Gun control, which side wins?

[Strange]

I'm guessing that, behind the scenes, the NRA is pushing to have new laws passed making it illegal for shops and individuals to apply their own (more restrictive) rules when selling guns. 

And maybe make it illegal for investment companies like Black Rock to offer investments that "discriminate" against gun manufacturers.

And making criticism of the NRA equivalent to blasphemy or treason. 

[Alex_Krycek]

There doesn't seem to be much discussion about psychiatric medication being the cause of these shootings.  The majority of school shooters have been on some form of medication, including Nikolas Cruz of Parkland.  The media should be talking more about this, as most of these medications list homicidal / suicidal ideation as a known side effect.  I doubt there will be much attention paid to this, however, as the pharmaceutical industry has so much clout and lobbying power.   They're not about to entertain the notion that their products turn people into homicidal maniacs.  It's easier just to blame guns. 

The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry called for an investigation into this back in 2013 after Newtown.

http://psychintegrity.org/statementontheconnectionbetweenpsychotropicddrugsandmassmurder/

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There doesn't seem to be much discussion about psychiatric medication being the cause of these shootings.  The majority of school shooters have been on some form of medication, including Nikolas Cruz of Parkland.  The media should be talking more about this, as most of these medications list homicidal / suicidal ideation as a known side effect.  I doubt there will be much attention paid to this, however, as the pharmaceutical industry has so much clout and lobbying power.   They're not about to entertain the notion that their products turn people into homicidal maniacs.  It's easier just to blame guns. 

The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry called for an investigation into this back in 2013 after Newtown.

http://psychintegrity.org/statementontheconnectionbetweenpsychotropicddrugsandmassmurder/

 

Here's a problem with this: these drugs aren't just used in the US. We can use pretty much the rest of the industrialized world as a control for our little experiment. If the drugs are the proximate cause, why don't we see this behavior elsewhere? The variable is the guns. They are not being blamed because it's easier. They are being blamed because that's where the evidence points. 

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Here's a problem with this: these drugs aren't just used in the US. We can use pretty much the rest of the industrialized world as a control for our little experiment. If the drugs are the proximate cause, why don't we see this behavior elsewhere? The variable is the guns. They are not being blamed because it's easier. They are being blamed because that's where the evidence points. 

From what I've read on it, regarding psychiatric drugs, the suicidal ideation is usually a temporary state whilst a patient adjusts to a drug in the early stages and they'll be monitored anyway with their healthcare professionals mindful of it. 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The majority of school shooters have been on some form of medication, including Nikolas Cruz of Parkland. 

Correlation in not causation.. The majority may heave been on medication because they were the types more likely to do this sort of thing. 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Correlation in not causation.. The majority may heave been on medication because they were the types more likely to do this sort of thing. 

The medication only confirms that they were mentally ill.

[Strange]

And it is worth remembering that there is no good evidence that people with mental illness are any more likely to commit crime.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

The majority may heave been on medication 

Which has not actually been established.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which has not actually been established.

Damn! I meant to add that parenthetically.

You couldn't make this stuff up: "NRA Board Member Blames 'Sympathy Factor of Kids Getting Killed' for Possibility of Gun Control Laws Passing"

These guys are not human.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/nra_board_member_blames_sympathy_factor_of_kids_getting_killed_on_possibility_of_gun_control_laws_passing

 

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There doesn't seem to be much discussion about psychiatric medication being the cause of these shootings.  The majority of school shooters have been on some form of medication, including Nikolas Cruz of Parkland.  The media should be talking more about this, as most of these medications list homicidal / suicidal ideation as a known side effect.  I doubt there will be much attention paid to this, however, as the pharmaceutical industry has so much clout and lobbying power.   They're not about to entertain the notion that their products turn people into homicidal maniacs.  It's easier just to blame guns. 

The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry called for an investigation into this back in 2013 after Newtown.

http://psychintegrity.org/statementontheconnectionbetweenpsychotropicddrugsandmassmurder/

OK, let's take that all at face value. There are a bunch of  pharmaceutical companies who are marketing drugs that are known to cause problems- specifically they cause some patients to become suicidal, or even murderous.

The obvious question is why?
Another question would be why are they all doing it?
The one who came up with a comparable drug without that side effect would make a vast profit by taking all the business (and it's a huge business).


But, in the context of this thread, the interesting question is what can we do?
We could, of course, stop using these drugs.

