|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On Guns /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1356218903 Message started by Midnightrider on 12/22/12 at 15:28:23 |
|
Title: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On Guns Post by Midnightrider on 12/22/12 at 15:28:23 “A Timeline Of Mass Shootings In The US Since Columbine.” • An autopsy concluded that Columbine killer Eric Harris had the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of his death. • Jeff Weise, who killed nine people and himself at a Minnesota high school in 2005, was taking increasingly high doses of Prozac at the time of his spree. • Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people and himself at an Omaha mall in 2007, reportedly “had been on antidepressants” at the time of his shooting. He allegedly had taken antidepressants since he was six years old. • Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 and wounded 23 at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been prescribed Prozac and had previously taken Paxil for a year, but he apparently had ceased taking his medication at the time of the shooting. • Andrew Engeldinger killed five people and himself after being fired from his job in 2012. A police search of his house revealed he’d been prescribed the antidepressants Mirtazapine and Trazodone, as well as the insomnia medication Temazepam. • Eduardo Sencion, who killed four people and himself with an assault rifle at a Utah IHOP in 2011, was a paranoid schizophrenic whose “medications were changed” during the summer prior to his attack. • Robert Kenneth Stewart, who murdered eight people at a North Carolina nursing home in 2009, submitted to a blood test that revealed he had Lexapro, Ambien, Benadryl, and Xanax in his system at the time of his spree. • Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people and himself on Valentine’s Day in 2008, had allegedly been prescribed Xanax, Ambien, and Prozac, although according to his girlfriend he had stopped taking Prozac prior to the massacre. • James Eagan Holmes, who shot up a Colorado movie theater in July, reportedly took 100MG of Vicodin before the shooting. He had also allegedly seen three school psychiatrists prior to his attack. Although his psychiatric records are privileged information, in his mug shot he appears to be medicated up to the eyeballs. And Adam Lanza, slayer of over two dozen people on Friday, appears to have had a classic pair of Medication Eyes himself. He was also reportedly “troubled” and possibly “autistic.” A neighbor of Lanza’s claims he was taking medication. Its a documented fact that doctors kill more than guns do. Should these killings be classified as medical malpractice? No one in their right mind is going to gun down innocent adults and children. All of these killers were being treated, I think the doctors should have incarcerated these killers and they should have their license permanently revoked. The AMA has just as much to do with these atrocties as the NRA. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Paraquat on 12/24/12 at 06:02:30 I'd be curious to see how many of these people had permits or legally owned firearms. My parents wanted to put me on anti depressants for a while. Zoloft at first and then Paxil. I was on each for about a month of each before I stopped taking them of my own accord. I wonder how worse I would've been if they had forcibly medicated me. At the time these drugs were brand new and I doubt they had the long term necessary testing. I doubt they still do. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Serowbot on 12/24/12 at 09:35:25 With 1 in 10 Americans clinically depressed,... I'd be more surprised if a suicidal, mass murderer, wasn't on some kind of medication... It's not the cause,.. it's a symptom... |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/24/12 at 09:46:20 I'd like to see the gun industry fight the pharmaceutical industry. The winner then takes on the auto industry. Then that winner takes on the finsncial industry. Seriously I am tired of all the corporations ... rememeber what McCain said ... the scariest words - I am here from a private corporation and I am here to help you. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 12/24/12 at 10:49:24 Midnight - How in the heck can you blame the docs who have tried to treat these people? It's not their fault that teh patients are whacky. Treating mental illness is anything but an exact science. That's why I favor increased scrutiny of the lives, activities, living conditions, etc. of anyone diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe to include locking them up in a mental institution, if you can still find one. This all goes back to the 1970s and 1980s, when mental institutions were closed nationwide, and we got all warm and fuzzy about the fact that we had nutjobs locked up, and, Oh my, we have to let them loose. I think it's so plain and simple - no normal person commits these senseless crimes. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/24/12 at 11:44:38 Y'know midnight, gun nuts will take any option to divert blame. Gas, air spark ... that's how a bike runs, and we are trying to cut off the spark to keep it from running ... yank the plug cap. That is yanking guns from people. The cheapest and most effective way to keep the explosion ... You want to cut off air or fuel, yes it will be possible, but will take longer and more effort. We need to open the mental institutions back up, we need a insanity check program going, we need this or that ... and they will all be done over the next 20 years. Now, we need to stop this, and we do that by cutting off guns bullets while we do the rest. Yea columbine happened after the ban on assault weapons ... you see, we just banned them on paper, and nothing else to prevent it ... and the killers got them @ a gun show ... no problem, they cant buy em @ walmart, only @ sears. That is the rule ... its banned. OK. Bullcrap. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by houstonbofh on 12/24/12 at 11:59:48 67667D7A75607C140 wrote:
