Posts: 358
Threads: 46
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
116
I'll say, straight out, that I'll always think that blaming a weapon/tool for the actions and choices of its user is a dead end; I cannot name one instance where a firearm has selected, purchased, loaded, chambered, selected targets, aimed, and fired itself. I'd also add how very, very few legit gun owners commit gun crimes and other easily-assessed statistics. That said, there needs to be real progress on keeping firearms out of the hands of the broken people that misuse them so tragically. New ideas and plans need to address both the safety and the liberties of all involved, because both the tragedies and the erosion of liberties are unacceptable.
One area that gets buried almost as quickly as it gets brought up: the relationship between psycho-pharmaceuticals and mass killers:
"Fact: At least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from
psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed (in other
school shootings, information about their drug use was never made
public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence
of prescribed drugs)."
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
LET'S WREAK SOME FUGGIN' HAVOK, VIKINGS!!! SKOL!!!
Quote: @Zanary said:
I'll say, straight out, that I'll always think that blaming a weapon/tool for the actions and choices of its user is a dead end; I cannot name one instance where a firearm has selected, purchased, loaded, chambered, selected targets, aimed, and fired itself. I'd also add how very, very few legit gun owners commit gun crimes and other easily-assessed statistics. That said, there needs to be real progress on keeping firearms out of the hands of the broken people that misuse them so tragically. New ideas and plans need to address both the safety and the liberties of all involved, because both the tragedies and the erosion of liberties are unacceptable.
One area that gets buried almost as quickly as it gets brought up: the relationship between psycho-pharmaceuticals and mass killers:
"Fact: At least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from
psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed (in other
school shootings, information about their drug use was never made
public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence
of prescribed drugs)."
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
IMO if a legal owner or a connection to a legal owner who provided or made the firearms accessible is established then the gun owner needs to be charged as an accomplice. I am not talking about a guy whose guns get stolen in a break-in and somebody says they werent secured enough. I am talking about a parent who has a mentally flimsy family memeber in the household and not securing the guns from them.
I am intrigued by the pharma angle, I am sure there are already protections in place for big pharma, but perhaps the FDA and the rest of the gov need to start focusing more of their ire on that angle and look for a way to curb that trend.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Zanary said:
I'll say, straight out, that I'll always think that blaming a weapon/tool for the actions and choices of its user is a dead end; I cannot name one instance where a firearm has selected, purchased, loaded, chambered, selected targets, aimed, and fired itself. I'd also add how very, very few legit gun owners commit gun crimes and other easily-assessed statistics. That said, there needs to be real progress on keeping firearms out of the hands of the broken people that misuse them so tragically. New ideas and plans need to address both the safety and the liberties of all involved, because both the tragedies and the erosion of liberties are unacceptable.
One area that gets buried almost as quickly as it gets brought up: the relationship between psycho-pharmaceuticals and mass killers:
"Fact: At least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from
psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed (in other
school shootings, information about their drug use was never made
public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence
of prescribed drugs)."
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
IMO if a legal owner or a connection to a legal owner who provided or made the firearms accessible is established then the gun owner needs to be charged as an accomplice. I am not talking about a guy whose guns get stolen in a break-in and somebody says they werent secured enough. I am talking about a parent who has a mentally flimsy family memeber in the household and not securing the guns from them.
I am intrigued by the pharma angle, I am sure there are already protections in place for big pharma, but perhaps the FDA and the rest of the gov need to start focusing more of their ire on that angle and look for a way to curb that trend.
It seems (happily) like Big Pharma and its gov't cronies are feeling a ton of pressure over costs and weed laws, lately, so I think that continuing to focus on just how many of these deranged people are either on the wrong meds or off their meds should put even more focus on a pretty shady group.
There was a picture going around the media recently of a young lady at Kent State University. She was wearing a sunny white dress and an AR-15 over her shoulder. My first thought was..."wow, what a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our gun laws." Turns out the statement she was attempting to make was the opposite. Recently graduated, she was protesting that as a student she was not allowed to carry the AR-15 around campus. Poor thing. Can't imagine why THAT would be a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is to make it harder to access weapons like this. Drugs should be on the table. Increased school security should be on the table. Better and more effective gun regulations should be on the table.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Zanary said:
I'll say, straight out, that I'll always think that blaming a weapon/tool for the actions and choices of its user is a dead end; I cannot name one instance where a firearm has selected, purchased, loaded, chambered, selected targets, aimed, and fired itself. I'd also add how very, very few legit gun owners commit gun crimes and other easily-assessed statistics. That said, there needs to be real progress on keeping firearms out of the hands of the broken people that misuse them so tragically. New ideas and plans need to address both the safety and the liberties of all involved, because both the tragedies and the erosion of liberties are unacceptable.
One area that gets buried almost as quickly as it gets brought up: the relationship between psycho-pharmaceuticals and mass killers:
"Fact: At least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from
psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed (in other
school shootings, information about their drug use was never made
public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence
of prescribed drugs)."
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
IMO if a legal owner or a connection to a legal owner who provided or made the firearms accessible is established then the gun owner needs to be charged as an accomplice. I am not talking about a guy whose guns get stolen in a break-in and somebody says they werent secured enough. I am talking about a parent who has a mentally flimsy family memeber in the household and not securing the guns from them.
I am intrigued by the pharma angle, I am sure there are already protections in place for big pharma, but perhaps the FDA and the rest of the gov need to start focusing more of their ire on that angle and look for a way to curb that trend.
so far Jimmy in SD havent seen eye to eye on animal agriculture and marijuana, but this is a great example of where rational beings can come together on a topic. Whole heartedly agreed that the firearm owner should have a level of reasonable culpability in these situations. Put the honus on RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Anyone who starts a conversation with “the 2nd amendment . .” or “ban all the guns” has no seat at the discussion table. Legislation like this might not stop all of the shootings, but it could stop at least one. Limit the access to those who shouldnt have access. Seems like a realistic and bi partisan legislation that will make a difference
regarding PhARMA, no doubt that psychoactive prescribed drugs play a huge role in these shootings. It might be not be the day of, but somewhere along the line, these over prescribed drugs play a role.
The other 800lb gorilla that no one wants to truly address, SELF IDENTITY and the rise of Social
Media. Social media is a cancer that is slowly consuming the millenial generation. I see adults that act like children with this shit, and its time that we have a real conversation about the real
impact (and small benefit) we get from this platofrm. It is truly rewiring brains, throw in psychoactive drugs plus firearms and you end up with dead innocent people.
Boy if there were only a significantly harmless drug that was natural that could replace the psychoactive drugs handed out like candy to todays children . . .
I would agree that big pharma should be on the table. It is so sad that so much data was lost due to the inability for the cdc to research gun violence. If big pharma is on the table, I don't see why gun manufacturers shouldn't be. Well I know why they aren't but they should be. And of course the cuts to funding for mental health and domestic terrorism are extremely important to factor in.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
There was a picture going around the media recently of a young lady at Kent State University. She was wearing a sunny white dress and an AR-15 over her shoulder. My first thought was..."wow, what a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our gun laws." Turns out the statement she was attempting to make was the opposite. Recently graduated, she was protesting that as a student she was not allowed to carry the AR-15 around campus. Poor thing. Can't imagine why THAT would be a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is to make it harder to access weapons like this. Drugs should be on the table. Increased school security should be on the table. Better and more effective gun regulations should be on the table.
Interesting cherry-picking there, as she had recently graduated and was showing that the moment she was no longer a student, that open carry was legal...which is odd, given that students aren't allowed to be armed. I'm assuming you read the whole article...?
Quote: @Zanary said:
@ MaroonBells said:
There was a picture going around the media recently of a young lady at Kent State University. She was wearing a sunny white dress and an AR-15 over her shoulder. My first thought was..."wow, what a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our gun laws." Turns out the statement she was attempting to make was the opposite. Recently graduated, she was protesting that as a student she was not allowed to carry the AR-15 around campus. Poor thing. Can't imagine why THAT would be a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is to make it harder to access weapons like this. Drugs should be on the table. Increased school security should be on the table. Better and more effective gun regulations should be on the table.
Interesting cherry-picking there, as she had recently graduated and was showing that the moment she was no longer a student, that open carry was legal...which is odd, given that students aren't allowed to be armed. I'm assuming you read the whole article...?
Cherry picking what? I'm just telling you my reaction to the photo. From what i understand she was protesting the fact that, as a student, she could not carry a weapon. But now that she had graduated she could. And so she marches out there with an AR-15 draped over her shoulder. What I thought was a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our lax gun laws was just the opposite. She was protesting the fact that students could NOT carry. What did I get wrong?
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Zanary said:
I'll say, straight out, that I'll always think that blaming a weapon/tool for the actions and choices of its user is a dead end; I cannot name one instance where a firearm has selected, purchased, loaded, chambered, selected targets, aimed, and fired itself. I'd also add how very, very few legit gun owners commit gun crimes and other easily-assessed statistics. That said, there needs to be real progress on keeping firearms out of the hands of the broken people that misuse them so tragically. New ideas and plans need to address both the safety and the liberties of all involved, because both the tragedies and the erosion of liberties are unacceptable.
