AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders

[Phaeton80]

No, I honestly have no idea what the source of the problem is, but sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before you can find the cause.

Make guns harder to own.

Look at the facts of the Second Amendment. There's a HUGE difference between a musket held by a militiaman and an assault rifle held by a weekend warrior in Walmart.

Will that change anything? Stuffed if I know. Well, doing something like seems to have prevented spree killings in Oz after the one in Port Arthur. If it works on the small scale (Oz) maybe it'll work on the large scale (America).

Well there are some patterns, like the psychotropic prescription drugs I mentioned, and the general state / decay of society. The latter not easily remedied, the former on the other hand, is.

Why is everybody (read: the establishment / government) always pointing to guns - while this is nothing new - and nobody mentiones the rabid prescription drug use throughout all facets of society? In most States, only a few years back, you would go to prison for smoking / posessing weed. High on vicadin and prozac? No problem! Kids, teens, young adults, parents, grandma and grandpa.. everyone is on prescription drugs, often the psychotropic variant. And as indicated before, psycho active drugs are even more damaging when the brain is still in development.

There has been increasing concern about the negative psychiatric side effects of many popular drugs, including such major classes of psychotropic drugs that have effects on the brain, including antidepressants, tranquilizers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety drugs, psychostimulants, so-called “mood-stabilizing” drugs, anti-epileptic drugs, and antipsychotic drugs. FDA-enforced black box warnings are increasingly being used since these drugs commonly cause severe health problems to chronic users.

Now we know that these drugs also pose a significant threat to society in that irrational, out-of-character behaviors can result. One example is the fact that Ambien (zolpidem) can cause people to sleep-eat, sleep-walk and even sleep-drive while taking it. That reality may seem humorous, but Peter Breggin’s book “Medication Madness” includes scores of case reports known to the author of people doing far more serious and irrational things, including driving dangerously, assaulting others, and criminal acts such as murder or bank robbery while taking psych drugs.

Most of the drugs in the top ten list of those likely to cause violence are antidepressants, but the list also includes a sleeping pill, psychostimulant drugs, an anti-malaria drug, and an anti-smoking medication. Soberingly, the longer list at the end of this column lists virtually all of the SSRI drugs.

http://duluthreader....ngly_associated

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0015337

OREGON, January 16, 2013 - A few weeks before the Newtown school shooting there was a mall shooting in Oregon. That shooting ended when a civilian pulled out his own gun and drew it on the killer. When the killer saw him, he turned his gun on himself and the ordeal was over. Two dead, seven injured, and over 69 shots fired. Chances are you didn’t hear about this. Chances are you didn’t hear about many shootings that take place across the country.

You may also not have heard that many of the shooters in these cases have a history of taking psychoactive drugs, used to treat a variety of mental illnesses from depression to Schizophrenia.

http://communities.w...guns-and-drugs/

Why doesnt Obama fake some tears vowing to make and end to this obvious factor, I do wonder. Deafening silence.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Phaeton80

[+DieChecker]

Well there are some patterns, like the psychotropic prescription drugs I mentioned, and the general state / decay of society. The latter not easily remedied, the former on the other hand, is.

That decay is much more advanced in many poor urban areas. It would chop a big bite out of our national gun death statistics if we could work on that urban decay, rather then dinking around with gun laws that will not work.

[ninjadude]

Many anti gun nuts cant seem to understand that if you take the guns, the real slaughter begins.

I've said it before. This is the classical definition of social paranoia.

[aztek]

I've said it before. This is the classical definition of social paranoia.

it is reality, backed up by numbers, and posted several times over, but you seem to ignore the facts, I've said it before. This is the classical example of social degradation,.

[Leonardo]

So you think the source of this specific problem actually is the availability of fire- arms?

No, the cause of the epidemic is the nature of the society involved. However, finding a 'cure' for that is either beyond the capabilities of the lawmakers, or would take so long to put into effect it is pointless considering it. What can be done (although still difficult) is to remove the capability of this society to easily commit mass-murder.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Leonardo

[aztek]

. What can be done (although still difficult) is to remove the capability of this society to easily commit mass-murder.

so basically you want to take my guns away because some mental kid on prescription pills shot up a school?, well it ain't happeniong, dream on, me giving up my guns wont make this country safer. england and australia showed that pretty clear. so your "solution" is not only useless but counterproductive. but the worst thing is that despite numerous evidence of contrary you still believe it will work,

Edited June 16, 2014 by aztek

[Leonardo]

so basically you want to take my guns away because some mental kid on prescription pills shot up a school?, well it ain't happeniong, dream on, me giving up my guns wont make this country safer. england and australia showed that pretty clear. so your "solution" is not only useless but counterproductive. but the worst thing is that despite numerous evidence of contrary you still believe it will work,

Ah, yes - that old chestnut. Because of course the murder rate in the US (4.8/100k) is the same as the murder rate in the UK (1.0/100k) or Australia (1.1/100k)?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Leonardo

[aztek]

Ah, yes - that old chestnut. Because of course the murder rate in the US (4.8/100k) is the same as the murder rate in the UK (1.0/100k) or Australia (1.1/100k)?

oh, priceless, i was not comparing numbers usa vs europe, i thought it was pretty clear, apperantly not, for you at least. now go look up crime rates in uk and australia, after confiscation. and compare them before confiscation, than tell me how it worked out. but regardless of what you think, our guns are not going away.

actually our murder rate is 5 for civilians, and 5,5 for leos.