Other than it being a multi-million cylinder engine, and all plug on cap, that works. So when you take away every gun, it will stop guns. But until you take away all of them, you can not have mine. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/24/12 at 13:53:15 Guns - who cares, we get the bullet supply cut off. That we do right now. The guns can decay on their own. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by WebsterMark on 12/24/12 at 14:38:15 I have 3 guns but probably 500 - 1000 rounds of ammo. Plus, i have a black powder pistol and half a pound of so of powder. You think there's a run on gun sales, wait until someone mentions ammo sale restrictions.... With about $50 worth of equipment, you can reload your own ammo. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/24/12 at 14:44:01 You're thinking the gunpowder and all the rest will be left available. Bullets and all of its components will have to be shut off. So your point is ... gun control is futile, cos there is so much of it ... And cops will have to be put on the schools 24/7 ... I'd suggest gun prices and bullet prices are to be used to pay for that. Seriously this is a huge reason for govt being so huge. Its now comming out of tax payers, it should come out of gun and bullet sales Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/24/12 at 14:45:31 073532232435221D31223B500 wrote:
Oddly, I have 1 gun and almost 500 rounds ... I just checked. He he ... I am a vintage rifle guy ... owned it for years, not been fired in years too. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Midnightrider on 12/24/12 at 15:35:56 Jerry you of all people should know that its the law that an individual should be incarcerated if he suspected of harming himself or others. Instead of treating them the doctors are prescribing meds that a large percentage of the time make the syptoms worse. The bad thing about it is the chiken sh!t parents go along with it. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Midnightrider on 12/24/12 at 16:22:40 66677C7B74617D150 wrote:
Theres millions of gun enthusiast have enough powder, brass, primers and bullets to load millions of rounds of ammo. They're out there as I speak buying more. Its impossible to outlaw anything that can be made at home. Outlawing bullets would just create another illegal cottage industry. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by houstonbofh on 12/24/12 at 18:26:06 21203B3C33263A520 wrote:
The Chinese were making gunpowder over 1000 years ago, and you think people can't today? McVay made a more powerful explosive out of things from a feed store... |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/24/12 at 18:37:11 2322393E312438500 wrote:
Yes, gun control is futile. It simply does NOT work. The only effect it has ever had was to allow the bad guys to be better armed than the good guys. You see, the bad guys like gun control because they can ignore it, and they know only the good guys will submit. It has never, ever slowed down the misuse of guns in any way. This is not an opinion,.. just ask the FBI. I pretty much despised Peter Jennings, except for one question he asked on a "news" show that was discussing guns. He asked (while holding about 40 pounds of books containing gun laws), "If these 20,000 gun laws I am holding here have little effect on the misuse of guns, how will another 100 or 1000 laws change anything?" The panel said, "ubba dee uh, ubba dee uh,..ummmm... well we have to do something." |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/25/12 at 06:04:12 Putting the bullet business in the hands of the people who need to make them from chemicals and metal, automatically makes them want to not spend 3-400 of those in a few sec. McVeigh was a well funded motivated terrorist. Not a loner nut. Now 3-400 bullets are a few bucks, and take seconds to buy. we will just make it take 30-40 hours. That would put a lot of the fringe nuts out of it. In India too we make those firecrackers and possibly even higher power explosives pretty easily, and you know how ? We have a few regions where the soil is combustible. Like in an area called "sivakasi" you stick you hand in the sand and it will come out silver in color. Loaded with some magnesium based compound. Whatever is the components of gun powder, we put it under the same controlled substances. Just make it harder and harder. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/25/12 at 20:29:14 24253E3936233F570 wrote:
Yeah, make it harder and harder for the folks that obey laws. Those are the folks that would most likely not do anything wrong in the first place. These folks are 99.99% of the folks that like guns. The folks that don't obey laws just sneer at any more gun laws. Well,... they either sneer or giggle. They sneer at the stupidity, but they giggle at how more gun laws just make it harder and harder for law-abiders to do what they want, and/or to defend themselves. The end result, as always, of more gun laws is simply that with each additional law, the bad guys have more of an advantage. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/26/12 at 07:27:56 Once again, you're talking gun laws, I am talking bullet laws. And this solution attempt is free. There is plenty of bullets out there. However in a few years they will work themselves out. Even a criminal has to buy bullets. He already has a gun, and a gun is indestructible. You wont be able to get bullets for under 100 bucks a pop. Or make them yourself ... you just need to be a machinist. And a chemist and have access to controlled substances and be able to hide form the law ... Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/26/12 at 07:38:23 You are all still thinking very short term. It took 150 years of gun lobby having its way to get to the point where a depressed guy took his mom's guns, killed her and drove to a school and killed 27 people. You cant "ban assault weapons" and 2 days later when some other madman going on a rampage say that the "ban" didn't work. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Midnightrider on 12/26/12 at 08:34:22 There's going to be times evil is going to prevail and no law or laws will stop it. Wasnt there a killing or killings with a bow and arrow on a college campus? I briefly heard something about it. We would have better results if we concentrated on phychiatric drugs and mental illness. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/26/12 at 09:16:56 785C515B5C525D41475C515047350 wrote:
