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.

How much did you confidence increase when UCF beat Auburn? I was against the game because I wanted Frost and his staff 100% dedicated to the Huskers. After UCF beat Aubrn, my confidence in Frost more than doubled. Frost was undefeated, but all he did was beat up on AAC opponents. Beating a top 10, P5 team in the bowl, a team that defeated both teams in the MNC game. proved to me that Frost and his staff are elite. Now I am happy Frost coached the bowl game. I will not get anxious if things do not go our way, because I have full confidence in this staff. Without the bowl victory, there was some doubt.

This crosses over into a domain that I can't really answer (surrounding the intersection of developmental psychology and policy). I'm a pacifist. I don't like violence and while I can understand hunting guns actively scare me and I'd prefer that we limit access to them. That is to say that I'm biased here. However, I think "assault-style" needs to be operationally defined. The variables that seem important to me are things such as rate of fire and the damage produced by each round. I think it would behoove us as a country to use language that defines what we're scared of and why rather than a blanket term (such as assault style or mental illness...which realistically as I understand them can mean just about anything). To bounce back to your question. Age is a poor metric for any restrictions one way or another in my opinion. We set those guidelines to say "on average people at this age posses the skills we want for this behavior/action". If I was ever going to set an age limit on anything I would set that number at 25 in every case. At age 25, the prefrontal cortex has completed its development. The prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that is most responsible for attention, complex planning, impulse control, and control of emotional reactions. Barring an age limit of 25, I would want to develop some sort of task that assesses emotional impulsivity. I do not think legal gun ownership by the individual fully addresses our concerns. It can certainly make things harder, but the same way kids still find ways to get alcohol or illegal drugs, if it's out there people will get it. To address happenings of school shootings I do believe that we need to make drastic changes to access to weapons such as what has been done in England and Australia. This will slowly change things, but it will take a lot of time and it will be a bumpy ride. I don't think this will happen as we have significant cultural variables that factor into a fear of a tyrannical government or invading foreign power that evoke a lot of fear from people. When you let fear instead of values guide action, you tend to get messy outcomes.

Wait....farmers don't use roads for their business? How do they get from field to field? How do they get their seed corn and other inputs delivers to them? How do they get their products to market? As to the quoted legislation. Why are farmers given a way to recoup this cost but other industries aren't?

I can't wait to see how much better we are here. My biggest pet peeve is a linebacker being blocked by a center 5 yards down the field. It should almost never happen. Our backers for too long have been slow of feet and slower of mind. If this question were about a player rather than a position group, my answer would be Honas. Watching his tape makes me shriek like a school girl.

The one thing I see continuously get brought up in this thread is that there is an assumption people want to ban guns or just simply assault weapons completely. While in my opinion, I think banning these types of weapons would help tremendously as evidence by countries all over the world, that is not what most are arguing. We have to start somewhere with this issue because it is one that is too hard to ignore anymore, and quite frankly should have been a long time ago. Is it really that outlandish to start requiring more background checks to obtain these types of weapons? Is that too much of a hassle for law-abiding citizens to take part in? Sure, the people with intentions to carry out these acts will more times than not find a way to still obtain the weapons. But if it can even stop one of these tragedies or even save just one life is it not worth it? People get too focused on the idea that people are coming to take their guns, and that just isn't the case at all. Most people just simply want tighter restrictions and common sense laws that can help to START combating these issues. Nothing will change overnight but we have to start moving forward with ways to stop these unbelievable tragedies. When each one becomes less and less shocking, there is a major problem. Sorry for the rant........

England, Australia, and other countries have implemented stricter gun bans. They have markedly lower occurrences such as this. Why? They must not have mental health issues there, lucky.

Then I suppose we should allow civilians to be able to purchase frag grenades, rocket launchers, and WMD's as well, as long as they're not crazy. Your argument makes no sense. Take away guns, less people will find less accessible ways to cause mass casualties. They'll still happen, but the goal isn't to eliminate entirely, it's to effect the issue to matter of degrees.

I don't think he/she used that correctly. I think he/she meant exponentially.

"Sorry kiddos, can't do anything about these mass shootings because the Romans got invaded."

Pretty sure it didn't sell out in 36 hours in 2008, but I don't really care if it is the first or second or 100th sold out spring game. Something just feels different right now. I haven't bee this excited for a spring game for 20-some years.

Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2 say hello.

You did and so did a lot of other people. Good marketing ploy from DeBeers

You serious Clark? Do I need to spell it out for you?

Stewart Mandel got a lot of emails about Notre Dame this week: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2014/08/20/ohio-state-braxton-miller-nfl-notre-dame-scandal-mailbag.html