TheLeviathan

I have heard some very muted talk of mental health reforms, but I think largely they are too busy defending guns to offer solutions. But there are a few on the right pointing this out, just not nearly enough and none with much influence.

CF Hicks 2B Dozier 1B Mauer 3B Sano C Wieters LF Rosario DH Vargas/Arcia RF Arcia/Kepler/Buxton SS Escobar Bench: Nunez, Suzuki, De Aza, Robinson Rotation: Hughes, Duffey, Santana, May, Gibson Bullpen: Perkins, Jepsen, Fien, Milone, O'Day, O'Rourke, Nolasco We have the money to spend, let's unload for O'Day and Wieters and turn DH and RF over to the young guys.

I don't understand why "our" culture has to be the elimination of personality and exuberance from the game. And anyone that reads this and doesn't think Norris is walking a very fine line into something very nasty, may want to re-read it. Frankly, I think his comments cross that line and I'd bet he's far from an isolated case.

We have a lot of these threads. And the answer is no.

Oh, it'll also be a very long-term project. The NRA is ridiculously powerful. But we didn't turn the tables on the tobacco industry for decades, but the only way you're going to build a true challenger to the NRA is to start to galvanize support and funding. To create as much risk in opposing gun laws as supporting them. Right now that doesn't exist and won't exist until there is a more comprehensive effort to unify behind the concept. I don't think, given the factors involved in this issue, that there is a short-term fix that we can count on. But a combination of things now will help over time. I think the one most likely to impact first is galvanized opposition to the NRA and real pressure on politicians. Hell, I'm not convinced the gun laws everyone thinks are the silver bullet are even possible until that happens.

I don't want them passed in 20 years, I just don't think we will see real benefits for that long. Limiting new sales does nothing to reduce the enormous proliferation that already exists. I'm irritated that people seem to think tougher gun laws will stop the next one. The CT massacre stands as stark evidence to the contrary. I think they can help in the long term but they are woefully insufficient in the short term. And that assumes we even can pass the laws now in an environment where that still seems like a long shot without more galvanized opposition to the NRA and those it has pocketed in government. In our society now a hashtag is going to have more power than a bill proposal. That may be the best place to start.

To have fun and celebrate makes you arrogant and self-centered? Our tyrannical Puritan roots strike again!

It's fair to say that this offseason is important for Ryan to demonstrate he can take the team to the next level. But several moves he has made helped them get as far as they did this year. The next step is a bit harder though.

From Ryan, to Molitor, to the boys on the field: This was a fun season and a better effort than most any of us could have hoped for. Let's hope it's the start of many more seasons like it.

The fight against tobacco is the model IMO. We're just several decades removed from smoking not just being accepted, but encouraged and thought of much the same way as guns. Now you can barely go anywhere with smoking allowed much less accepted. It took time, it took changes in the law, but most importantly it took a reshaping of the way we view smoking. That fight isn't over yet, but we're seeing true progress. It's going to take a long time with guns too. Especially since not one single gun law proposed here would do anything to stop the next massacre. And, to go further, I just read ashbury's excellent post. Tobacco is still a powerful lobby, but the anti-Tobacco lobby and groups have become a significant public and political force. That force has helped make more laws be passable but also emboldened the anti-tobacco campaigns. Right now, anything anti-gun is fought SO hard by the NRA that it never gets off the ground. That goes for both laws as well as things as simple as public criticism. The advertising pushback and effort to change our perception will build groups like this that can stand opposed to the NRA. Just passing laws does nothing because the general public doesn't follow that. But they see the commercials. They see the change in perception. They can get behind movements. The law changes can still happen, but they're just one prong as others have said. Without the voice of the public and real pushback to our culture of gun violence, they'll do nothing to stop the next 16 year old from raiding their parent's gun cabinet. We need those parents to willingly give up their gun cabinets and that's going to take time, but it's the only way. We'll NEVER pass a law in this environment that reduces the guns already here and that is the true source of a lot of this violence.

