News Another Shooting In The Us

[ms spock]

Thanks for your reply mybutterfly. I will read about Peter Breggin and CCHR.

We have very different views on these things and I thank you for your courteous reply. If you don't mind I would like to question and debate with you a bit more. (I have spent a lot of my life questioning and debating - such as in a community of scholars.)

It is precisely the people who are either medicated or are trying to wean off their medications who are MOST likely to go on killing sprees.

If this were true then there would have never have been murders by people before psychotropic drugs were invented. Clearly, this is not what happened. So to prove this point you might need to do a bit of research.

The reason you will rarely hear about that on the evening news is that the pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars in advertising and the media does not want to risk losing that funding.

I don't know about this. I do know that some psychriatrists are quite wary of the agenda of pharmaceutical companies.

The Batman shooter was a medical student who was under the care of a psychiatrist prior to the shootings, yet no information has been released on whether Holmes, like Colorado shooter Eric Harris, and countless others, was under the influence of psychiatric drugs documented to cause violence, psychosis, and even homicidal ideation.

Being under psychriatric are is a bit different to being involved in a mind control experiment. Some psychiratric drugs can have side effects such as violence, psychosis and homicidal ideation but they can also prevent these things as well. It depends on the drugs, the circumstances, diagnosis and the psychriatrist.

A couple of his professors stated that he was involved in a govt. mind control experiment, but their statements were later scrubbed from further news stories. I do have copies of the news stories where these professors testified before the info was scrubbed.

I am wondering, even if this was true, how would the professors know that he was involved in a mind control experiment? I would imagine that those types of things would be top secret?

His apartment was also rigged with countless booby-traps that the police described as "highly sophisticated" using materials that are not available to anyone but the military or CIA.

How would the police know if something was available or not to anyone but the military or the CIA? That is not really their area of expertise is it? According to a friend of mine who did his Phd in survival groups in America, some of them are much better armed and provisioned than the CIA, police and the military combined.

I am working on getting my thinking to be clearer. I think that is important for my healing. It is important to pull things apart and see if they bear up under scrutiny.

 

[Rumors]

Sorry folks, but those who are arguing for stricter laws still have not addressed the root of the cause. Truly, argue for ending murder period. Especially that of children. It seems like the only time people get a rise is when it happens in mass when that is truly the exception. The rule is that thousands of children are murdered every year but we don't talk about them individually. It is easier to scream at the top of your lungs when the world stage is centered on such a tragedy than to express that same anger individually over every man, woman, and child murdered at the hands of any perpetrator. The fact is this, banning weapons will change nothing because people will continue to commit crimes with guns, cars, baseball bats, knives, and even their own hands until we get to the root of the cause. You can use the tragedy in CT as a call to disarm a small few OR you can choose to use the tragedy as a reason to find answers as to why someone would want to commit this atrocious crime and learn how to prevent crimes of this nature.

We have to think outside of the box. We live in a society where Television and Internet teach our children. Parents have become "friends" with their kids and travel to concerts and spring break giving them every illustrious want no matter how expensive or what it might mean to the family unit. Who cares about the mortgage, buy your kid a new car! The answer lies with our children. We can either teach them to become responsible, caring, generous, respectful adults OR we can let Hollywood, war games, and television educate our kids on right and wrong. I choose to turn the tv off, make Santa some cookies, play UNO with my kid and talk! There is nothing better than a conversation with an 8 year old!

God Bless all and Merry Christmas!!!

 

[Rumors]

Last thing, I think. I keep thinking of stuff as I walk away!

We chat about drivers licenses, gun permits, etc. but what about a license to have a child? Hell, how about just some classes? We view having children as a right instead of a privilege! Sad and scary and I think we owe our children more respect than casually having some. Just my humble opinion. I think there are many people who are engrained with the ability to parent easily and I am truly jealous of that. I have to work hard to keep up, however!!

 

[anthony]

Guns people... not drugs and conspiracy theory nonsense. Start your own debate thread for those discussions please.

 

[Queen Boudica]

The fact is this, banning weapons will change nothing because people will continue to commit crimes with guns, cars, baseball bats, knives, and even their own hands until we get to the root of the cause.

Yes people will always kill, but, as argued time and time again on here, access to overpowered guns allows then to kill on mass all too easily. So the statement is false as gun control, preventing access to overpowered guns by people who should never have access in the first place will change it will reduce the number of killings and that can be acheived in a matter of seconds that is changing something.

