|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2012 06:42 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:40 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 06:33 Esk23 wrote:http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html"Documenting the impact of a multibillion dollar psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry, this powerful and graphic video contains interviews with experts, parents and victims. Dramatic recordings of actual 911 calls made by desperate family members—and even by a killer himself—convey the chilling reality behind today’s headlines. Here is the shocking truth underlying the current wave of violence devastating our homes, schools and communities." Watch the link, it's the drugs (the video is disturbing but watchable). The psychiatric pharmaceutical industry is definitely worth taking a long hard look at, especially when it comes to prescription propriety assessment, but it takes a fair bit of imagination to presume that it necessarily stands at the crux of mass murder. Even in a very basic sense, there is no way for us to know whether or not any of these individuals had the capacity to perform murder before they took the meds or not; instead we are merely seeing that those who commit mass murder have oftentimes been prescribed psychiatric meds. That is not really enough to go off of. How many of them committed murder before they started taking the drugs? It's almost always afterwards. That Batman shooter James Holmes was on psychiatric drugs, research it. You won't hear any of this on the mainstream media because these drug companies just pay them off with their billions and billions of dollars. People are more interested in making money than actually helping people.
I understand that these killers performed their acts of murder after taking the drugs, but that does not in any way prove that the drugs were the cause. In fact, it could very well be that these murderers simply received sub-par or incomplete psychiatric treatment, rather than the treatment being the cause. Maybe these people would have done something even worse or earlier had they not been on the drugs. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case, I'm simply saying that you cannot rule out these scenarios as possible.
|
On December 17 2012 06:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:22 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 05:57 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:53 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 05:34 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Owning a gun for self defense is about the most stupid thing you can do. Every statistics show that it only serves to greatly increase the risk to yourself. Its placebo at best!
This is true. There are huge amounts of data that show when a criminal is armed and the victim is not that it ends generally non-violently. When the victim is armed, a violent ending is far more likely, and more often than not is it the victim who gets hurt. Weapons force compliance and that is what most criminals want (unless of course there objective is to kill you). On December 17 2012 05:22 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 05:07 Br0kensword wrote:
Maybe we should be investing our energies into fixing America's broken mental healthcare system and help these very very sick people before they do the terrible things they do. I know lots of people who have guns and they worst trouble they get into is an occasional speeding ticket. The whole issue has become fanatically politicized with both sides trying to "Win" over the other. There needs to be consensus and concession to not only strengthen our gun laws but fix our damn society.
Its very easy to sit back after a tragedy such as what has just passed and say " lets just ban all guns" and then give yourself a pat on the back and walk away without of solved the underlying problems at all. It takes a lot more then that. Nice post, and I totally agree. We don't have a gun problem(imo), we have a mental health crisis. We have 100's of different chemicals in our water(including traces of birth control, vicodin, etc. etc.), we cover on foods in pesticides(useful, but still damaging according to the research), people eat junk food nonstop which is low in nutritional value, we have a lot of substance abuse(especially damaging in pregnancy), we have genes, social stressors, lack of mental health resources, etc. etc. So many things contribute to mental health decline and instability. Yet we focus our resources on wars and defense(obviously important to a degree), instead of helping our own sick people. We do have a problem with criminals and mentally ill people having legal access to guns though, but otherwise I totally agree. We need to have 100% background checks for gun sales or transfers, and we need to get people the mental health help they need. BronzeKnee, I've enjoyed reading your posts from the realm of the banned, and I agree with what you've been saying almost totally. No one serious about pragmatically taking a look at gun regulation in the United States wants to take everyone's guns away, we simply want a proper system in place with which to make the procurement of firearms more difficult. Additionally, a lot of cities who previously had gun turn ins were forced to cut back on such initiatives due to budget cuts and this phenomena ought to be reversed. I can tell you from personal experience that these initiatives take a ton of firepower off the streets. Doing something about gun shows is a start. Anyone can buy a gun there with no checks to see if that person is legally allowed to own one. Not to mention it's an instant purchase that the government has no idea about. Same goes for private purchase, people should have to go through an FFL dealer for transfers. lol, and I thought you and I would never agree on anything related to gun control  I totally agree, gun shows and ad hoc firearms sales are excellent places to start. I've personally seen too much illegal shit going down at gun shows, and I've only been to two lol. I'm not against gun control at all. In fact I think we are way too lax in that area. I'm not some republican gun nut, I'm a democrat transplant who spent most of his younger years in the south and I take my right to defend myself with a gun in my home seriously. I have mixed feelings on open carry and concealed carry because it allows for mostly untrained people to put public safety in danger. The only thing I've really taken offense to in this thread is foreigners coming in here and saying" americans are stupid, in my country we abolished gun ownership blah blah blah." I don't believe anyone who wasn't actually ignorant to the current situation in america with guns would think banning all guns is the correct path at this point in time. Again, I agree with you, it would be dishonest to ignore the degree to which firearm ownership is enmeshed with the American zeitgeist, especially when discussing pragmatics of the role of government and regulation. And yeah, Midwest Democrats (excluding Illinois, for obvious reasons) and Southern Democrats ain't so different, especially when it comes to something like firearm ownership, so no surprises there.
The sun disappeared, pigs are flying..the world really is going under. We managed to agree on something in a thread on an online forum?! Can we take one step further and find a middle ground on what exactly we think needs to be done as well?
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). Why isn't there a mandatory test before you're allowed to own one as well? A test showing that the candidate knows how the safety pin works would go a long way. Especially if you add "unload and pull the trigger in a safe direction before putting it down" on top of it. Top this with a thorough background check and we're already close to what most countries consider "gun control".
Is there any reason why this isn't being done other than "My gun is freedom hurdur!"? It probably wont solve much right away, but it would be an important first, and desperately needed, step in the right direction. The only step left would be to require a good reason for owning the gun as well (hunting, recreational, etc.), tho this last bit would probably be a bit hard in the current culture.
|
On December 17 2012 04:34 Linkirvana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:31 Zergneedsfood wrote:On December 17 2012 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:24 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though. Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy. You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong. -Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail -Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country -James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them -You can find random bombers in the news - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than 680. No one could do this with a gun. Bombs are easy to make? Relative to the ease of accessing a gun that is not true at all. Making a bomb is far more difficult for a criminal than walking into a gun show and dolling out a few Benjamins and getting a gun with ammunition. Yes, if people want to hurt other people there are plenty of ways to do it. However guns are incredibly effective at hurting people with lethal force and we just shouldn't make it that easy to get them. It should be harder to get access to a gun than rent a DVD from Blockbuster (and it is easier to get a gun than rent a DVD if you don't have membership). And the proof is in the statistics. How many people year die from homemade bombs in the United States compared to guns? Stop trying to distract people with almost non-issues. I mean, explosives in general are used for a variety of non-military uses, like fireworks, construction work, blowing up mountains, blowing up stuff in general for fun. I mean, the right to bare arms is inherently a philosophical question of rights, so based on the framework of the right to bare "arms", I think the question of whether it's right for people to have explosive material is kind of relevant. It's not relevant at all. There's no responsible way of using bombs so why the hell should they be available legally? There are however responsible/logical uses for a fire arm, such as to shoot some guy in the dick when he's trying to break into your home, how unlikely that may be. But you can destroy an IED with explosive+water at high speed
|
On December 17 2012 06:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:42 Esk23 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:40 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 06:33 Esk23 wrote:http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html"Documenting the impact of a multibillion dollar psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry, this powerful and graphic video contains interviews with experts, parents and victims. Dramatic recordings of actual 911 calls made by desperate family members—and even by a killer himself—convey the chilling reality behind today’s headlines. Here is the shocking truth underlying the current wave of violence devastating our homes, schools and communities." Watch the link, it's the drugs (the video is disturbing but watchable). The psychiatric pharmaceutical industry is definitely worth taking a long hard look at, especially when it comes to prescription propriety assessment, but it takes a fair bit of imagination to presume that it necessarily stands at the crux of mass murder. Even in a very basic sense, there is no way for us to know whether or not any of these individuals had the capacity to perform murder before they took the meds or not; instead we are merely seeing that those who commit mass murder have oftentimes been prescribed psychiatric meds. That is not really enough to go off of. How many of them committed murder before they started taking the drugs? It's almost always afterwards. That Batman shooter James Holmes was on psychiatric drugs, research it. You won't hear any of this on the mainstream media because these drug companies just pay them off with their billions and billions of dollars. People are more interested in making money than actually helping people. I understand that these killers performed their acts of murder after taking the drugs, but that does not in any way prove that the drugs were the cause. In fact, it could very well be that these murderers simply received sub-par or incomplete psychiatric treatment, rather than the treatment being the cause. Maybe these people would have done something even worse or earlier had they not been on the drugs. Again, I'm not saying that this is the case, I'm simply saying that you cannot rule out these scenarios as possible.
Its kind of like when speeding cars crash. Yes, the car was speeding at the time of the accident, but that doesn't prove the fact that the crash wouldn't have happened otherwise, or that speed was the direct cause.
The fact that people used drugs is something to look into, but it doesn't automatically prove that whatever drugs they took directly affected their decision to murder a bunch of people.
|
I feel like there is such a polarization of issues in this debate that impedes any actual progress. Any politicized discussion is had in hopes of each side legitimately considering (and in their own hopes, convincing) the other, correct? So each side going THIS is the problem, no THIS is the problem, etc. seems like a middle-school debate instead.
As in most every complex issue, isn't it most likely (in personal opinion) and most logically (in any study I know) that the answer is a combination of "people kill people" and "guns ALLOW people to kill people EASILY" and "drugs and mental health care are bad" and on and on?? This seems quite obvious to me; yes it is not STRICTLY "the gun problem" (whatever that even means) but of course there is a gun problem -- there is a lot of gun-related crime, violence, and tragedy.... it's not STRICTLY a mental health care problem either, but of course that factors in as well (among everything else, just using these as examples).
So many people are arguing that it's Option #1, not Option #2; it seems to me our duty is to address ALL issues, not just whatever we think is "most central". Sure, that will ultimately help the most, but obviously there are very few people who actually agree what that most central factor is. I personally am for tighter gun laws, but yes, I concede absolutely that there are plenty of elements and it is not necessarily nor strictly a gun problem -- I do however believe it's the clearest field in which limitations might be imposed: less guns [particularly in 1st world, Western nations] DOES generally equate to less crime/violence/tragedy. Not talking philosophically, talking statistically. How to address mental/healthcare, education, etc. have proven to be just as if not trickier issues though people may not be as zealous in their views about them.
|
On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models).
That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows.
|
On December 17 2012 06:42 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:40 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 06:33 Esk23 wrote:http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html"Documenting the impact of a multibillion dollar psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry, this powerful and graphic video contains interviews with experts, parents and victims. Dramatic recordings of actual 911 calls made by desperate family members—and even by a killer himself—convey the chilling reality behind today’s headlines. Here is the shocking truth underlying the current wave of violence devastating our homes, schools and communities." Watch the link, it's the drugs (the video is disturbing but watchable). The psychiatric pharmaceutical industry is definitely worth taking a long hard look at, especially when it comes to prescription propriety assessment, but it takes a fair bit of imagination to presume that it necessarily stands at the crux of mass murder. Even in a very basic sense, there is no way for us to know whether or not any of these individuals had the capacity to perform murder before they took the meds or not; instead we are merely seeing that those who commit mass murder have oftentimes been prescribed psychiatric meds. That is not really enough to go off of. How many of them committed murder before they started taking the drugs? It's almost always afterwards. That Batman shooter James Holmes was on psychiatric drugs, research it. You won't hear any of this on the mainstream media because these drug companies just pay them off with their billions and billions of dollars. People are more interested in making money than actually helping people. ***Just want to add, I'm not saying that you get rid of all drugs and everyone stops acting insane, but these drugs are greatly contributing to a lot of violence, in fact a big majority of it.