But, the evidence (shoddy though it may be) indicates that the drugs actually work- at least for most people

Thus we would be removing valuable treatment from vast numbers of people with mental health problems.

In a country where those folk can still buy guns, I am not sure that drops the net death toll.

But what would you suggest we do? More research is an obvious answer, but in the meantime, what do we do?
 

[Alex_Krycek]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

The variable is the guns.

Is it?  Many other countries have a comparable number of guns per capita as the US, and they don't experience these events.  For example, in Europe and Canada many people own guns. 

There's something unique about the US, whether it's our culture, or lack of adequate mental health care, or some other contributing variable that sets us apart. 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[StringJunky]

43 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Is it?  Many other countries have a comparable number of guns per capita as the US, and they don't experience these events.  For example, in Europe and Canada many people own guns. 

There's something unique about the US, whether it's our culture, or lack of adequate mental health care, or some other contributing variable that sets us apart. 

People can do what they like there with them. There is insufficient regulation and oversight. You don't see this sort of stuff elsewhere:

Church officials hold their AR-15-style rifles while people attend a blessing ceremony with their AR-15-style rifles at the Sanctuary Church in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania. Many celebrants wore crowns - some made of bullets - while church officials.  https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/blessing-the-ar-15-idUSRTX4ZCOJ

[Alex_Krycek]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

People can do what they like there with them. There is insufficient regulation and oversight. You don't see this sort of stuff elsewhere:

Church officials hold their AR-15-style rifles while people attend a blessing ceremony with their AR-15-style rifles at the Sanctuary Church in Newfoundland, Pennsylvania. Many celebrants wore crowns - some made of bullets - while church officials.  https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/blessing-the-ar-15-idUSRTX4ZCOJ

Perhaps not.  But I think this is more of a cultural problem in the US.  There is a fixation on violence and control in our society that I haven't seen in other developed countries.  The cult in this image is an example.   At the slightest provocation an American is more likely to reach for a gun than any other developed nation, primarily because we're a country governed by paranoia and violence. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Is it?  Many other countries have a comparable number of guns per capita as the US, and they don't experience these events.  For example, in Europe and Canada many people own guns. 

There's something unique about the US, whether it's our culture, or lack of adequate mental health care, or some other contributing variable that sets us apart. 

 

 

Comparable? There is only one country in black. The US. The number is over 100 per 100 citizens, and is almost twice the next country. In Canada it's a third of that (and they are not free from school shootings), plus they have more stringent gun control laws in place, e.g. background checks and waiting periods, not present in US federal law. 

And there's this little tidbit

"According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2009 there were roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Perhaps not.  But I think this is more of a cultural problem in the US.  There is a fixation on violence and control in our society that I haven't seen in other developed countries.  The cult in this image is an example.   At the slightest provocation an American is more likely to reach for a gun than any other developed nation, primarily because we're a country governed by paranoia and violence. 

And it's so easy to reach for a gun.

[Strange]

This seems self-reinforcing. In popular entertainment, the first thing the hero does  is reach for a gun (because it is easy to get one) so people expect it to easy to do and so, in fiction it is plausible for the hero to have a gun and so ...

I guess a lot of this goes back to the “frontier spirit” that is idealised by westerns and hunting stories, and embedded deep in American culture. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This seems self-reinforcing. In popular entertainment, the first thing the hero does  is reach for a gun (because it is easy to get one) so people expect it to easy to do and so, in fiction it is plausible for the hero to have a gun and so ...

I guess a lot of this goes back to the “frontier spirit” that is idealised by westerns and hunting stories, and embedded deep in American culture. 

They think they are Rambo, or that such heroics are realistic

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This seems self-reinforcing. In popular entertainment, the first thing the hero does  is reach for a gun (because it is easy to get one) so people expect it to easy to do and so, in fiction it is plausible for the hero to have a gun and so ...

I guess a lot of this goes back to the “frontier spirit” that is idealised by westerns and hunting stories, and embedded deep in American culture. 

I think a scene in an Evil Roy Slade film highlights it really well, when a woman he loves asks him to remove all his weapons - of which there are many - and he turns into a gibbering wreck as lets go of each one. Gun rights advocates probably feel emasculated at the thought of not having guns available to them on hand.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think a scene in an Evil Roy Slade film highlights it really well, when a woman he loves asks him to remove all his weapons - of which there are many - and he turns into a gibbering wreck as lets go of each one. Gun rights advocates probably feel emasculated at the thought of not having guns available to them on hand.

I do have some sympathy, I've personally witnessed someone go into meltdown because they left their phone at home and won't get their hands on it for 6 hours.

[zapatos]

 

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 Gun rights advocates probably feel emasculated at the thought of not having guns available to them on hand.

 

10 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 At the slightest provocation an American is more likely to reach for a gun than any other developed nation, primarily because we're a country governed by paranoia and violence. 

A problem with having too many of one group and not enough of another in a debate is that statements go unchallenged, and conversation drifts from reasonable, evidence-backed debate to demonizing the opposition (the above are just two samples that would benefit from a challenge). As much of a pain as I found waitforufo to be, he did serve as an anchor that kept the rest of us from drifting too far.

[StringJunky]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

 

A problem with having too many of one group and not enough of another in a debate is that statements go unchallenged, and conversation drifts from reasonable, evidence-backed debate to demonizing the opposition (the above are just two samples that would benefit from a challenge). As much of a pain as I found waitforufo to be, he did serve as an anchor that kept the rest of us from drifting too far.

We are not demonizing all the gun owners. You've been in this conversation long enough to realise we are talking about a certain faction of gun owners.

53 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I do have some sympathy, I've personally witnessed someone go into meltdown because they left their phone at home and won't get their hands on it for 6 hours.

It's like they've lost an oxygen tank and they'll die without it.

Edited March 5, 2018 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We are not demonizing all the gun owners. You've been in this conversation long enough to realise we are talking about a certain faction of gun owners.

I'm sure it feels that way to you, and I'm confident you have no bad intentions, but it is sloppy language and can result in negative consequences, not the least of which is alienating those you wish to debate or convince. If I say "blacks are lazy" or "gays are perverts", even though you realize I'm not talking about all blacks or gays, I suspect I'd be challenged immediately regardless.

I don't think you are necessarily saying I feel emasculated without my gun on hand. After all, you've been in this conversation long enough to realize not all gun owners are the same.

[dimreepr]

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm sure it feels that way to you, and I'm confident you have no bad intentions, but it is sloppy language and can result in negative consequences, not the least of which is alienating those you wish to debate or convince. If I say "blacks are lazy" or "gays are perverts", even though you realize I'm not talking about all blacks or gays, I suspect I'd be challenged immediately regardless.

 

That's kinda my point when I started this topic, only one side wins... People.

34 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think you are necessarily saying I feel emasculated without my gun on hand. After all, you've been in this conversation long enough to realize not all gun owners are the same.

Of course not, but people are people and some people lose their shit if they lose their phones, even if they didn't have them yesterday.

I'm 100% sure that if you (zap) had the choice to kill or hand over your gun, you'd make the right choice.

Edited March 5, 2018 by dimreepr

[Alex_Krycek]

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

OK, let's take that all at face value. There are a bunch of  pharmaceutical companies who are marketing drugs that are known to cause problems- specifically they cause some patients to become suicidal, or even murderous.

The obvious question is why?
Another question would be why are they all doing it?

Because if your goal is a perpetually expanding cycle of profit based on treating a problem then there's no solution to be found in a solution.  The only solution is in perpetuating and controlling an ever expanding problem.

 

Quote

The one who came up with a comparable drug without that side effect would make a vast profit by taking all the business (and it's a huge business)

Not if you already have a captive market, which the pharmaceutical companies do in the US, as they exercise control over the medical establishment and by extension their patients  (via government lobbying, the private insurance industry, and privatization of hospitals).

 

 

Quote

But what would you suggest we do? More research is an obvious answer, but in the meantime, what do we do?
 

Make human beings the focus of society instead of profit.  If this happens then everything changes.

Edited March 5, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

In Canada it's a third of that (and they are not free from school shootings), plus they have more stringent gun control laws in place, e.g. background checks and waiting periods, not present in US federal law. 

I also believe that in Canada there are stricter rules for storing and securing firearms and generally do not allow carrying guns outside of occupational reasons. This counters the mindset of using guns for split-second self-defense.

[John Cuthber]

On 3/5/2018 at 6:36 PM, Alex_Krycek said:

Make human beings the focus of society instead of profit.  If this happens then everything changes.

Well, I agree that would be nice.

How do we go about it?

An example of something  which would be part of that  would be gun control (in the US).

Any ideas how we do that?