Is there any actual evidence of this? I see it thrown around a lot by right wing blogger types, but haven't seen (and can't find) any actual stats/links to show it.
Guns - staunch 2nd Amendment posters, help me
- Thread starter thewop
- Start date
Is there any actual evidence of this? I see it thrown around a lot by right wing blogger types, but haven't seen (and can't find) any actual stats/links to show it.
Wow, this flabbergasts me. I have heard some small rumbles that meds might be a problem before, but I have never heard this. EVERY SINGLE ONE involves a person on this type of medication? Holy snot....why is this not a major story, and why are people not going after this hammer and tong?
This is dead on. The gun crowd needs to stop their ever moving goalpost gate-keeping game, and the anti-gun folks need to come to terms with the fact that the 2nd isn't going anywhere. There is a gulf of room in the middle that could be considered if both extremes stopped acting like their position is without fault.
Mainly because, as far as I can tell, the evidence of it is very sketchy. Ever try getting actual medical records released to see if it's true?
I'm not saying there is no correlation. But I will say that I find it very, very hard to believe that every single mass shooting in the last 20 years involved SSRI drugs. Especially considering the numbers of them before the last 20 years that didn't.
That’s not what I said. I said there are unprecedented numbers of guys deciding to kill as many people as they can. Most gun murders involve one or two victims. Jilted husband shoots estranged wife. A drug deal goes sideways. A burglary gets out of control.
I’m not talking about those scenarios. I’m talking about the mass shootings, particularly in schools, that are increasing exponentially and driving the national discussion.
Your mind has to get to a very dark place before you make a calculated decision to walk into a school or movie theater or nightclub and shoot as many people as you possibly can before the police arrive.
We need common sense legislation regarding guns, but we also desperately need to figure out why so many people are getting to that dark place.
It's also a dubious place to start. Are they potential bad actors because they're on the drugs or are they on the drugs because they are potential bad actors?
It reminds me of the argument that there are millions of law abiding gun owners that will never use them for violence, well there are even more people on Prozac that aren't committing mass murder. To me it's all low hanging fruit that's there to get you to disengage from the conversation.
I'm not disagreeing with your premise, just your assertion that there is all of a sudden more crazed killers popping up. I think what's happening is that the Jeffrey Dahmers, Gary Ridgeways and Aileen Wuornos' of the world have changed venues. If only this issue were as easy as posting Don't Pick Up Hitchhikers signs.
That seems like a dubious proposition. Over the last several decades the teen pregnancy rate has steadily declined. Violent crimes have steadily declined. We have become a more tolerant and accepting people. I believe our country is more moral today that it's ever been in its history.
You obviate the need to cluster the system up with unnecessary warnings, if the house owns no guns.
If they house HAS guns and they are warned, then they either take responsibility OR they understand they have been made fully accountable for any crimes committed with the weapons.
If the law states "you get a warning - now you get 25 years in jail for not taking appropriate action", I think people MIGHT take appropriate action.
I think "moral" and "tolerant" is the dubious proposition as 50% of our country doesn't agree on what that means..
....and when you are the listed OWNER of a weapon, you hold SOME accountability (up to full accountability) for any crime that weapon is used for provided you did not report it "stolen". "Lending" it to your kid is not a defense. You want guns, then own the responsibilities that go with ownership, which include ensuring ONLY you can access and use them. Too much responsibility for you? Cool. Sell them.
Incorrect: the 'gun show' loophole has been around for years.
I have a friend who sold a gun to another owner - nothing was "looked up" or required. Zero. It was a small handgun, but still...nothing official.
Additionally, there is NO online/computer database of guns and gun ownership, nor ballistics on file for each one (like a car VIN or license plate equivalent).
Those are all common-sense regulations.
....this is the excuse for "no action"
"We've tried nothing, and there's nothing else we can do here"
...and when you KNOW they have them, you can remind them they are legally liable for crimes committed with any weapons they have registered to them. That's called "accountability", and would enable irresponsible owners to be jailed OR lose their ownership rights.
Isn't the goal to ensure RESPONSIBLE owners maintain their rights? Then start out with eliminating rights for IRRESPONSIBLE people to reduce the number of incidents we're experiencing.
No. Neither side is making it a PRIORITY. It’s a huge problem that is being glossed over imo.
Good - just trying to inject a small bite of fun into a gloomy thread (and it should be, imo).
I like that you want to bring the parents into this. That makes some sense for sure. Can we apply the same logic to other areas where kids act "looney tunes" and potentially kill or harm other people?
Again, Dems propose more spending on mental health and education. Rs reject that and lower taxes.
You want safer schools and better mental health care? That costs money and increased taxes. That's been the dem policy for a long time from my understanding.
I acknowledge Dems are better on this issue. It just feels like neither side wants to address and equate this to gun violence. The talking points almost always jump right into more gun control.
I think that's because the right won't budge and help on this issue at all.
Libs: Let's put more funding into mental health care.