I just read the wiki on the Columbine shooting, here's an excerpt:
Medication
In one of his scheduled meetings with his psychiatrist, Eric Harris complained of depression, anger and to possessing suicidal thoughts. As a result of this, he was prescribed the anti-depressant Zoloft. He subsequently complained to feeling restless and to experiencing a lack of concentration to his doctor, and in April, he was switched to a similar anti-depressant drug— Luvox.[12] At the time of his death, Harris had therapeutic Luvox levels in his system. Some analysts, such as psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris's actions. Breggin claimed that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania.[13] A subsequent study conducted by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices identified Luvox as being 8.4 times more likely than other medications to be associated with violence.[14]
Emphasis is mine.
|
On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private.
I actually thought so at first, and googled just to be sure, and at first glanced looked like I was wrong.
In that case the absolute first step would be to get a proper registry going. There is no excuse for the laziness in not keeping it up to date. If it can be done with cars, it can be done with guns.
|
On December 17 2012 06:54 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:29 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 06:22 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 06:00 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 05:57 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:53 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 05:34 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Owning a gun for self defense is about the most stupid thing you can do. Every statistics show that it only serves to greatly increase the risk to yourself. Its placebo at best!
This is true. There are huge amounts of data that show when a criminal is armed and the victim is not that it ends generally non-violently. When the victim is armed, a violent ending is far more likely, and more often than not is it the victim who gets hurt. Weapons force compliance and that is what most criminals want (unless of course there objective is to kill you). On December 17 2012 05:22 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 05:07 Br0kensword wrote:
Maybe we should be investing our energies into fixing America's broken mental healthcare system and help these very very sick people before they do the terrible things they do. I know lots of people who have guns and they worst trouble they get into is an occasional speeding ticket. The whole issue has become fanatically politicized with both sides trying to "Win" over the other. There needs to be consensus and concession to not only strengthen our gun laws but fix our damn society.
Its very easy to sit back after a tragedy such as what has just passed and say " lets just ban all guns" and then give yourself a pat on the back and walk away without of solved the underlying problems at all. It takes a lot more then that. Nice post, and I totally agree. We don't have a gun problem(imo), we have a mental health crisis. We have 100's of different chemicals in our water(including traces of birth control, vicodin, etc. etc.), we cover on foods in pesticides(useful, but still damaging according to the research), people eat junk food nonstop which is low in nutritional value, we have a lot of substance abuse(especially damaging in pregnancy), we have genes, social stressors, lack of mental health resources, etc. etc. So many things contribute to mental health decline and instability. Yet we focus our resources on wars and defense(obviously important to a degree), instead of helping our own sick people. We do have a problem with criminals and mentally ill people having legal access to guns though, but otherwise I totally agree. We need to have 100% background checks for gun sales or transfers, and we need to get people the mental health help they need. BronzeKnee, I've enjoyed reading your posts from the realm of the banned, and I agree with what you've been saying almost totally. No one serious about pragmatically taking a look at gun regulation in the United States wants to take everyone's guns away, we simply want a proper system in place with which to make the procurement of firearms more difficult. Additionally, a lot of cities who previously had gun turn ins were forced to cut back on such initiatives due to budget cuts and this phenomena ought to be reversed. I can tell you from personal experience that these initiatives take a ton of firepower off the streets. Doing something about gun shows is a start. Anyone can buy a gun there with no checks to see if that person is legally allowed to own one. Not to mention it's an instant purchase that the government has no idea about. Same goes for private purchase, people should have to go through an FFL dealer for transfers. lol, and I thought you and I would never agree on anything related to gun control I totally agree, gun shows and ad hoc firearms sales are excellent places to start. I've personally seen too much illegal shit going down at gun shows, and I've only been to two lol. I'm not against gun control at all. In fact I think we are way too lax in that area. I'm not some republican gun nut, I'm a democrat transplant who spent most of his younger years in the south and I take my right to defend myself with a gun in my home seriously. I have mixed feelings on open carry and concealed carry because it allows for mostly untrained people to put public safety in danger. The only thing I've really taken offense to in this thread is foreigners coming in here and saying" americans are stupid, in my country we abolished gun ownership blah blah blah." I don't believe anyone who wasn't actually ignorant to the current situation in america with guns would think banning all guns is the correct path at this point in time. Again, I agree with you, it would be dishonest to ignore the degree to which firearm ownership is enmeshed with the American zeitgeist, especially when discussing pragmatics of the role of government and regulation. And yeah, Midwest Democrats (excluding Illinois, for obvious reasons) and Southern Democrats ain't so different, especially when it comes to something like firearm ownership, so no surprises there. The sun disappeared, pigs are flying..the world really is going under. We managed to agree on something in a thread on an online forum?! Can we take one step further and find a middle ground on what exactly we think needs to be done as well? Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). Why isn't there a mandatory test before you're allowed to own one as well? A test showing that the candidate knows how the safety pin works would go a long way. Especially if you add "unload and pull the trigger in a safe direction before putting it down" on top of it. Top this with a thorough background check and we're already close to what most countries consider "gun control". Is there any reason why this isn't being done other than "My gun is freedom hurdur!"? It probably wont solve much right away, but it would be an important first, and desperately needed, step in the right direction. The only step left would be to require a good reason for owning the gun as well (hunting, recreational, etc.), tho this last bit would probably be a bit hard in the current culture.
