tkhayes 124 #101 January 28, 2011 Quotehttp://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/28/281710/police-investigating-double-homicide-in-new-tampa/ ooh ooh!! Another one!! Too bad the kids didn't have guns to defend themselves!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #102 January 28, 2011 Quotehttp://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/28/281710/police-investigating-double-homicide-in-new-tampa/[/URL] ooh ooh!! Another one!! Too bad the kids didn't have guns to defend themselves!! [url]http://www.google.com/search?q=mom+kills+kids&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari And yet you're not saying anything about cars, alcohol, pools, ISPs that don't block farmville, and everything else on just the first page. Zo, vhy are you so interested in ze guns?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #103 January 29, 2011 QuoteQuote?? You had just argued yesterday that this new offer of mental health care would save money, versus the costs of the shootings it would surely (whatever) prevent. Are you abandoning this stance already? Who said I was abandoning the stance? Providing mental health care for thousands of dollars is cheaper than the tragedy of a multiple shooting which costs 10's of millions of dollars......ounce of prevention - pound of cure - maybe you've never heard of that - but I doubt it. reposting #88 - maybe you'll actually respond this time? Your lack of defense looks and smells like abandonment. Quote Population of Arizona is 6.5M. Let's pick a cheap $50/hr rate for the shrinks, no drugs. So if the state provided every citizen with one whopping hour of mental health care per year (and there are no administrative costs behind it), it will cost $300M/year. And exactly what is the math behind the tens of millions in this incident? How many such incidents has Arizona had in the past 20 years? The kids behind Columbine certainly had access to shrinks. Did they go? If you're not going to make it mandatory, TK, then you're not going to reach the people that need it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #104 January 29, 2011 QuoteQuote?? You had just argued yesterday that this new offer of mental health care would save money, versus the costs of the shootings it would surely (whatever) prevent. Are you abandoning this stance already? Who said I was abandoning the stance? Providing mental health care for thousands of dollars is cheaper than the tragedy of a multiple shooting which costs 10's of millions of dollars......ounce of prevention - pound of cure - maybe you've never heard of that - but I doubt it. Could you please show where you came up with these numbers? Thousand of dollars to provide mental health care for everyone or (at the very least) everyone that wants to purchase a gun? Doubtful. It would be much, much higher. 10's of millions for multiple shootings? Doubtful. How so? Lower I would guess. If you have the facts to back up these claim I would love to see them. At this point it appears as though you are just making up stats to TRY to prove your point. It isn't working. ________________________________ "1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #105 January 29, 2011 one incident - thousands of dollars to provide mental health care for everyone at that rally in AZ. 10's of millions for what happened. Funerals, EMT/EMS, Police, FBI, investigations. Health care (just how much do you think Gabby Gifford will cost for her injuries and who pays for it?), litigation - no doubt Safeway will get sued over it, as well as anyone else with a deep pocket. Prosecution of the case typically costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/14/study-average-cost-murder-tops-million/ the right wing network itself agrees. Insurance rates go up because of incidents. additional security, changes to policy, stricter rules regarding events like this. You cna bet the next ongress rally or appearance has twice the number of police and surveillance. the cost to families is unmeasurable. All these costs are borne by society as a whole and therefore trickle down to YOUR tax bill (and mine) Everyone hates taxes, but no one has a problem with paying for the end result - which is a form of tax itself. It's just like health care. Everyone is OK with society paying for emergency room care for the uninsured, - they pay for it alright....(up to $1000/year per person) http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2003/Jun/The%20Costs%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Being%20Uninsured/davis_consequences_itl_663%20pdf.pdf But if someone suggested a tax rate that would cover health care for all - it's 'communist' or socialist. can't see the forest for the trees. Do some homework before you dispute my number,s it could save you a post or two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 January 29, 2011 QuoteInsurance rates go up because of incidents. I thought you said that insurance was so high due to greedy CEO's - could you make up your mind, please? QuoteIt's just like health care. Everyone is OK with society paying for emergency room care for the uninsured, - they pay for it alright....(up to $1000/year per person) http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2003/Jun/The%20Costs%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Being%20Uninsured/davis_consequences_itl_663%20pdf.pdf No, everyone's not - reference the many discussions on abuse of the ER systems. QuoteBut if someone suggested a tax rate that would cover health care for all - it's 'communist' or socialist. can't see the forest for the trees. Speaking of forests and trees - why is it that feeding wild animals results in them not being able to care for themselves, but libs think the same thing doesn't hold true for humans? QuoteDo some homework before you dispute my number,s it could save you a post or two. Oh, gee...another post from a lib talking about how much SMRTR he is than some conservative. And you wonder why people don't want to discuss the issue?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #107 January 29, 2011 Quoteone incident - thousands of dollars to provide mental health care for everyone at that rally in AZ. The cost you are referring to here is after the fact which was not your original argument. Earlier you were referring to mental health screening for everyone before the fact. If only a third of the population of the U.S. were required to get some form of mental health screening at $250 (probably a low estimate) that would be 25 billion dollars. If there was such a law in place I bet it would not be a one time deal either. I'm done. ________________________________ "1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend) The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #108 January 29, 2011 with arguments like that - it's no wonder you are done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #109 January 29, 2011 hey, I posted numbersat least. All you posted was a comment about how 'smarter I must think i am' I thought YOU were smarter than that..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 January 29, 2011 Quotehey, I posted numbersat least. All you posted was a comment about how 'smarter I must think i am' I thought YOU were smarter than that..... Oh, I'm sorry - was there something BESIDES a brag to that snippet? Given that your source starts with the debunked 40m number, I'm not very surprised that it reads like they started with the conclusion and worked backward from there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #111 January 29, 2011 Quoteit reads like they started with the conclusion and worked backward from there. Its a new calculation process called "Warm Math". The great thing is if the data changes or is proven incorrect the formula changes, not the conclusionYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #112 January 30, 2011 My public agency, in a small city, spends several millions of dollars a year providing mental health screenings and treatments. Multiply that across the entire population, it's a number we can't afford."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 January 30, 2011 Quotewith arguments like that - it's no wonder you are done. keep dodging. It's clear you have no answer. It's amazing that you're proud for making up a number out of thin air, and claiming it as evidence. Quote Population of Arizona is 6.5M. Let's pick a cheap $50/hr rate for the shrinks, no drugs. So if the state provided every citizen with one whopping hour of mental health care per year (and there are no administrative costs behind it), it will cost $300M/year. And exactly what is the math behind the tens of millions in this incident? How many such incidents has Arizona had in the past 20 years? The kids behind Columbine certainly had access to shrinks. Did they go? If you're not going to make it mandatory, TK, then you're not going to reach the people that need it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #114 January 30, 2011 kinda like the numbers YOU just made up there.....? prove me wrong....show me how much a mass shooting costs society.... show me how much a murder trial costs society show me how much a brain injury costs society.. show me how much mental health care would cost - and NO, not mandatory for everyone, because that is not what is needed. but go ahead, make something up just like I made up the mass shootings that did not really happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #115 January 30, 2011 Quote show me how much mental health care would cost - and NO, not mandatory for everyone, because that is not what is needed. Well, actually yes it is. This is the key point you keep dancing around. It is what is really needed if you want to stop the shootings. Just because you give free mental health care to everyone, doesn't mean they will use it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #116 January 30, 2011 Quote show me how much mental health care would cost - and NO, not mandatory for everyone, because that is not what is needed. In 1997 (sorry it is a bit outdated but the best I could do with a quick google search) our country spent $85 billion on behavioral health care services. That is mental health and substance abuse."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #117 January 30, 2011 Quotekinda like the numbers YOU just made up there.....? prove me wrong....show me how much a mass shooting costs society.... The latter bit is your responsibility, though you've shown very little in these discussions. It's your claim that a bit of prevention (more mental care) would lead to great savings. My estimates aren't made up. You can easily verify the population of Arizona. You can look into the $50/hr estimate, which is anything was grossly on the low side. Psychiatrists charge more than psychologists, and drugs are expensive. And people would really need more than 1hr/year for anything meaningful to be accomplish. But even that lowball number is 300M. Meanwhile, you keep shouting out "10s of millions" without any foundation to it. You listed some real costs, no doubt, but without any numbers for each element. And you've remained silent to the question of how many such incidents have occurred in Arizona over recent history. In short, your claim that spending on mental care would be cheaper is obviously false, pure fantasy on your part. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #118 January 30, 2011 prevention is better than cure - you are saying that cure is better than prevention - right......I am in a fantasy.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #119 January 30, 2011 Quoteprevention is better than cure - you are saying that cure is better than prevention - right......I am in a fantasy.... shall I conclude that this is as much substance as you'll ever put into your arguments? I can dumb down my arguments to match, make you feel better. Or maybe you could try to understand how cost-benefit analysis works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #120 January 30, 2011 no but you are welcome to conclude that the substance of my argument is contained in all the dozen or so posts i have made in this thread, many of which contain cost-analysis and other substantial information. Maybe you shoudl review them. If it makes you feel better to think that nothing can be done to help improve the gun crime situation in this country - well then I guess that makes you feel better. It does not for me. Cost benefit. It is better to have a vaccine for disease that to deal with the black plague and its effects. But there is no data to demonstrate how much the plague would cost society. cost benefit (some would argue, but the numbers have not shown it) that taking the fight to the terrorists by invading Iraq and Afghanistan is better than dealing with a World Trade Center event. Cost benefit - it is better to have driver training PRIOR to letting people get a drivers license - yet there is probably no data to suppor tthat. Cost benefit, etc The saddest part is that I actually respond to this sort of jibberish - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 January 30, 2011 Quoteno but you are welcome to conclude that the substance of my argument is contained in all the dozen or so posts i have made in this thread, many of which contain cost-analysis and other substantial information. Maybe you shoudl review them. you repeated your claim of 10s of millions. You never included any detail. CBA would include the cost (you never have gone near this) and the benefit (you suggest a savings of a number you made up, and nothing to support how effective you think it would be). You made a claim that you cannot possibly support with evidence. It's that simple. If more aggressive mental screen would eliminate or drastically curtail the number of these incidents, then you'd see the mental health professionals actively promoting it. Instead, you see these proposals coming from disingenuous gun control advocates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #122 January 31, 2011 Mental Health organizations ARE fighting for more action: http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=22427516 http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=A4E57EA7-1372-4D20-C8B17D1418D1D85B http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp96145.pdf took me 4 minutes to find dozens of articles and various mental health and psychiatric associations that have issues with mental health and gun 'control'. Most of them advocate better mental health care - not necessarily restricting the gun laws further and further to 'blacklist' potential nut-bars from buying guns - which you seem to advocate would be the only way to solve the problem. These are professional organizations with well-respected credentials. Perhaps we should listen to them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #123 January 31, 2011 So it should take you four minutes or so to show where you got your price tag data?You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #124 January 31, 2011 30 seconds to find one article - yes can to try a little harder? http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #125 January 31, 2011 QuoteMental Health organizations ARE fighting for more action: http://capwiz.com/nami/issues/alert/?alertid=22427516 http://www.nmha.org/index.cfm?objectid=A4E57EA7-1372-4D20-C8B17D1418D1D85B http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp96145.pdf took me 4 minutes to find dozens of articles and various mental health and psychiatric associations that have issues with mental health and gun 'control'. Most of them advocate better mental health care - not necessarily restricting the gun laws further and further to 'blacklist' potential nut-bars from buying guns - which you seem to advocate would be the only way to solve the problem. These are professional organizations with well-respected credentials. Perhaps we should listen to them. Of course mental health organizations advocate for more and better health care. It means more money in the system. That's what activists do. How much more would be sufficient? How much more money would stop shootings? One thing that mental health professionals are lousy at (and any professional with any honesty would tell you this) is predicting who among their clients has the potential to become violent. The only accurate predictor we have is that people who have been violent in the past are more likely to be violent in the future."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