The worst child massacre in this country's history occurred at a school in Michigan in 1927. Not one gun was used. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/26/12 at 09:29:41 6A6B7077786D71190 wrote:
Another idiotic idea. You proposed taking bullets away from everyone when about one billionth of the bullets made ever do anything illegal. That's correct,.. one billionth. One out of 1,000,000,000. There is a similar situation with guns. You want to have guns be made ineffective for everyone, when less than one percent of one percent of one percent of the guns in this country are used illegally. In this country, a gun is used successfully for self defense about once every 13 seconds. That would be a lousy trade-off. Put all this in context. The loss of life from misuse of guns is not very important compared to other causes for loss of life. This country loses over a hundred people EVERY DAY in auto accidents,. and nearly double that from diabetes. If we could get the government to stop the propaganda about 'healthy whole grains" and eventually get people to stop eating wheat and other grains, that diabetes number would be reduced 90%. Taking bullets away from the overwhelming (meaning nearly absolute) majority of law-abiders who need them or simply want them is the wrong way to go, for many reasons ranging from the Second Amendment to the simple need for freedom to do what we want without bothering anyone else. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by WD on 12/26/12 at 10:16:10 Banning chemicals that might be able to be turned into propellants or explosives would affect every facet of your life. Fuel, oil, fertilizers, medications, packaging materials, clothing. Wiring, plumbing, rubber goods. Grilling out on the back deck (charcoal is the primary ingredient in black powder). Sulphur (a black powder ingredient) is used in various forms in medications, fertilizers, food preservation. Nitrates (the other black powder component) are used in foods, so goodbye any pre-fab lunch meats, hams, bacon and sausages, wine, packaged lettuce or other greens. Nitrites also work in gun powder and are found in the same foods as nitrates. So you say you only have modern weaponry? Smokeless powders contain compounds used in the same industries as black powder ingredients. Collateral damages would be more wide spread than the issues why a gun/ammo/components ban would be enacted. Nice try though. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Starlifter on 12/26/12 at 12:23:19 "Put all this in context. The loss of life from misuse of guns is not very important compared to other causes for loss of life. This country loses over a hundred people EVERY DAY in auto accidents." Gyro GREAT arguement! This guy drove his volvo into an elementary school and killed 20 kids and 6 adults before driving over himself... Yes, stick with your arguement..You must have been an ace in debate. Our sh!tty infrastructure relies on cars....Guns? Not so much. People don't buy cars for the express purpose of killing other people with them. That whole analogy is ridiculous. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Paraquat on 12/26/12 at 16:29:17 I never purchased a gun with the intent of shooting it at another human being. Why should I be penalized? I posted the statistics before... Tobacco is the number one. People still have no problem buying, selling, and using tobacco. It not only kills you through first and second hand but do you remember when people were falling asleep while smoking and setting their homes on fire? I bet no one ever bought a pack of smokes with the intention of burning their house down. But yea, no, keep selling 'em. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/26/12 at 17:18:44 1B3C293A24212E3C2D3A480 wrote:
Starry says, "People don't buy cars for the express purpose of killing other people with them. That whole analogy is ridiculous." Sorry Starry, your point is the ridiculous one because 99.999999% of the folks buying guns don't intend to kill anyone either. You make my point for me. Lately there have been over 100,000 background checks done per day. Those background checks are done by gun stores that have to do them for every gun purchase. This doesn't even count the individual gun sales which might be even double that. You think most of those folks are buying guns to kill people? Methinks not. I will admit, though, with tens of millions of guns being sold every year, there are going to be a few wackos that will do nasty things with them. Additional gun laws that make it harder on folks like you are me will have no effect on those wackos, or on criminals who sneer and giggle at gun laws. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/26/12 at 18:05:58 None of the individual sales are background checked. And over 40% of nationwide gun sales are outside of the background checks. The Idiots I know are felons and own guns ... as is the moron who shot the fire fighters when he burned his house down. Get this, that fool was in jail for killing his grandmother. The sandy hook Idiot killed his momma for her guns. It needs to have a fingerprint trigger lock, and the bullets need to cost 1000's cos we cant get all the guns back and fit them with fingerprint trigger locks. You should be allowed to trade in your open guns for fingerprint ID guns. Seriously ... the arguments are hollow ... with every case of these shootings it is getting hollower and hollower. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Retread on 12/26/12 at 20:35:53 I find this hilarious that people who have a medical mary jane card cannot hold a concealed carry license! They can't buy a gun... Yet severly mentally ill, on mind altering chemicals can buy anything... |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/27/12 at 04:59:48 595843444B5E422A0 wrote:
