One More Block

A couple of years ago I made a thread about a possible link between mass shootings in America (Don't ask me what, it was really stupid in hindsight...)

Since then, my views on the issue have changed and I personally feel that America needs to get its crap together on guns and put some meaningful regulations in place. Thoughts?

from the source article:

Is there a link between Noveske’s death and his “outting” of information numerous disparate parties would prefer to suppress, for a variety of reasons ?

Want to make a difference for the right to keep and bear arms? Then join the 2A Flashmob. -snipped link-

Those focusing on further firearms bans or magazine restrictions are clearly focusing on the wrong issue and asking the wrong questions, either as a deliberate attempt to hide these links, or out of complete and utter ignorance.
Don’t let them! Force our elected “representatives” and the media to cast a harsh spotlight on this issue. Don’t stop hounding them until they do.

ignore this article, it's written by a crazy 'MUH GUNS!! MUH FREEDOM' idiot, with enough bias to fuel fox news for weeks. Hell, half the incidents in the list aren't mass shootings. Some are suicides, some are single homicides, hell some dont even result in anyone dying. all mass shootings my arse.

how about this quote

Boca Raton psychiatrist Dr. Abbey Strauss has a very different view of those claims. He said he believes the theory is too simplistic.
"Too often people like to assume," Strauss said. "They project a little bit of logic, and they say ... that could theoretically explain a large problem. That's faulty logic. So many people abruptly stop their medications and we don't have an equivalent number of people going out and committing crimes."

http://www.wpbf.com/health/ssri-antidepressants-linked-to-mass-shootings/20036082#ixzz33Gz4JkwE

how about the fact that anti-depressants have shown often that they help people cope with their illness in a way that doesn't require therapy?

the only websites I could find on google talking about this were usually crackpot conspiracy sites. One of them was infowars, for christ's sake. I could not find any sane website that was also trying to disagree with this sentiment. It was all 'big pharma is making money off of mass murderers' and 'dont get rid of muh guns get rid of muh antidepressants'

tl;dr ignore this shitty article

I don't really have anything to add that papaya didn't sum up very nicely, but the first paragraph made me laugh.

'Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used.'

it's not the weapons used huh
did somebody kill a whole bunch a people with a bow n arrow or wat

In all seriousness, they're contradicting themselves in the very first sentence :l.

Although, after doing a teeny bit of searching, I did find that for some users of antidepressants, it can increase the effects of bipolar disorder, and trigger manic episodes.
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/medicat ... tm#effects

Just something interesting I found. I still think the article is bullshit, though :l. Antidepressants help far more people than they harm.
Though, I would be interested in a study on people who take antidepressants and the rate of certain side effects.

Also something to consider: what if the antidepressants merely weren't effective, rather than caused these 'deaths'? Well :l
I don't believe mental illness would be completely to blame, but we can't deny it would play a factor.

tl;dr this article is shit

How to stop shootings in the us:
-Make gun licences DIFFICULT to obtain
-Disallow anything other than handguns without a special permit
-When giving a licence, perform a mental and legal background check on the individual.

So what if it's in the constitution? That thing is hundreds of years old and massively outdated. If it stated that you could murder and rape people, would you still go by it as much? Well the gun law is essentially allowing murder to happen.

StreetLights wrote:How to stop shootings in the us:
-Make gun licences DIFFICULT to obtain
-Disallow anything other than handguns without a special permit
-When giving a licence, perform a mental and legal background check on the individual.

This.

@StreetLights

This is all really good in theory, but in practise, it kind of falls flat.
This assumes that people care more about the law than making a buck, which is much to my disappointment untrue. Just because we outlaw something, doesn't mean it won't stop happening. Especially not immediately.

Making gun licenses difficult to obtain is probably the most realistic suggestion here - however, what do you mean by difficult? Performing a mental and legal background check on one person is a LOT of effort, let alone on every person who wants a gun license. However, it's definitely a step in a good direction, though it would take a lot of resources.

Disallowing anything except a handgun...handguns can still be very lethal. I appreciate the idea, though, and I see what you're trying to do.

Thing is, America could outlaw guns completely, and guns would still be sold. Guns would still be made. And, probably, shootings would still occur. Thing is, there's a demand for guns. If the legal market cannot meet the needs of the consumers, a black market will be created.

The gun culture is very, very ingrained in America, and it's going to be very, very, very difficult to change. Don't get me wrong, those are steps in the right direction, but I imagine they'll change very little in actuality .

/sigh
I wish I had a magical solution.

a world where, largely, the only people who have guns are criminals =\= a safer world

Miniike managed to sum this up far more eloquently than I could.

Miniike wrote:a world where, largely, the only people who have guns are criminals =\= a safer world

This is why stricter gun control laws would never work. You can't stop criminals from committing a crime by putting more laws in their way. If for some reason anyone hasn't noticed, criminals don't usually follow the rules.

Personally, I would feel much safer if I could walk down the street knowing that almost everyone around me was carrying a firearm with them. Law abiding citizens already outnumber criminals, they just need to be evenly matched.

I can agree with the requirement of a permit to carry most firearms in public, but said permit should be EASY to obtain as long as you pass a background check. No special reason other than self defense should be needed to get one.

See I don't get the appeal of everyone having a firearm.

But then again I'm in the UK, and that doesn't happen...

The thing is, the article is more about the rope anti-depressants play. I don't think the anti-depressants themselves are at fault, but I think they have a much bigger effect in these things than loose gun control does.

The Right To Bear Arms is a Constitutional Right and has been for years, so I don't support the idea of taking it away altogether, but I think it definitely needs tweaking.

ElectroYoshi wrote: The Right To Bear Arms is a Constitutional Right and has been for years, so I don't support the idea of taking it away altogether.

If the right to murder were a constitutional right, would you want it leaving in?

racism was widely accepted, and many people were unhappy when it was made illegal, but it changed things for the better.

In terms of protection, I can understand someone wanting some sort of weapon to defend themselves in their home. That being said, I wouldn't personally want a gun - but that is for my own personal reasons and I understand not everyone is the same. If we reached a point where perhaps all manufactured guns could somehow read who is holding them, and allow allow the registered user to fire them, in which point to become registered there would be a full background, and mental evaluation.

I am sure the thought of this sort of system is something some would be strongly opposed to, but keep in mind this is coming from the view point of someone who doesn't want a gun and hardly understands them.

StreetLights wrote:If the right to murder were a constitutional right, would you want it leaving in?

racism was widely accepted, and many people were unhappy when it was made illegal, but it changed things for the better.

The right to defend yourself/own the means to defend yourself is not really comparable with murder, and even then, it's not a requirement.

When racial prejudice was done away with (but not completely, because people are stupid) it was a step towards having MORE freedom, not less. I fail to see how restricting firearms will "change things for the better".

bu srsy guys this is about antidepressants

Living in Canada here, the only people who really have guns are people who live outside the city, and that's mainly for hunting. Inside Canada, when self defence comes into play, you can't defend yourself with a weapon that's more lethal than the weapon the antagonizer has. Meaning, using a gun for self defence could get me in jail here, if the criminal has a different weapon. Thing is though, killing is killing. We still have stabbings and such. People still die. I don't think it makes a difference whether guns are banned or not. A weapon is a weapon, and will be used to kill. Be it for hunting, self defence, or criminal acts. I can't remember the last time we had a mass shooting in Canada. We're too nice eh.
I gotta give our laws credit though. Knives kill fewer people than guns can.

what mass shootings have in common:

deranged people not getting the mental care they need from our gov't

in a thread about an article linking anti-depressants to shootings and not guns to shootings, you still manage to debate gun laws

StreetLights wrote:If the right to murder were a constitutional right, would you want it leaving in?

Yeah, THAT'S a realistic comparison. Seriously, there's a reason stuff like that isn't in the constitution.

StreetLights wrote:If the right to murder were a constitutional right, would you want it leaving in?

racism was widely accepted, and many people were unhappy when it was made illegal, but it changed things for the better.

Yeah, GREAT comparison. Seriously, people don't get gun permits just to kill people. Most people just use them for hunting or target practice.

papaya wrote:in a thread about an article linking anti-depressants to shootings and not guns to shootings, you still manage to debate gun laws

YES.
YES.
YES.
THANK YOU.

ElectroYoshi wrote:The thing is, the article is more about the rope anti-depressants play.

i like to play ropes as well. jumpropes, skip-its, that sort of thing.