One area that gets buried almost as quickly as it gets brought up: the relationship between psycho-pharmaceuticals and mass killers:
"Fact: At least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from
psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed (in other
school shootings, information about their drug use was never made
public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence
of prescribed drugs)."
https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
IMO if a legal owner or a connection to a legal owner who provided or made the firearms accessible is established then the gun owner needs to be charged as an accomplice. I am not talking about a guy whose guns get stolen in a break-in and somebody says they werent secured enough. I am talking about a parent who has a mentally flimsy family memeber in the household and not securing the guns from them.
I am intrigued by the pharma angle, I am sure there are already protections in place for big pharma, but perhaps the FDA and the rest of the gov need to start focusing more of their ire on that angle and look for a way to curb that trend.
so far Jimmy in SD havent seen eye to eye on animal agriculture and marijuana, but this is a great example of where rational beings can come together on a topic. Whole heartedly agreed that the firearm owner should have a level of reasonable culpability in these situations. Put the honus on RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Anyone who starts a conversation with “the 2nd amendment . .” or “ban all the guns” has no seat at the discussion table. Legislation like this might not stop all of the shootings, but it could stop at least one. Limit the access to those who shouldnt have access. Seems like a realistic and bi partisan legislation that will make a difference
regarding PhARMA, no doubt that psychoactive prescribed drugs play a huge role in these shootings. It might be not be the day of, but somewhere along the line, these over prescribed drugs play a role.
The other 800lb gorilla that no one wants to truly address, SELF IDENTITY and the rise of Social
Media. Social media is a cancer that is slowly consuming the millenial generation. I see adults that act like children with this shit, and its time that we have a real conversation about the real
impact (and small benefit) we get from this platofrm. It is truly rewiring brains, throw in psychoactive drugs plus firearms and you end up with dead innocent people.
Boy if there were only a significantly harmless drug that was natural that could replace the psychoactive drugs handed out like candy to todays children . . .
Most of the remaining anti-weed laws are serving Big Pharma and the for-profit prison industry...which is a huge donor to Super PACs! Gosh, who woulda thunk it?
The gun conversation is complicated by another factor: the massive and very legitimate distrust of the government and its various agencies. We just had an election with two of the most horrid possible candidates, we seemingly can't go more than a week without some "representative" getting busted for misuse of power...and these are the people that would have the power resulting from higher gun registrations/laws.
That, understandably, worries a great many people. We have a true asshat collective in our offices of power, and they'd have the ability to futher manipulate firearm ownership info and regulations for their purposes. They already can send 18-year-olds to combat zones...
Social media is a MASSIVE problem, because it seems like a certain number of sick individuals are trying to orchestrate the next Columbine with terrifying regularity.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
There was a picture going around the media recently of a young lady at Kent State University. She was wearing a sunny white dress and an AR-15 over her shoulder. My first thought was..."wow, what a brilliant commentary on the absurdity of our gun laws." Turns out the statement she was attempting to make was the opposite. Recently graduated, she was protesting that as a student she was not allowed to carry the AR-15 around campus. Poor thing. Can't imagine why THAT would be a problem.
I think the best thing we can do is to make it harder to access weapons like this. Drugs should be on the table. Increased school security should be on the table. Better and more effective gun regulations should be on the table.
just to clarify, MB you are aware that contrary to some media reports that the recent shooter was using an AR, this in fact was done with a typical sporting style shotgun? ( not trying to be a smart ass here, just wanting to make sure that if we are going to talk AR platform rifles that we are on the same page )
as far as the AR platform... what again is so threatening about it? the fact that it can carry a larger magazine than most other hunting weapons? (changing a clip is a matter of a few seconds at most, in a live fire event for the untrained I dont think the fraction of time would make a difference at all) is it the semi automatic aspect of the firearm? there are many many semi auto firearms out there, are all of them going to be banned, if so I dont think anybody is ready for that back lash as that would eliminate a very large segment of the sporting arms out there. the AR is scary looking, it looks military so then people immediately think that it is more deadly than other firearms or some such crap. Now if you bring up the aftermarket accessories like a "bump stock" which basically makes the rifle fully auto.... then we would be in agreement, that is a device created to specifically by pass a law and it should have never been legal IMO, but it really only slows down the shooter by about a second a round or so.
I just read an article today about a guy (ex cop, family of cops) having mental issues that took his own guns away, he knew that he shouldnt have access to them in his mental state, basically put himself into that little gun free utopia that some people are championing for.... well last weekend he was with his family out for a meal at a local restaurant, as the food was arriving he excused himself from the table to go to the restroom, the next thing anybody knew he was crashing his vehicle through the wall of the restaurant killing 2 people (of his family) and injuring others, it will find a way.
|