Exactly. Each and every one of these cases shows how futile any kind of restrictions on law-abiders is. The only effect they ever have is to give more advantage to the wackos, idiots, and criminals. Futile is not the right word. Maybe harmful would be better. Every single time we put restrictions on law-abiders, the violence increases. Every time. No exceptions. The converse is true as well. Every time the law-abiders are allowed to be better armed, the violence goes down. This is simply the way things work here. The perfect illustration for this is what happened in Morton Grove , IL, and Kennesaw, GA. -- Against the wishes of its citizens, Morton Grove enacted a gun ban. -- Shortly thereafter, Kennesaw enacted laws that required everyone to own a gun for self-defense. -- A year after that many more people than normal died violently in Morton Grove, while Kennesaw's violent crime rate decreased significantly. It is hard to understand why allegedly intelligent people want to disarm the law-abiders. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 06:05:21 457B706D606D60020 wrote:
Exactly. Each and every one of these cases shows how futile any kind of restrictions on law-abiders is. The only effect they ever have is to give more advantage to the wackos, idiots, and criminals. Futile is not the right word. Maybe harmful would be better. Every single time we put restrictions on law-abiders, the violence increases. Every time. No exceptions. The converse is true as well. Every time the law-abiders are allowed to be better armed, the violence goes down. This is simply the way things work here. The perfect illustration for this is what happened in Morton Grove , IL, and Kennesaw, GA. -- Against the wishes of its citizens, Morton Grove enacted a gun ban. -- Shortly thereafter, Kennesaw enacted laws that required everyone to own a gun for self-defense. -- A year after that many more people than normal died violently in Morton Grove, while Kennesaw's violent crime rate decreased significantly. It is hard to understand why allegedly intelligent people want to disarm the law-abiders.[/quote] You are talking very very short term. And not talking about cutting off bullet supply ... And not talking about some ID based trigger lock ... Your scenario is this. Yesterday we banned guns. Today 20 people got shot. You then claim gun ban didn't work. Turns out, there was a month lead up to the ban date, the whacko's stockpiled and went on a rampage. You imply that it was the ban that affected it. And the local city level crap does not work. Its like "to get rid of our trash problem we will pay 10c per bottle, can, and sheet of paper" Instantly, people with trucks full of crap from 100 miles away will show up and dump in your town. Also crime is a bit different. Criminals prefer to commit crime in an area they are familiar with, but dont live in. So kennesaw crime, usually committed by people living outside kennesaw. So kennesaw's crime will not go down when kennesaw bans guns, it will go down when the towns around kennesaw do. I also am assuming everyone is reading all my posts made prior to the current post. I mentioned gun calibers that are not currently in production are to be made equipped with ID trigger locks. Those guns you can get bullets for upon producing ID and background check. The guns out in the country now, you can turn in for that type of gun. The guns that are there you cant get ammo for. You need to make the ammo, from materials you cant buy cheap or easy. Better yet, the ID tag trigger bullets should be pretty hard to open and get powder out of. Law abiding gun owners should have no problem wiht that. They get their guns and bullets as it is right now, and that gun will only fire in their hand. Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by Gyrobob on 12/27/12 at 12:11:22 I'm talking long term, not short term. We have had guns as part of the culture for centuries,.. and that will never change. Dream up all the unenforceable machiavellian schemes you want that take away the use of guns from law-abiders,... they won't work - they never do. Your wacky concepts would only have an effect on folks that never do anything wrong with a gun. This is just standard lib screed spewed by those that have no understanding of the law of unintended consquences. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by srinath on 12/27/12 at 12:51:35 7E404B565B565B390 wrote:
RF-ID based trigger locks are already working. Say all you want that they dont work etc etc etc ... Remember the last 2 massacres were committed by people who did not own the guns they killed with. After that you still want guns to freely be shoot-able by anyone who gets to it first ? Cool. Srinath. |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by MShipley on 12/27/12 at 14:21:00 Quote:
I agree but this is really the issue. I the most prosperous country to ever exist why do we have so many depressed and drugged people? |
|
Title: Re: Maybe We Should Focus More on Pills, Less On G Post by houstonbofh on 12/27/12 at 16:33:17 4243585F504559310 wrote:
Trigger locks work, huh? http://www.donath.org/Rants/OnTriggerLocks/ As for the RFID systems, God help you if you have to defend yourself in the middle of the night and the RFID tag is on the night stand. And I would hate to watch my wife get shot with the gun in her hand because it was for my RFID tag. This is why no police organization in the country and no military organization in the world is equipped with these. They know that they will kill people, and do not have to listen to uninformed voters that have no clue what they are talking about. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |