People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
Your right. Guns themselves aren't the source of the problem, but since we live in the society with the issues you described maybe we should look at ways to reduce the massacres. Seems like the guns used in these things were in fact purchased or originally obtained through legal means so maybe some smart laws that make sense could reduce the amount of schools and theatres that are being shot up by the mentally ill.
Well said. I can't imagine whatever side a person is on, not wanting to explore ways of deterring these massacres in some way. There are tons of issues to explore, But if I found myself in a crowded movie theater and someone was attempting a massacre, I'd rather the perpetrator have a handgun or two than an AR-15. And I'd rather those magazines have 10-12 capacity so we have a fighting chance.
Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.
I can't think of two people's conversation I would like to hear less than these two.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Alex Jones is the biggest idiot iver ever heard. As soon as he heard there were only 35 gun deaths in the UK (a country with a gun ban)last year, he shouldve have given up.
i bet alex's IQ is higher than most of us folks on here... this is a fact. alex jones may have been rude & loud but he is no idiot. alex knows more about declassified, classified information, world history & current global events than most people walking. he is snap your fingers sharp with answers to probably just about anything you feel like asking him.
I can't think of two people's conversation I would like to hear less than these two.
nailed it, as usual
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Alex Jones isn't an idiot, he is an entertainer. Ratings and publicity comes first and foremost, and it's working. This thread is a testament to that. He has had some good and interesting stuff through the years though. I do wish I could just smack and say "Give it up dude! Ron Paul is NOT going to be President!" Change the record please.
anyway..........
My 2 cents is that the constiution says 'arms' right? Just like the word 'decency' it must be more thoroughly defines what 'arms' actually means. I don't think anyone is trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Just should be clarified for the times. With the current logic, it would be perfectly OK for me to have a nuclear weapon in my closet. It's an 'arm' isn't it? We just need to draw the line between common sense and riduculous shit.
"All I Ever Knew" available now in print and digital formats at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and iBooks.
Alex Jones isn't an idiot, he is an entertainer. Ratings and publicity comes first and foremost, and it's working. This thread is a testament to that. He has had some good and interesting stuff through the years though. I do wish I could just smack and say "Give it up dude! Ron Paul is NOT going to be President!" Change the record please.
anyway..........
My 2 cents is that the constiution says 'arms' right? Just like the word 'decency' it must be more thoroughly defines what 'arms' actually means. I don't think anyone is trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Just should be clarified for the times. With the current logic, it would be perfectly OK for me to have a nuclear weapon in my closet. It's an 'arm' isn't it? We just need to draw the line between common sense and riduculous shit.
can you shoulder mount that nuke or hold it in your hand(s) and reload it farely easily? can you refill or purchase nukes at the store or refill them in your basement?
People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
I agree that it's a larger societal issue. With being young, male and from a lower socioeconomic class as the biggest risk factors in determining whether or not someone will commit violent crime, this seems to indicate that there are issues with how young males are socialized and access to resources and opportunities (such as education, physical and mental health care, jobs, etc). There is an issue with those in society who are likely to commit violence having access to weapons that can cause the most destruction, and since that seems like it is the place to make quickest change, that is getting the focus. But those other areas need a lot of focus and really are at the core of this issue. What are your ideas for how we go about making those larger societal changes?
My first idea is certainly not to target the overwhelmingly innocent for the rare failure of a few nutjobs.
You will get into a lot of hairy areas if "need" and "legitimate reasons" are the standard. Try applying that to alcohol. From a practicality standpoint, though, if you're going to ban all semi-automatic weapons you run into problems when you dig into that idea:
Option 1: The ban goes into effect from a given date forward and all previous owners essentially have their weapons grandfathered in. In this case, the horse is already out of the barn. There is such a volume of semi-automatic weapons out there, that you can't expect this to have any reasonable effect on what you're attempting to prevent.
Option 2: All semi-automatic weapons are illegal here forward, including those currently possessed. Here's where things get reaaaalllly dicey. You would be advocating the seizure of property from citizens who have broken no laws. That's a dangerous precedent to set and would cost many upwards of thousands of dollars. All without any hard evidence that removing those weapons from a populace who own them at that volume will have any significant effect on the problem you're attempting to solve.
If you see another way to handle a full semi-auto ban, I'd love to hear it. In my opinion, it can reach a point where folks are answering the question "How can we can take people's guns away?" instead of "What steps do we need to take to reduce/eliminate the lives lost from violent crime?"
But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.
I'm still waiting fro someone to explain to me why someone needs a car that drive over 200 mph? Why someone can buy hard alcohol by the case?
how about we put a 5 year moratorium on the manufacture, import and sale of combat ready ammo to regular consumers? you can have all the guns you want. people would be less likely to irresponsibly shoot people if they knew ammo was more difficult to get and that the supply was finite.
just throwing out ideas.
people are opposed to gun control, so why not try controlling the ammo supply?
Why not concentrate that government action on stopping illegal weapons? Last time I looked the manufacture, import, and sale of cocaine was illegal for more than the last 5 years and that's not going anywhere any time soon.
People think those black evil guns with the grips are the cause of all the problems in this country. I guess the feeble minded find it easier to blame an object than a person. After all people can't be held responsible for their actions.
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
Your right. Guns themselves aren't the source of the problem, but since we live in the society with the issues you described maybe we should look at ways to reduce the massacres. Seems like the guns used in these things were in fact purchased or originally obtained through legal means so maybe some smart laws that make sense could reduce the amount of schools and theatres that are being shot up by the mentally ill.
How many DWI deaths were caused by legally obtained cars and alcohol?
Exactly? It's easier to blame a gun than themselves. Can't possibly be us as a society? Couldn't be us as educators? Couldn't be us as mental health professionals? Couldn't be us as parents? Couldn't be us as law enforcement officials? Let's pass those gun laws against the innocent...it will make everyone and everything just hunky dorky. :roll:
I agree that it's a larger societal issue. With being young, male and from a lower socioeconomic class as the biggest risk factors in determining whether or not someone will commit violent crime, this seems to indicate that there are issues with how young males are socialized and access to resources and opportunities (such as education, physical and mental health care, jobs, etc). There is an issue with those in society who are likely to commit violence having access to weapons that can cause the most destruction, and since that seems like it is the place to make quickest change, that is getting the focus. But those other areas need a lot of focus and really are at the core of this issue. What are your ideas for how we go about making those larger societal changes?
My first idea is certainly not to target the overwhelmingly innocent for the rare failure of a few nutjobs.
I understand that, but how do we go about changing society so that this type of violence stops...or at least becomes a rarity? I don't know if it can even be eliminated, but I'd like to think there are things that can be done to make it less commonplace.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I understand that, but how do we go about changing society so that this type of violence stops...or at least becomes a rarity? I don't know if it can even be eliminated, but I'd like to think there are things that can be done to make it less commonplace.
I posted this in one of the other threads- so sorry for posting twice- but it seems to fit right here. It's a portion of an article I referenced that has been ignored by the pro gun crew:
If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.
Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.
I understand that, but how do we go about changing society so that this type of violence stops...or at least becomes a rarity? I don't know if it can even be eliminated, but I'd like to think there are things that can be done to make it less commonplace.
I posted this in one of the other threads- so sorry for posting twice- but it seems to fit right here. It's a portion of an article I referenced that has been ignored by the pro gun crew:
If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.
Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.
Thank you for posting this. I keep reading about what changes people don't want to make, but what changes are people willing to make right now? I think there is a large societal issue that is a part of this, but making those changes is a long road, and I don't think we're ever going to eradicate violence completely...which leaves limiting access to the weapons that can be used to commit the most violence.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.
You're going to keep waiting because there's no answer you'll accept. You're making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. If you want to take something out of someone's possession, the burden is on you to prove how your plan is going to achieve the desired outcome.
But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.
You're going to keep waiting because there's no answer you'll accept. You're making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. If you want to take something out of someone's possession, the burden is on you to prove how your plan is going to achieve the desired outcome.