Edited June 16, 2014 by aztek

[Thorvir]

No, I honestly have no idea what the source of the problem is, but sometimes you have to stop the bleeding before you can find the cause.

Make guns harder to own.

Look at the facts of the Second Amendment. There's a HUGE difference between a musket held by a militiaman and an assault rifle held by a weekend warrior in Walmart.

Will that change anything? Stuffed if I know. Well, doing something like seems to have prevented spree killings in Oz after the one in Port Arthur. If it works on the small scale (Oz) maybe it'll work on the large scale (America).

So basically what you are saying is that punishing the legal and honest gun owners is fine as long as you get to see something done that you have no idea whatsoever will work. That's very naïve and knee-jerkish, don't you think?

Putting any sort of [new] restrictions on gun ownership won't stop people from killing people anywhere. Criminals will either get a gun anyway--you know, because they're criminals (see Chicago)--or they'll just start using other items to kill with (see Oklahoma City).

Besides, why should I give up my right to defend myself and my loved ones by any means necessary just because you say so? No thanks. There isn't a problem with guns in the US. There's a problem with the society that glorifies violence, has little practical way to deal with the violently mentally handicapped, and a liberal power base that gleefully grasps onto any sort of violent event to push an agenda of more government control forward.

No thanks, I'll pass.

[+DieChecker]

So basically what you are saying is that punishing the legal and honest gun owners is fine as long as you get to see something done that you have no idea whatsoever will work. That's very naïve and knee-jerkish, don't you think?

WHAT??? Complaining because 1 out of a 1000 causes a problem so everyone has to be punished? Socialist Up buddy!! (Sarcasm!!)

If 1 in 1000 was guilty of Drunk Driving do we now have to take cars away from everyone? I know this is an old argument, but it is TRUE.

[+DieChecker]

No, the cause of the epidemic is the nature of the society involved. However, finding a 'cure' for that is either beyond the capabilities of the lawmakers, or would take so long to put into effect it is pointless considering it. What can be done (although still difficult) is to remove the capability of this society to easily commit mass-murder.

Hummmmmm..... That sounds suspiciously like opinion to me.....

I will admit that fixing gun violence by fixing the toxic inner city culture that is the primary source of high gun violence rates would be very hard, and that taking away guns from the other 99% of people would lower those statistics somewhat. But that is simply putting a wet towel on someone with the plague, rather then dealing with the disease.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

So basically what you are saying is that punishing the legal and honest gun owners is fine as long as you get to see something done that you have no idea whatsoever will work. That's very naïve and knee-jerkish, don't you think?

Putting any sort of [new] restrictions on gun ownership won't stop people from killing people anywhere. Criminals will either get a gun anyway--you know, because they're criminals (see Chicago)--or they'll just start using other items to kill with (see Oklahoma City).

Besides, why should I give up my right to defend myself and my loved ones by any means necessary just because you say so? No thanks. There isn't a problem with guns in the US. There's a problem with the society that glorifies violence, has little practical way to deal with the violently mentally handicapped, and a liberal power base that gleefully grasps onto any sort of violent event to push an agenda of more government control forward.

No thanks, I'll pass.

And how many of these school shootings have been done with illegal firearms?

And when I say "make them harder to own" I mean that to address the mentally unhinged owning firearms. You have to prove you're fully of a sound mind once a year to keep your license. At the least it'll mean more jobs being created to keep track of the paperwork.

[Leonardo]

And how many of these school shootings have been done with illegal firearms?

And when I say "make them harder to own" I mean that to address the mentally unhinged owning firearms. You have to prove you're fully of a sound mind once a year to keep your license. At the least it'll mean more jobs being created to keep track of the paperwork.

To play Devil's Advocate here, define "sound mind"?

Does a gun-toting, anti-government, militia-luvin' citizen with paranoiac tendencies (which probably covers a substantial proportion of gun-owners in the US) qualify as being of "unsound mind"?

Because anyone can "snap". All it takes is the right stress at the wrong time.

[aztek]

Because anyone can "snap". All it takes is the right stress at the wrong time.

there you go, so according to your logic the only way to go it to remove every gun, which you can not physically do.

what if gun-toting, militia-luvin' citizen with paranoiac tendencies, is pro gvmnt?? does it change entire pic?? or what if he is not gun-toting, militia-luvin', and has no paranoiac tendencies, but is anti govmnt, does it change anything???

actually you fit into that discription, with exseption of guns, you got plenty of paranoid tendencies, you are scared shtless of gun toting americans, and militia loving citizens, may be you should give up your driver license. 1 less car on the road, 1 less car to crash. definatly do not want a paronoid driver to be on the same road with me.

Edited June 17, 2014 by aztek

[Bama13]

Does a gun-toting, anti-government, militia-luvin' citizen with paranoiac tendencies (which probably covers a substantial proportion of gun-owners in the US) qualify as being of "unsound mind"?

Really. Wow. Quite possibly the dumbest statement ever on this site. Congrats, that is some accomplishment on this board.

[aztek]

Does a gun-toting, anti-government, militia-luvin' citizen with paranoiac tendencies (which probably covers a substantial proportion of gun-owners in the US) qualify as being of "unsound mind"?

oh yes, lol, how many amercans that own guns do you know personaly? my guess 0, so what makes you think your defenition covers a substantial proportion?? i know, propaganda.

yea that definatly puts you in paranoid\brainwashed category in my book.

Edited June 17, 2014 by aztek

[Phaeton80]

Because anyone can "snap". All it takes is the right stress at the wrong time.

Oh I (or any other rational individual) could 'snap' allright, but I sure as hell wont go out and murder numerous innocent people when I do. My brain doesnt stop functioning.

Normal people do not turn into mindless killing machines who take their own lives afterward. These school shooting fools are/were extremely - extremely - unstable individuals.

And Ill bet my left nut the tidalwave of psychotropic prescription drugs plays a role in that, no doubt in my mind.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Phaeton80

[Thorvir]

And how many of these school shootings have been done with illegal firearms?

And when I say "make them harder to own" I mean that to address the mentally unhinged owning firearms. You have to prove you're fully of a sound mind once a year to keep your license. At the least it'll mean more jobs being created to keep track of the paperwork.

Fine. Create your new jobs to tackle the problem of deciding who is mentally unfit to own a firearm. Let's see how that power won't be abused. In the meantime, the "sound", legal and honest gun owners would like to be left alone, please.

Note that mass killings happen with or without firearms. If a crazy wants to kill a lot of people in one go, they'll find a way.

[aztek]

mass killings are mostly commited by 15-25 y.o. with KNOW mental problems, and were KNOWN to be antisocial. hell, their facebook pages tell a lot about them. it were not normal people that just snapped, that commited those crimes, and most if not all of those shooters were democrats.

Edited June 17, 2014 by aztek

[+DieChecker]

I read yesterday that about 135 of the about 11500 killed last year were due to media hyped "multi-victim massacres".

Or about 1.2% of gun deaths are from massacres. Massacres are horrible, but they are not the Problem!!

[Phaeton80]

I could be defined as anti social.. doesnt mean Im liable to go out and massacre women and children indiscriminately. Only extreme degradation, delusion, perversion of the mind can do that. Drugs (psychotropic) can do that.

[aztek]

. Only extreme degradation, delusion, perversion of the mind can do that. Drugs (psychotropic) can do that.

they sure can, but multitrillion medical cartel, wont let anyone speak about it. with gvmnt in its pocket, if it was gun industry in their position, and have as much pull, you would not hear anything bad about guns. they would be prescribing guns.

Edited June 17, 2014 by aztek

[Leonardo]

Really. Wow. Quite possibly the dumbest statement ever on this site. Congrats, that is some accomplishment on this board.

oh yes, lol, how many amercans that own guns do you know personaly? my guess 0, so what makes you think your defenition covers a substantial proportion?? i know, propaganda.

yea that definatly puts you in paranoid\brainwashed category in my book.

Just a browse through the posts of some gun-owning US citizens on this forum alone reveals they are somewhat anti-government, and this can be attributed to or contributes to a degree of paranoia about govt. I appreciate you might not like the description, nor the reference to a "substantial proportion", but your dislike doesn't make what I stated any less valid.

Phaeton,

Oh I (or any other rational individual) could 'snap' allright, but I sure as hell wont go out and murder numerous innocent people when I do. My brain doesnt stop functioning.

Normal people do not turn into mindless killing machines who take their own lives afterward. These school shooting fools are/were extremely - extremely - unstable individuals.

Your fixation on pharmaceuticals notwithstanding, you cannot possibly know what the future has in store for you. Yes, all those who committed mass-murder became unstable - but the key word there is "became".

My reply was directed at the suggestion of "mental health checks" - perhaps annually - as a way of removing the capacity for large-scale gun violence from people who are judged possible risks. My point was to get people to think about the problematic nature of such subjective 'tests'. They might pick up a few people who happen to "melt down" at the time they take the test, but they are only 'point-in-time', and mental health is not such a cut-and-dry issue. And also, who gets to define what constitutes a 'risk' - which is why I made the 'paranoia' comment.

But, typically, many here simply choose to react according to 'party-line' rather than actually think about the issues.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Leonardo

[Phaeton80]

I keep pointing to the absolute rabid use of psycho- active prescription drugs because it is scarcely mentioned in regards to this issue, kind sir.

[Leonardo]

I keep pointing to the absolute rabid use of psycho- active prescription drugs because it is scarcely mentioned in regards to this issue, kind sir.

Perhaps because there are no studies suggesting it is the, or a, 'cause' as I presume you are attempting to suggest. The increased prescription of drugs for the treatment of neurological conditions might in fact be a symptom, rather than a cause.