Seriously, I said this: What the hell are you talking about?

I think we need an aggressive deglorifying of the gun. Get them off childrens shows. Run ad campaigns like the anti smoking crowd. Push back against the image of guns. Then you supplement with mental health reforms and gun laws, but they wont mean anything unless we change how we think. I really liked that super bowl commercial about spreading kindness. Another good avenue.

Sweet Jesus....more unnecessary extensions.

I actually was going to say "excited" but I backed it down to "intrigued" because the show had so many issues last year. And I still don't know how they bridge things with a Bruce character so much younger.

CT was also number 2 for the toughest and didn't stop the shooter. He just got the weapons from his mother, who had obtained them legally. Some of this is that the existing proliferation makes for such a ready supply that any gun laws will likely take years to be effective. Unless we can convince gun nuts to hand them over willingly that is. And before anyone runs in crying that this is a "throw our hands in the air" argument -it's not. I'm being realistic about what has happened and how effective these proposed solutions appear. Bad solutions that sound good are still bad solutions.

Gotham's second season has started out VERY aggressively. It's got me intrigued.

I guess I'm still confused how gun control laws are going to help THIS situation. I mean, just looking at the last few states that have had mass shootings, they're not on the looser end of gun control laws. Let's put aside the merits of better gun control laws for more general gun related violence, the argument being made here (and nationally) is that gun control will help reduce mass shootings. That appears to me to be a pretty dubious claim.

Another excellent post jimmer. I'd offer only one amendment to the end: that the vague nature of the unwritten rules allows some to impose their version of the "right way" on others. Often, as Norris says, to send the message that "your way" isn't welcome in America.

Russia complicates things when they are attacking people we are backing. It just gets into petty **** that adds another layer to it.

Oh I agree, the distinction you raise is important. "Mental health" is an umbrella term that captures a very wide range, with very different circumstances. I think what you say here is important for people to understand. I look at the initial post-CT massacre reaction to Autism and then look at what might be made of this case and how radically different these two kinds of "mental health" issues could be.

I think you just made a great case for the DH in both leagues.

It is a nexus of issues. Russian/American competitions for who swings a bigger stick, the region as a whole is a cluster of nonsense, religion is at the very center of it, and their are so many innocents suffering as a result. This is one of those situations that tugs at you to ignore the rational voice that says "You have to let them figure it out", because without intervention there will be a host of casualties. There may be either way, I don't know.

Ok, more in depth now: 1. The complexity of many forms of funding for mental health, or physical disabilities, or just basic health care is pretty ridiculous. The system is a mess that is impossible for most people to understand, including me. I just know that the amount of regulations and many of the funding streams are completely non-sensical or impractical to the people on the ground. And that covers the range from the physically disabled to youth in foster care. So yeah, clean that mess up. 2) Medication, in general, is overpriced in our country. But medication, in general, is also vastly over prescribed. As I said in my short post, we are using vast amounts of psychotropic medication on people (and children) at a rate no one in the world even approaches. Not all mental health conditions need that approach. So that recommendation comes with a giant red flag for me. 3) The stigma issue is real, but (in my experience at least) most of the stigma is again attached to medication. People feel that if they accept some kind of help or are labeled in some form, that it necessitates medication. That's what scares off a lot of parents and I know of many schools that are up front about that exact distinction in many student evaluations.

I will reply more thoroughly later ben, but that was what I was getting at. We are heavily reliant on medication, including an alarming rate for children. Mental health, in our country, seems to be code for "medicating it away". So more money into that vicious cycle worries me. Also, is there some pattern to weapon acquisition in these cases I'm not aware of? My impression has been that most of them got their weapons by stealing them from neighbors or loved ones that would be perfectly eligible to purchase weapons under most plans. What am I missing?

Russia is complicating it even further, unsurprisingly.