Cons: No, we can't afford it. We are cutting taxes.
Libs: Ok, let's fund our schools better to provide more security and better education and awareness.
Cons: No, we can't afford it. We are cutting taxes.
Libs: Ok, let's tackle this from the gun perspec ...
Cons: Over my cold dead hands.
So, Joker, what actions, if any, will cons take? There is resistance to every solution I have proposed?
Man I don't want to derail the thread but the ACA
expanded Medicaid which opened up access to mental health services to millions.
These are "the takers" that can't pay and cause premiums to raise for "the makers" and was a cornerstone of the GOP's problem with bill. It was such a problem that when they took both chambers of Congress rolling it back was one of the only things they could agree on with their failed healthcare reform bills. In Iowa when the GOP took complete control of the government, one of the first things they did after rolling back gun regs was to slash and burn the state's mental health network. It's not even close to a comparison. The GOP doesn't give sh!t about this issue when they have the reins.
Probably nothing because let’s be honest, neither side really gives a shit except about getting reelected and each side knows what the hot button issues are that keep thier base happy. Sad but true imo.
That isn't really a loophole, but the design of the law. As I said, private sales and inheritance are not necessarily subject to background checks...although they must increasingly be conducted through an FFL intermediary. These are pretty on the margin though, and I am not aware of any recent mass shooter who acquired their weapons this way. Even gun violence in general, such as Chicago gang activity, is only very, very minor in its acquisition of weapons via legitimate private transactions. The vast majority of weapons used are stolen or acquired by straw purchasers. That being said, I would be supportive of requiring private purchase and inheritance to go through an independent FFL in all cases as long as the costs are low and the process is transparent.
As far as online database of ballistics and weapons...that gets pretty touchy when it comes to privacy concerns. Not saying it is a nonstarter, but it would have to be very carefully and clearly crafted, and certainly examined for potential for abuse. I wouldn't necessarily call it common sense...but it certainly is a valid line of inquiry. That being said, I am not sure how it would do anything to stop or address any of the recent mass shootings, which have all pretty much been conducted with legally purchased weapons of which there was no question about ownership or weapon identification.
I think it would also be helpful for law enforcement to be able to flag when individuals buy large #s of guns in a certain period of time. For example, the Vegas shooter bought I believe around 20 or so guns in the year prior to the shooting.
I used to think the ACA was a step in the right direction. I had hoped it would eventually lead to single payer, sadly that does not seem to be the case. The ACA is a mess and got us no closer to single payer so I say blow it up, get the dems back in charge, vote dipshit out and do the right thing and get us single payer.
Contacting a parent and telling them to lock up their guns because there are concerns about their child in school would go over like a lead balloon.
It was a mess largely because we allowed certain Governors play political football with it. As for the rest.............
Calm down...........I'm joking.
Not so, there are many more weapons than just guns and who is to say that a nut will not then get access to firearms via an uncle, neighbor, friend. If someone is a threat then share that with the parents...simple.
Except the dems have actually tried on this but Trump reversed it. Linked here
Both sides do have their issues, but only one is actually trying to solve this issue by actions. The other one just uses thoughts and prayers.
I disagree. . . is there any evidence that we have less serial killers then before.
Also the motivation behind serial murders and rampage killings seems to be pretty different. Serial killers often just want to rid the world of a certain type of people and/or a lot of times they just enjoy the heck out of murdering people.
Rampage shooters seem to be mostly about some sort of revenge or some political motive.
Serial killers also try to not get caught. Rampage shooters hardly ever take much effort to avoid capture. In fact half the time the whole thing ends up being some sort of long drawn out suicide that takes dozen people with them.
Or incrementally reform what is there so we don't throw another trillion dollars in the trash heap.
Suicidal and homicidal ideations and increased anxiety and dementia are well known and documented side effects of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. These symptoms arise acutely in a small percentage of people who take them...but with tens of millions of people now using them regularly, that leaves millions of people having these reactions out in the population, and very little means to control it.
I agree it is a little chicken-and-egg to discuss it. Are the people on the drugs because they are crazy, or are they crazy because they are on the drugs? But, the real argument is on the severity of reactions...and in that case it is pretty clear that these drugs can help people...but they can also push certain people into a much more full blown episode with far less ability to make rationale or moral judgements. I don't have time to look it up, and the data out there is hard to get at sometimes because of medical privacy as well as drug companies often settling suits out of court with strict nondisclosure agreements for their payouts. But, just going back through recent memory...Parkland, Las Vegas, Charlotte, the Texas church shooting, Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Columbine...all on anti-depressants/anti-psychotics or both. I had seen a more comprehensive review at one point, but don't have it at my fingertips.
But that's what America does best! Why stop now?
Source data comes from a study by Radford University and Florida Gulf Coast.
Is a serial killer equated with someone who goes on a 1x spree? I think what we are discussing here is someone that has a 1x event...albeit a terrible one. Usually, these shooters are caught or killed by the end of the spree.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
