Fighter 2.

Let's take a look at Australia and maybe you will understand my post a little more. Australia implemented a gun control law after a mass shooting in 1996 and it greatly reduced gun mass killings but it didn't stop mass killings altogether. In June of 2000, 15 people were killed by arson at a hostel In Feb of 2009, 10 people were killed by arson at a ralley In July of 2009, 5 family members were beat to death with a hammer In November of 2011, 11 people were killed by arson at a nursing home In Dec of 2014, 8 children were killed by a knife at a residence In Jan of 2017, 6 people were killed by a car at a mall Before the gun control, the only other arson attack was in 1973 which killed 15 people. Like I mentioned, take away guns and people will still find ways to cause mass casualties. I am not opposed to stricter gun laws. I actually wouldn't mind it because I know a few people that own guns and they are dumber then a box of hammers. I was just simply pointing out that people with mental issues will find other ways to cause harm.

So because the western roman empire fell to barbarians we cant restrict the types of firearms people purchase in the usa over 1500 years later because we might get invaded by terrorists? If only the romans had more thoughts and prayers. Do you think that as the barbarians where at Rome's gates the emperor was like come on guys this isn't the time to politicize the issue.

Why are we concerned about being invaded by another country when right now we can't go to school, church, the mall, a movie, a concert and feel safe?

multiplicatively

QB - Low/Medium improvement - hopefully far fewer turnovers and added mobility, but there will be growing pains with a young guy RB - High improvement - added talent/depth/competition, a scheme that's above pee-wee level WR - Medium improvement - Spielman can't improve a lot over last year, Morgan can improve his catch percentage, but the depth will be a huge improvement OL - High improvement - coaching, attitude, scheme, fitness, accountability, rotation... this is likely the biggest area of improvement this year TE - Low improvement - this one is hard to judge with the scheme change, Hoppes was decent last year, but there are several guys here that can make noise DL - Medium improvement - was solid at times last year with what they were asked to do, I think we're going to see them allowed to use their athletic ability this year LB - Medium improvement - there is some talent here and if they are used properly and get put in a scheme they understand... look out CB - Medium improvement - the depth here is still concerning, though not as much as last year - I think scheme alone helps these guys take a step forward S - High improvement - we might actually have some safeties that can tackle this year! - depth is also much better K - Medium Dropoff - Drew Brown was solid - Pickering will probably be decent, but he'll be a true freshman P - No/Low Improvement - Lightborne was much better last year as a sophomore than the previous year, I think he'll be solid again KR - Medium Improvement - We showed a little life here last year compared to previous years, I expect that to get even better now PR - High Improvement - First off, we'll probably force teams to punt this year... that would help, and we might actually try returning it instead of endless fair catches

Both similar BC & MR first season: losing records. And inherited winning coaches ..... Solich 10W-3L; Pelini 9W-4L

Well, the football team has been involved in pre-season top 25 fraud for years . . . .

Lou Holtz gave his thoughts: