web analytics
Daybook, Reading notes

Tweetstreams, rants and quotage.

I am using Brave, and seeing if I can manage to do a complex post within it. To start with, let’s compress a tweetstream. NZ has a high suicide rate, but we don’t use guns. Melbourne has a high gang violence rate, but they use machetes. In London they use knives. Some of this is cultural, but not every culture is native. In my experience, journalists are never native: they see patriotism as a suspect emotion, well beneath them.

Tweetstream as delivered, typos and capitalization intact.

Never heard of , but let’s educate her. Why aren’t there mass shootings in Switzerland, which has the third-most guns per capita in the world, almost all of them military weapons? This article promises to answer the question–and then it doesn’t.“Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here’s why it doesn’t have mass shootings” But the article DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I can answer the question: It’s cultural. Period. End of story. Felicity Hannah is a Brit who believes in one-size-fits-all laws, as well as government being the answer to everything. In reality American mass shooters are generic. They are bitter losers who want to feel significant for a moment. In the past, they all killed themselves.NOW, more and more of them are surrendering so that they can bask in the media attention.”What drove him? Here are his endlessly fascinating thoughts. Here are photos of him. Now we’ll interview him.”

The reason the US has so many mass shootings is that we have shitty parenting, no way to incarcerate the dangerously mentally ill against their will, and a media culture that celebrates these atrocities.

Did you know that everything the press told you about Columbine was a lie? There was no “Trench Coat Mafia,” the two murderers were not bullied, and they did not pick out athletes and Christians. The Parkland Neanderthal mass murderer had six straight years of escalating violence AT SCHOOL, and nothing was done. He wasn’t angry. He just wanted to be famous. Americans consistently value fame over EVERYTHING, including health and wealth. In the United States, mass shootings are the easiest way to become famous. That’s why I never use the names of mass shooters.

If we use the British approach and ban guns, we’ll have to ban guns worldwide, because criminals will still get them.

AND.There’s another cultural aspect that Brits refuse to acknowledge. If we ban guns, not only will citizens become helpless targets, those self-same citizens will tear apart any criminal they catch. The Internet is FULL OF VIDEOS of mob justice. Mexico has VERY strict gun laws. You should see what they do to criminals when they catch them. OH, and it’s happening in the good old UK as well. The locals decided he was a pedophile, so they murdered him. They came into his house, beat him unconscious, dragged him out, and set him on fire. There was evidence whatsoever that he was a pedophile. It was just deranged people acting out on rumors. Let’s ask @FelicityHannah a question:Would you have wanted Bijan Ebrahimi to have a gun? His whole street stormed his house and murdered him. So, would you have wanted him to have a firearm to defend himself?

And let’s debunk @Ron_GER_’s lies about buying ammunition in Switzerland. The gun and ammunition laws are the same. If you can buy a gun, you can buy ammunition.

Back to reality instead of dishonest fantasy. Mass shootings are the result of multiple factors, the main one being untreated mental illness. The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 began the process of closing government-run mental hospitals. Even the most severely mentally ill were released so that they could “find jobs or live at home.” Their treatment was to take place at outpatient community mental-health care centers that were never built. This was the beginning the homeless problem. In 1965, the passage of Medicaid forced states to release patients from mental institutions because the program doesn’t cover the cost. In 1967, California passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which made it virtually impossible to hospitalize the mentally ill against their will.

Every other state in the union adopted similar legislation. In 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which strengthened the social experiment of using community outpatient centers rather than government-run hospitals. In 1981, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act repealed the Mental Health Systems Act and replaced it with block grants to states, thus ending the federal government’s involvement in mental-health treatment. As always happens with block grants, the money was reallocated, and the community mental-health care centers were never built. During the Great Recession, states slashed funding to ALL mental-health programs.

By 2010, there were 14 psychiatric beds per 100,000 people in the United States. It’s the same ratio as in 1850.

Until we END the social experiment of deinstitutionalization, we will continue to have mass shootings. That’s just reality…

Wictor claims there are 14 beds per 100 000 population in the USA. In Australia the states average 25 per 100 000 and there is a campaign to open more because of the clear need, in part driven by drugs, in part family dysfunction, and in a much greater part the need of people who are mad combined with the lack of supports within the community. In NZ, where we have community treatment orders and assertive community teams — the services are swamped and the bed rate ranges from 9 to 15 per 100 000.

Beds are not the answer, caring is the answer.

On the concept of caring, the consequences of our atomized life and hookup culture are becoming apparent. STD rates are up.

And Matt Briggs mocks the current fashion of choosing your gender du jour.

This is slightly old news, but it brings up two wonderful points. One, if a woman walked into a National Health office and asked to have her prostate examined, then the “doctors” there would have to do it, or else risk losing their jobs. This will, in all seriousness, be tricky business, because since this woman has no prostate (I am now obliged to say), there will be no way, no way at all, for the “doctors” to satisfactorily demonstrate that they have examined this woman’s non-existent organ. Whether or not she believes the “treatment” to be a success will be entirely dependent on her mood.

Which, as it turns out, so does her believing herself a man, and therefore having a prostate. The entire medical profession would, and will doubtless will, therefore be at the mercy of lunatics. And if you don’t think that’s hilarious, then you have no sense of humor at all.

Second point. In the West, anyway, it will soon be only orthodox Christians that will be the best scientists. Which is nothing but history repeating itself, of course.

William M. Briggs

There is a reason why I swapped to colophon here. It used to imply that theology was dark, and science had hope. But science has fallen, and the church is reforming: though it will be a Hurculean task to cleanse the stables of corruption. It is those who believe who can face the truth: all others are living post modern myths, and wonder why all their schemes lead to the destruction of all we used to love.

So, do not be like them.

%d bloggers like this: