• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fighting back is the most effective way to reduce violent crime

First off, congratulations on finally using a study or official advisory to back up your claim. With that being said, you're only using one form of violence. It doesn't say that resisting any and all forms of gun related crime is likely to get you killed. For example, women who resist sexual assault are far more likely to survive and those who don't.
 

So, in your mind defining mental illness is as simple as devising rules for a game?
 
So, in your mind defining mental illness is as simple as devising rules for a game?

We should manage it at least as well and with similar gusto.
 
I am pretty sure I win no matter which way any of these situations go.
 
We should manage it at least as well and with similar gusto.
Well, we have Democrats in charge of both houses, the Presidency and most big cities. What is their solution? What have they done to address this?
 
Well, we have Democrats in charge of both houses, the Presidency and most big cities. What is their solution? What have they done to address this?

Don't get me started on them there Democrats! Because that wouldn't advance the discussion.

My claim is no one has done a damn thing and thus we don't have mental healthcare in this country. And that's the source of the problem.
 
Don't get me started on them there Democrats! Because that wouldn't advance the discussion.

My claim is no one has done a damn thing and thus we don't have mental healthcare in this country. And that's the source of the problem.
Well bitching about problems and pointing fingers but not offering any solutions in my book is called whining.
 
Don't get me started on them there Democrats! Because that wouldn't advance the discussion.

My claim is no one has done a damn thing and thus we don't have mental healthcare in this country. And that's the source of the problem.
We do have mental healthcare in this country.
 
Well bitching about problems and pointing fingers but not offering any solutions in my book is called whining.

This is a debate website and the discussion is how to deal with violence in society.
 
We do have mental healthcare in this country.

I'll take this as an agreement and a plea to expand current programs so as to make them meaningful.
 
I'll take this as an agreement and a plea to expand current programs so as to make them meaningful.
I'd say that the issue isn't the number of programs; it's the number of providers. There are an estimate 30,000 board certified psychiatrists in the US, with half of those expected to hit retirement age in the next ten years. There are around 100,000 licensed psychologists in the US. A NPR story from last year estimate this is about 1/3 of what the US needs.

EDIT: As of 2018, more than half of the counties in the US had no resident psychiatrists.
 
I'll take this as an agreement and a plea to expand current programs so as to make them meaningful.
The US spends over 225 billion on mental health care every year. What social programs should we cut to get money to expand the current system?

 

I'd cut everything 10% including military. Think that'll cover it?

See, what I got here is a 'git er done' attitude and I'm sick of the the 'can't do it' attitude. Shit is too ****ed up for that wishy washy bs.
 
Last edited:
If 225 billion isn't enough, what makes you think more money will make a difference? What will it be spent for?

The money will be spent producing the necessary infrastructure (human, social and otherwise). The measure will be the number of people receiving assistance. The more the better because a trained objective voice is something everyone could use.

You see, there's no "oh, they don't need it". There's no such thing as not needing a trained objective voice. Everyone needs it. The only question is how much one needs it.
 
Last edited:
So that is more important than people on Social Security or SNAP having enough to eat? That is more important than Medicare and Medicaid people getting treatment? For that we should send our soldiers into wars with inferior equipment and training?

What are you going to do to the people who refuse treatment?
 

Most of us do without mental healthcare but we shouldn't. It's basic preventative care. So the goal is 100% mental healthcare coverage. A shrink in every pot.
 
First off, congratulations on finally using a study or official advisory to back up your claim.

"Finally" ?

What evidence do you have to suppose that was the first time ?


Nope, I never said fighting back is or should only be confined to the use of firearms

And where's YOUR evidence that "women who resist sexual assault are far more likely to survive and those who don't" ?

Do you mean who who don't resist are more likely to die ?
 
Most of us do without mental healthcare but we shouldn't. It's basic preventative care. So the goal is 100% mental healthcare coverage. A shrink in every pot.
Typical lib policy. No thought on the consequences or how to implement.
 
Like right-wing filth like about spending their money on healthcare of any kind....
Sentence doesn't seem to make sense, Rich.

I dunno..I spend 1250 a month for healthcare insurance. I certainly don't like that, so maybe it makes me "right-wing filth"?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…