The burden is not on me and don't pretend to know what I would or would not accept. Why are assault weapons necessary in American society? What purpose do they serve that cannot also be served by handguns and hunting rifles? These are legitimate questions. Hiding behind there being no easy way to remove them does not answer either question.
Short of saying your country is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it... what do you suggest needs to happen?
1. Evaluation of how the media covers these events. I've heard forensic psychiatrists explain how the manner and scope in which it's currently covered assures that these tragedies will continue to happen.
2. Explore what role SSRIs play in these events. We know that an overwhelming majority of these perpetrators were on one and we also know they are linked to a higher risk of suicidal behavior in children and adolescents.
If you want to actually prevent these horrific events from occurring rather than just decreasing fatalities, I think these are the best places to start.
But alcohol isn't designed to kill, even though sometimes it does. Guns are. I understand what you are saying and I do not disagree that a ban would be difficult to enforce. However, that does not change the fact that these weapons are not necessary in American society. I have been in many of these debates since Newtown and am still waiting for a gun advocate to explain WHY these guns should not be banned and exactly what their purpose is.
You're going to keep waiting because there's no answer you'll accept. You're making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. If you want to take something out of someone's possession, the burden is on you to prove how your plan is going to achieve the desired outcome.
The burden is not on me and don't pretend to know what I would or would not accept. Why are assault weapons necessary in American society? What purpose do they serve that cannot also be served by handguns and hunting rifles? These are legitimate questions. Hiding behind there being no easy way to remove them does not answer either of them.
I'm not "hiding behind" anything. You haven't offered any evidence of what result can be expected by your solution.
Why don't gun owners/ advocates say "because I live in a free country, I have the right, as a consumer, to own a fire arm of my choosing, provided I will use said firearm in a way that will not infringe on other's rights". I find that argument more convincing than citing the second amendment or the self- defense argument, both of which I find shallow and trite. I know many people across the socio-economic spectrum who use their weapons for target practice and then secure their weapons in a locked gun safe when they are finished using them, responsible gun owners/ hobbyist.
With that being said, I find it amazing that the same conservatives who are in favor of slashing funds for groups that provide early intervention mental health services and broader education services are now saying that we have to provide more of these types of services in order to prevent gun violence or they are advocating for armed guards in schools when districts don't have enough funds to keep art programs or provide free extra-curricular activities. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm gone ..Long gone..This time I'm letting go of it all...So long...Cause this time I'm gone
I understand that, but how do we go about changing society so that this type of violence stops...or at least becomes a rarity? I don't know if it can even be eliminated, but I'd like to think there are things that can be done to make it less commonplace.
My answer is to first increase the police force and police presence. Too much...an overwhelmingly number of illegal gun violence is out there. However US citizens are sold this bill of goods that somehow stopping legal citizens from obtaining weapons will stop this. :fp:
I understand that, but how do we go about changing society so that this type of violence stops...or at least becomes a rarity? I don't know if it can even be eliminated, but I'd like to think there are things that can be done to make it less commonplace.
My answer is to first increase the police force and police presence. Too much...an overwhelmingly number of illegal gun violence is out there. However US citizens are sold this bill of goods that somehow stopping legal citizens from obtaining weapons will stop this. :fp:
That's not going to address the cause of all this...I was thinking more about getting to the roots of all of this, the socialization issues, etc. It's daunting to think about for sure.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Short of saying your country is fucked and there's nothing you can do about it... what do you suggest needs to happen?
1. Evaluation of how the media covers these events. I've heard forensic psychiatrists explain how the manner and scope in which it's currently covered assures that these tragedies will continue to happen.
2. Explore what role SSRIs play in these events. We know that an overwhelming majority of these perpetrators were on one and we also know they are linked to a higher risk of suicidal behavior in children and adolescents.
If you want to actually prevent these horrific events from occurring rather than just decreasing fatalities, I think these are the best places to start.