We live in a society where Television and Internet teach our children. Parents have become "friends" with their kids and travel to concerts and spring break giving them every illustrious want no matter how expensive or what it might mean to the family unit. Who cares about the mortgage, buy your kid a new car! The answer lies with our children. We can either teach them to become responsible, caring, generous, respectful adults OR we can let Hollywood, war games, and television educate our kids on right and wrong.

Yes agreed the influence of war games, and violent television and movies - but these are all part of gun culture. Since the Hollywood Western and probably earlier, kids have played gun games and mimicked what they see on TV and video games, which show no respect for life. Now they play games on the PC with these overpowered weapons that people are arguing everyone should have acess too. Hollywood movies like Die Hard or worse show totally unrealist situations where the hero uses overpowered guns to blast the villain and the good guys always come out OK with no innocent civilians shot.

The emphasis is on the fact that the gun will save you from all these nasty evil villains. That is part of the gun culture that kids are being fed day after day. Just pick up a gun and everything will be Ok.

Yes, sure, stop portraying this fake rubbish in Hollywood movies and TV and video games. Play an active part in raising kids to hate violence, not celebrate it. Don't allow your kids to play these violent games or watch these movies. There are plenty of responsible parents like you and me who are trying to do that.

But there are always going to be those who IMHO are not responsible and, worse, those parents who are violent and cruel and who raise violent and cruel children and/or very disturbed children. That cycle has been going on since time began. Difference is, now those violent/disturbed angry children/adults have access to guns that can kill tens of other kids in just a few horrifying minutes.

 

[Deleted member 12723]

My son was bi polar and and a full blown alcoholic. In an alcoholic rage he took his handgun and shot a bullet into the floor of his apartment. He panicked and went and turned himself in to the police. He went to jail for eleven days and was let out on his own reconganance. He was court ordered to move in with us. He lost his job. He had to take anger management. I do not remember what he did for money. He was a felon. No one would hire him.

He finally got his job back after he expunged his record. He moved out to an apartment. He was getting drunk and I did not know that. He was a tortured and tormented soul. He got drunk and got into a motorcycle accident. He was in a coma and on life support. We had them take him off life support and he died three days later.

His life went downhil after the gun incident. We were grateful that he did not hurt anyone with his gun or the motorcycle. His was a tragic life. He would refuse to take his medication which helped him so much. I miss him so much. The only peace I feel is that he is no longer tortured and tormented anymore. I do wish He never had a gun. We do not have guns.

I think they are too easy to get. I think they need to do background checks on people and not sell to mentally disabled people. I grieve for any victim of gun violence. I really believe we should not have guns sold to people. It is such a big buisiness.

My son in law has a huge gun collection. He even has a machine where he can make his own bullets. My daughter has guns too. They all go target shooting. Even the granddaughters. They believe in home defense. No wonder I worry. What a world we live in. Woe.

 

[BloomInWinter]

If the argument for 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' had validity, then it would hold true for other causes of death.

This example is not a logical argument. If we applied that logic to cars, (cars don't kill people, it's just the people driving them) then why do we have stop signs? Most would just be responsible to stop on their own, and stick to common sense, right?

Why demand driving classes and tests? After all, responsible people wouldn't choose to drive without training, right?

Why demand insurance? Most people will carry it themselves, right?

Why demand air bags, seat belts, crumple zones, limits on blood alcohol concentration, since people who kill with cars will just find some other way?

We have a coordinated prevention net, backed up with regulations and enforcement for vehicles because it serves the public interest to do so. Every death and injury we prevent saves all of us money and heartache.

Public health issues aren't black or white issues. Of course there is an entire 'web of causation' for gun violence, just like every other public health issue. Saying we should tackle gun violence but do nothing about regulating access to guns is like saying we need to do something about car accidents but remove all restrictions, regulations, and enforcement.

Does it 'promote the general welfare' to do that?

Does it promote the general welfare to leave guns out of the prevention strategies?

I don't think so.

 

[therapybankrupt]

Christmas eve in Webster New York. A man who 17 years ago was sentenced to killing his grandmother got out. Set fire to homes in his sisters neighborhood after killing her. 7 Homes affected. He waited for the firemen and killed two and put two in the hospital. Finally he turned the gun on himself. How is it in this country you can get out of jail in 17 years for killing someone? We need tougher laws on murder. No parol. So sorry for all those having to deal with the tragedy.

 

[Abstract]

therpybankrupt. That is awful. :( And how on earth was someone like this allowed a weapon. That is the other question.

 

[therapybankrupt]

See here in the US it it easy to get weapons illegally:( I guess he had 3 different types of guns. There is a candle light vigil tonight/

 

[ms spock]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides.

The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks.

Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

Full article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

 

[anthony]

Alex Jones just set US gun control back into a worse position than it already was... what a nut job.