The problem with SSRIs is when they are used or expected to treat a problem they are not designed to treat. It's sort of like prescribing an antibiotic for a cold and then wondering why you're not getting better. Some of these shooters have had a comborbid depression, but that's not what makes them kill. It's a narcissistic rage against society that is often the cause for these kinds of tragedies and there is no medication that will cure that. SSRIs also won't give someone empathy. The problem is that SSRIs do a great job of giving people some energy as they start to emerge from their depression. Most depressed people experience low energy, anhedonia (or difficulty enjoying things), and as the SSRIs start to work they are able to start getting out of bed again, showering, maybe going to work or just about their normal daily activities. Normally this is wonderful and exactly what we want. But when you have someone stewing in a rage, who is also may not have the energy to act on that rage because of depressive symptoms, and now the depression gradually starts to lift because of the SSRIs, they may finally act on those thoughts. Some people have been focusing on mental illness, and while I would love to see more support for treating those struggling with mental health issues, the focus is in the wrong place. This isn't about mental illness, it's about people who are full of rage and lack empathy. There was an editorial in a local paper from a former APA president that articulated the difference:
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opin ... d3080.html
One small excerpt: "Lanza's alleged autism or Asperger's syndrome does not explain what happened at Sandy Hook. Focusing on his "crazy" part will not help prevent future tragedies; the craziness of evil people almost never comes close to explaining their crimes. Would Lanza have murdered had he not been full of hate, had he not had a very narrow moral circle? You simply do not shoot 6-year-olds repeatedly unless you are exploding with rage and regard the violent suffering of young children and their parents with indifference or worse."
This is an issue that runs deep and we're trying to find quick cures. I agree something has to be done, but we'll probably find that gun laws are going to fall short. Right now background checks would only block someone with a mental illness from buying a gun if they have been committed to inpatient care in the past. Most of these shooters have no history of being committed to that kind of care so they wouldn't be blocked. Most of them also don't have any history of criminal charges. So we wind up being in the position of having to predict behavior. All the wonderful risk assessments in the world can only do so much. Focusing on mental illness is pointing the finger at the wrong people. I would love to find a cure for mental illness, but it's like trying to find a cure for cancer (only with a lot less funding and a lot less compassion). And that too will fall short in trying to eradicate this violence, because mental illness is simply not the cause. This runs deep and I think we need to explore short-term as well as long term changes.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You're going to keep waiting because there's no answer you'll accept. You're making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. If you want to take something out of someone's possession, the burden is on you to prove how your plan is going to achieve the desired outcome.
The burden is not on me and don't pretend to know what I would or would not accept. Why are assault weapons necessary in American society? What purpose do they serve that cannot also be served by handguns and hunting rifles? These are legitimate questions. Hiding behind there being no easy way to remove them does not answer either of them.
I'm not "hiding behind" anything. You haven't offered any evidence of what result can be expected by your solution.
Nonsense. I asked (repeatedly and in several threads) a few questions that should be simple to answer if these guns are necessary in American society. Your response is that to get those questions answered I should come up with a detailed plan for their removal? Total nonsense.
Has anyone pointed out that the UK has a fraction of our population? Then look at Mexico..also has a gun ban, their crime rate is insane. You can't compare any 2 countries cos each has it's own mix of factors in play.
Everyone's attacking mental illness, or some characiture of a backwoods Southerner gripping his gun, neither of which are the real source behind our high gun crime rates..It's not about how many guns there are..the 3 states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest amount of gun crime. On the other hand, the city with a total ban, Chicago, has the highest crime rate in the nation. Same could be said of D.C. when it had it's total ban.
Put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in the poorest areas and gun crime will drop. Britain doesn't have too many ghettos like we do, so why is it shocking they don't have gun crime like we do?
I understand that, but how do we go about changing society so that this type of violence stops...or at least becomes a rarity? I don't know if it can even be eliminated, but I'd like to think there are things that can be done to make it less commonplace.
My answer is to first increase the police force and police presence. Too much...an overwhelmingly number of illegal gun violence is out there. However US citizens are sold this bill of goods that somehow stopping legal citizens from obtaining weapons will stop this. :fp:
That's not going to address the cause of all this...I was thinking more about getting to the roots of all of this, the socialization issues, etc. It's daunting to think about for sure.
DOn't know. But the problem is certainly not stopping or further limiting the ownership of legally obtained weapons.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,884
“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan
Increasing background checks, regulations for purchasing at gun shows, and eliminating semi-automatic weapons doesn't take away your right to own guns.
Taking away semi autos does. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
what part of well trgulated militia dont YOU understand!!!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
My answer is to first increase the police force and police presence. Too much...an overwhelmingly number of illegal gun violence is out there. However US citizens are sold this bill of goods that somehow stopping legal citizens from obtaining weapons will stop this. :fp:
That's not going to address the cause of all this...I was thinking more about getting to the roots of all of this, the socialization issues, etc. It's daunting to think about for sure.
DOn't know. But the problem is certainly not stopping or further limiting the ownership of legally obtained weapons.
I think that's the problem - it's such a huge issue that most of us are struggling with what to do about it...and so we are getting these gut reactions. Whether it be gun control or arming more people...I don't think that's ultimately going to solve the problem. I do think most of us want the would-be offenders to absolutely NOT have access to firearms (and thereby stop making access to guns more difficult for those who would never commit violence). The problem is we don't know who those would-be offenders are until the moment they actually become violent. We need to find ways to prevent that in the short-term while we look to see if the long-term issues can be changed.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
Well said. I can't imagine whatever side a person is on, not wanting to explore ways of deterring these massacres in some way. There are tons of issues to explore, But if I found myself in a crowded movie theater and someone was attempting a massacre, I'd rather the perpetrator have a handgun or two than an AR-15. And I'd rather those magazines have 10-12 capacity so we have a fighting chance.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
idiot? i highly doubt alex jones is an idiot.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
nailed it, as usual
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
anyway..........
My 2 cents is that the constiution says 'arms' right? Just like the word 'decency' it must be more thoroughly defines what 'arms' actually means. I don't think anyone is trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. Just should be clarified for the times. With the current logic, it would be perfectly OK for me to have a nuclear weapon in my closet. It's an 'arm' isn't it? We just need to draw the line between common sense and riduculous shit.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
My first idea is certainly not to target the overwhelmingly innocent for the rare failure of a few nutjobs.
I'm still waiting fro someone to explain to me why someone needs a car that drive over 200 mph? Why someone can buy hard alcohol by the case?
Why not concentrate that government action on stopping illegal weapons? Last time I looked the manufacture, import, and sale of cocaine was illegal for more than the last 5 years and that's not going anywhere any time soon.
How many DWI deaths were caused by legally obtained cars and alcohol?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I posted this in one of the other threads- so sorry for posting twice- but it seems to fit right here. It's a portion of an article I referenced that has been ignored by the pro gun crew:
If roads were collapsing all across the United States, killing dozens of drivers, we would surely see that as a moment to talk about what we could do to keep roads from collapsing. If terrorists were detonating bombs in port after port, you can be sure Congress would be working to upgrade the nation’s security measures. If a plague was ripping through communities, public-health officials would be working feverishly to contain it.
Only with gun violence do we respond to repeated tragedies by saying that mourning is acceptable but discussing how to prevent more tragedies is not.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You're going to keep waiting because there's no answer you'll accept. You're making an appeal to an authority that doesn't exist. If you want to take something out of someone's possession, the burden is on you to prove how your plan is going to achieve the desired outcome.
The burden is not on me and don't pretend to know what I would or would not accept. Why are assault weapons necessary in American society? What purpose do they serve that cannot also be served by handguns and hunting rifles? These are legitimate questions. Hiding behind there being no easy way to remove them does not answer either question.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
1. Evaluation of how the media covers these events. I've heard forensic psychiatrists explain how the manner and scope in which it's currently covered assures that these tragedies will continue to happen.
2. Explore what role SSRIs play in these events. We know that an overwhelming majority of these perpetrators were on one and we also know they are linked to a higher risk of suicidal behavior in children and adolescents.
If you want to actually prevent these horrific events from occurring rather than just decreasing fatalities, I think these are the best places to start.
I'm not "hiding behind" anything. You haven't offered any evidence of what result can be expected by your solution.
With that being said, I find it amazing that the same conservatives who are in favor of slashing funds for groups that provide early intervention mental health services and broader education services are now saying that we have to provide more of these types of services in order to prevent gun violence or they are advocating for armed guards in schools when districts don't have enough funds to keep art programs or provide free extra-curricular activities. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
My answer is to first increase the police force and police presence. Too much...an overwhelmingly number of illegal gun violence is out there. However US citizens are sold this bill of goods that somehow stopping legal citizens from obtaining weapons will stop this. :fp:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
The problem with SSRIs is when they are used or expected to treat a problem they are not designed to treat. It's sort of like prescribing an antibiotic for a cold and then wondering why you're not getting better. Some of these shooters have had a comborbid depression, but that's not what makes them kill. It's a narcissistic rage against society that is often the cause for these kinds of tragedies and there is no medication that will cure that. SSRIs also won't give someone empathy. The problem is that SSRIs do a great job of giving people some energy as they start to emerge from their depression. Most depressed people experience low energy, anhedonia (or difficulty enjoying things), and as the SSRIs start to work they are able to start getting out of bed again, showering, maybe going to work or just about their normal daily activities. Normally this is wonderful and exactly what we want. But when you have someone stewing in a rage, who is also may not have the energy to act on that rage because of depressive symptoms, and now the depression gradually starts to lift because of the SSRIs, they may finally act on those thoughts. Some people have been focusing on mental illness, and while I would love to see more support for treating those struggling with mental health issues, the focus is in the wrong place. This isn't about mental illness, it's about people who are full of rage and lack empathy. There was an editorial in a local paper from a former APA president that articulated the difference:
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/opin ... d3080.html
One small excerpt: "Lanza's alleged autism or Asperger's syndrome does not explain what happened at Sandy Hook. Focusing on his "crazy" part will not help prevent future tragedies; the craziness of evil people almost never comes close to explaining their crimes. Would Lanza have murdered had he not been full of hate, had he not had a very narrow moral circle? You simply do not shoot 6-year-olds repeatedly unless you are exploding with rage and regard the violent suffering of young children and their parents with indifference or worse."
This is an issue that runs deep and we're trying to find quick cures. I agree something has to be done, but we'll probably find that gun laws are going to fall short. Right now background checks would only block someone with a mental illness from buying a gun if they have been committed to inpatient care in the past. Most of these shooters have no history of being committed to that kind of care so they wouldn't be blocked. Most of them also don't have any history of criminal charges. So we wind up being in the position of having to predict behavior. All the wonderful risk assessments in the world can only do so much. Focusing on mental illness is pointing the finger at the wrong people. I would love to find a cure for mental illness, but it's like trying to find a cure for cancer (only with a lot less funding and a lot less compassion). And that too will fall short in trying to eradicate this violence, because mental illness is simply not the cause. This runs deep and I think we need to explore short-term as well as long term changes.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Nonsense. I asked (repeatedly and in several threads) a few questions that should be simple to answer if these guns are necessary in American society. Your response is that to get those questions answered I should come up with a detailed plan for their removal? Total nonsense.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Everyone's attacking mental illness, or some characiture of a backwoods Southerner gripping his gun, neither of which are the real source behind our high gun crime rates..It's not about how many guns there are..the 3 states with the highest gun ownership also have the lowest amount of gun crime. On the other hand, the city with a total ban, Chicago, has the highest crime rate in the nation. Same could be said of D.C. when it had it's total ban.
Put better programs, and more importantly, better jobs, in the poorest areas and gun crime will drop. Britain doesn't have too many ghettos like we do, so why is it shocking they don't have gun crime like we do?
DOn't know. But the problem is certainly not stopping or further limiting the ownership of legally obtained weapons.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"