Well I think one of the biggest obstacles, political polarization aside, to getting through good gun regulation here in the States has a lot to do with the very prominent streak of "states rights" thinking, which happens to reside almost always in high gun ownership states. Many people are simple unwilling to give the government anything, and if it has anything to do with their guns, well that's even worse in their eyes. I don't think that these sentiments can't change though, and with a nod to level-headedness and an unwillingness to simply stand by as these sorts of things keep happening I'm hopeful for the future.
|
On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it.
On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why?
There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense.
On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home.
Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states.
On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows.
They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection).
|
On December 17 2012 07:01 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:42 Esk23 wrote:On December 17 2012 06:40 farvacola wrote:On December 17 2012 06:33 Esk23 wrote:http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.html"Documenting the impact of a multibillion dollar psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry, this powerful and graphic video contains interviews with experts, parents and victims. Dramatic recordings of actual 911 calls made by desperate family members—and even by a killer himself—convey the chilling reality behind today’s headlines. Here is the shocking truth underlying the current wave of violence devastating our homes, schools and communities." Watch the link, it's the drugs (the video is disturbing but watchable). The psychiatric pharmaceutical industry is definitely worth taking a long hard look at, especially when it comes to prescription propriety assessment, but it takes a fair bit of imagination to presume that it necessarily stands at the crux of mass murder. Even in a very basic sense, there is no way for us to know whether or not any of these individuals had the capacity to perform murder before they took the meds or not; instead we are merely seeing that those who commit mass murder have oftentimes been prescribed psychiatric meds. That is not really enough to go off of. How many of them committed murder before they started taking the drugs? It's almost always afterwards. That Batman shooter James Holmes was on psychiatric drugs, research it. You won't hear any of this on the mainstream media because these drug companies just pay them off with their billions and billions of dollars. People are more interested in making money than actually helping people. ***Just want to add, I'm not saying that you get rid of all drugs and everyone stops acting insane, but these drugs are greatly contributing to a lot of violence, in fact a big majority of it. I just read the wiki on the Columbine shooting, here's an excerpt: Show nested quote +Medication
In one of his scheduled meetings with his psychiatrist, Eric Harris complained of depression, anger and to possessing suicidal thoughts. As a result of this, he was prescribed the anti-depressant Zoloft. He subsequently complained to feeling restless and to experiencing a lack of concentration to his doctor, and in April, he was switched to a similar anti-depressant drug— Luvox.[12] At the time of his death, Harris had therapeutic Luvox levels in his system. Some analysts, such as psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris's actions. Breggin claimed that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania.[13] A subsequent study conducted by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices identified Luvox as being 8.4 times more likely than other medications to be associated with violence.[14] Emphasis is mine.
Yes, my mother works in neuro, and Luvox has gone way out of fashion in the past few years for that very reason. It's tendency to incite negative behavior outweighed its palliative benefits. Zoloft is a different story though, and the same goes for other psychiatric drugs.
|
On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it.
I don't know who is a drug dealer either...
And again, the whole point is the illegal action begins far earlier, giving the Cops a chance to arrest someone planning to buy a gun and commit a crime before the crime itself it committed.
That is why background checks are so important. We can't have criminals, gang members, and mentally ill people buying guns legally.
On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states.
As I noted before, the Castle Doctrine still necessitates that you prove reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
I can't just invite you over for dinner and shoot you and claim Castle Doctrine because I don't like you. I have to prove it "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another."
|
On December 17 2012 07:10 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. I don't know who is a drug dealer either... And again, the whole point is the illegal action begins far earlier, giving the Cops a chance to arrest someone planning to buy a gun and commit a crime before the crime itself it committed. That is why background checks are so important. We can't have criminals, gang members, and mentally ill people buying guns legally. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. As I noted before, the Castle Doctrine still necessitates that you prove reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another. I can't just invite you over for dinner and shoot you and claim Castle Doctrine because I don't like you. I have to prove it.
anyone breaking into your home is going to fall under castle doctrine. every. single. time.
|
On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? There is no reason for people to own bombs. Bombs aren't used for hunting or self-defense. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection).
Castle Doctrine doesn't exist in all states, and frankly I'd say is a bit outdated; generally speaking proof of self-defense is hard to manage but kind of important. We kind of already had this debate where you argued for subjective vs. objective intent, but I think that was illustrated to have been a trap you ended up giving up as a case-by-case situation, and furthermore I don't think applies to this: if someone enters your domain I understand that people might attack them, but to kill them simply for entrance (or even theft) seems rather radical.
People don't own bombs for hunting but they do for celebration - which is to say recreation and an expression of freedom (2 of the 3 criterion of generalizing the activity of hunting, the other being potentially people who survive on hunting which might not be argued for fireworks). And to say a firework isn't a bomb is akin to saying a criminal's gun is a danger-gun, but a hunter's is just a gun. To try to avert the label argument that I forsee being made.
And yeah the registry thing makes sense to me - I didn't realize that wasn't a prerequisite to ownership (though I understood that many don't regardless, as many guns are purchased at shows, etc.)
|
On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 06:59 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 05:27 Excludos wrote:
Why don't we treat guns a little bit more like cars? Theres already a registry showing who owns what weapon (at least for newer models). That would be incorrect. The government has no idea who owns what firearms. Just because they may know who originally purchased a gun doesn't mean they have the slightest idea who sold the gun to who in private. Private transactions literally have no government oversight what so ever and neither do most gun shows. They have no enforcement, but I believe someone in the transaction is supposed to record it to the ATF. I've sat in on a gun-smuggling trial once, and they had documentation on every single gun involved in the deal. The ATF has more data than you probably think. They actually caught this crime ring because they saw similar names pop up on purchase lists throughout the state (a purchase list is a list that every registered firearm dealer must keep for ATF inspection).
When a transaction takes place between private (unlicensed) persons who reside in the same State, the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping. A private person may sell a firearm to another private individual in his or her State of residence and, similarly, a private individual may buy a firearm from another private person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same-State” residents. Of course, the transferor/seller may not knowingly transfer a firearm to someone who falls within any of the categories of prohibited persons contained in the GCA. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and (n). However, as stated above, there are no GCA-required records to be completed by either party to the transfer.
There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact State Police units or the office of your State Attorney General for information on any such requirements.
Please note that if a private person wants to obtain a firearm from a private person who resides in another State, the firearm will have to be shipped to an FFL in the buyer’s State. The FFL will be responsible for record keeping. See also Question B3.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#private-record-keeping
This assumes your local laws allow such a thing. Which most do.
|
On December 17 2012 07:13 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:10 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. I don't know who is a drug dealer either... And again, the whole point is the illegal action begins far earlier, giving the Cops a chance to arrest someone planning to buy a gun and commit a crime before the crime itself it committed. That is why background checks are so important. We can't have criminals, gang members, and mentally ill people buying guns legally. On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. As I noted before, the Castle Doctrine still necessitates that you prove reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another. I can't just invite you over for dinner and shoot you and claim Castle Doctrine because I don't like you. I have to prove it. anyone breaking into your home is going to fall under castle doctrine. every. single. time.
You still have to prove "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" to a jury.
Again, I could invite you over for dinner break the door myself, and shoot you. When the Cops arrive I say I shot you because you were breaking in. That is why I have to prove there was "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another."
If someone breaks into my house and trips and knocks themselves out, that then doesn't give me the right to "finish them off".
This guy is about to go to jail for kill people that broke into his house:
http://bossip.com/686035/two-minnesota-teens-shot-and-killed-during-robbery-homeowners-claiming-self-defense/#2r3f9EFYPTjUejxc.99
|
On December 17 2012 07:15 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:13 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 07:10 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. I don't know who is a drug dealer either... And again, the whole point is the illegal action begins far earlier, giving the Cops a chance to arrest someone planning to buy a gun and commit a crime before the crime itself it committed. That is why background checks are so important. We can't have criminals, gang members, and mentally ill people buying guns legally. On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. As I noted before, the Castle Doctrine still necessitates that you prove reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another. I can't just invite you over for dinner and shoot you and claim Castle Doctrine because I don't like you. I have to prove it. anyone breaking into your home is going to fall under castle doctrine. every. single. time. You still have to prove "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" to a jury. Again, I could invite you over for dinner break the door myself, and shoot you. When the Cops arrive I say I shot you because you were breaking in. That is why I have to prove there was "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another."
Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home.
|
I think it should also be and has not yet been pointed out that a tightening on gun laws would allow for better enforcement not worse in at least one way: perhaps the hyper-determined might still be getting their hands on guns, but the police/government can fully turn their attention to ANYONE determined to get their hands on guns as said goals would be illegal, rather than having split attention or a lax attitude (as certainly seems the case now) due to the many different and many loose regulations across the country.
EDIT: About Castle Doctrine as it seems to be pulling a lot of argumentative focus; I'd like to see which "many upheld cases" you're referring to, or some major precedent from any recent time. My understanding is that while the defender of the home is most always trusted when it is reported that one intruded (and then was shot in supposed defense), it is also a very glaring loophole-generator that has caused a lot of controversy. Ultimately people are trusted because our legal system is built on innocent before guilty, but a lot of lawyers, politicians, citizens, (involved/relevant parties, etc.) take issue with the rather hearsay approach. TL;DR yes it is accepted widely, but also widely grudgingly. It's considered antiquated with no better solution (for the time being).
|
On December 17 2012 07:19 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 07:15 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:13 heliusx wrote:On December 17 2012 07:10 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 03:14 Gatsbi wrote:
I honestly have no idea how to go about buying a gun illegally, do you?
Talk to a local drug dealer. You'll get to one as long as they don't suspect you to be a cop. I guarantee it. I don't know who is a drug dealer either... And again, the whole point is the illegal action begins far earlier, giving the Cops a chance to arrest someone planning to buy a gun and commit a crime before the crime itself it committed. That is why background checks are so important. We can't have criminals, gang members, and mentally ill people buying guns legally. On December 17 2012 07:05 BluePanther wrote:On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home. Not necessarily. Castle Doctrine exists in many states. As I noted before, the Castle Doctrine still necessitates that you prove reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another. I can't just invite you over for dinner and shoot you and claim Castle Doctrine because I don't like you. I have to prove it. anyone breaking into your home is going to fall under castle doctrine. every. single. time. You still have to prove "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another" to a jury. Again, I could invite you over for dinner break the door myself, and shoot you. When the Cops arrive I say I shot you because you were breaking in. That is why I have to prove there was "reasonable fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm to himself or another." Someone breaking into your house is enough "reasonable fear of imminent harm or death". You will see time and time again in cases dealing with castle doctrine the courts have upheld that exact view regardless of your fear of crazy plots to murder people in your own home.
I guess you missed my last post.
Read this article:
http://bossip.com/686035/two-minnesota-teens-shot-and-killed-during-robbery-homeowners-claiming-self-defense/#2r3f9EFYPTjUejxc.99
+ Show Spoiler +Friends and family have expressed their outrage over the deaths of two popular students shot by a homeowner while they robbed his home – as he revealed he fired ‘more shots than he needed to’.
The bodies of cousins Haile Kifer, 18, and Nicholas Brady Schaeffel, 17, were found in Byron Smith’s basement in Little Falls, Minnesota on Friday – the day after they were shot dead on Thanksgiving.
When police arrived at his home after reports of suspicious activity, Smith, 64, confessed to shooting the teenagers repeatedly and stashing their bodies after they broke into his home, authorities said.
On Monday, he was charged with second-degree murder and police revealed he told them he fired more shots than necessary after his gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him.
While Minnesota law stipulates people are allowed to use deadly force when defending their homes, relatives, friends, police and prosecutors claimed Smith reacted too drastically by killing them.
A person has every right to defend themselves and their homes, even employing deadly force if necessary,’ Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel said. ‘Circumstances of this case however, led deputies to believe that Smith went beyond that point.’
In a criminal complaint, Smith said he was in the basement of his home when he heard a window breaking and footsteps. Fearful of other recent break-ins, he shot Schaeffel when he came into view.
When the teenager tumbled down the stars, Smith shot him in the face as he lay on the floor, looking up.
He dragged the body into his workshop and then sat in the chair, the complaint said. When Kifer began walking down the stairs, he shot her and she fell down the stairs.
He tried to shoot her again with his rifle, but the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him, the complaint noted.
‘If you’re trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,’ Smith, 64, told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and with as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin ‘up into the cranium’.
‘Smith described it as “a good clean finishing shot”,’ according to the compliant, and acknowledged he had fired ‘more shots than (he) needed to’.
Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police.
‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing.
‘They were just really great people,’ friend Rachel Stauffer, 15, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. ‘They could make anyone laugh.’
Further insight into the lives of the cousins was given by Brady’s sister, Crystal Shaeffel, as she visited Smith’s home and spoke with his brother.
‘They were 17 and 18 years old, and didn’t need to die,’ she told Bruce Smith.
‘That all depends on your perspective,’ he responded, referring to a series of break-ins his brother had endured. In one in October, thieves stole $10,000 worth of guns and electronics, he said.
But Shaeffel insisted that her brother had no need to turn to burglary, as he made good money working for their father’s tree-trimming business.
She added that her cousin, who had undergone treatment for substance abuse, could have been after pills from the home.
Yes, she had an addiction problem and stuff, but that doesn’t mean she deserves to get murdered at 18 years old,’ Shaeffel said. ‘I understand they came there to rob them, or whatever, but shoot them in the shoulder and call the cops.’
After he shot both kids once he could have stopped and justice would have been done. He went way too far. We'll see what happens in court.
|
LMFAO!!! your example is someone who shot two burglars who broke into his house HID THE BODIES IN HIS BASEMENT. Then when he was caught days later told the police he used more shots than necessary to make sure they were dead. Please tell me you are fking kidding.
Please read beyond the title of articles you post.
Friends and family have expressed their outrage over the deaths of two popular students shot by a homeowner while they robbed his home – as he revealed he fired ‘more shots than he needed to’.
The bodies of cousins Haile Kifer, 18, and Nicholas Brady Schaeffel, 17, were found in Byron Smith’s basement in Little Falls, Minnesota on Friday – the day after they were shot dead on Thanksgiving.
When police arrived at his home after reports of suspicious activity, Smith, 64, confessed to shooting the teenagers repeatedly and stashing their bodies after they broke into his home, authorities said.
On Monday, he was charged with second-degree murder and police revealed he told them he fired more shots than necessary after his gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him.
While Minnesota law stipulates people are allowed to use deadly force when defending their homes, relatives, friends, police and prosecutors claimed Smith reacted too drastically by killing them.
A person has every right to defend themselves and their homes, even employing deadly force if necessary,’ Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel said. ‘Circumstances of this case however, led deputies to believe that Smith went beyond that point.’
In a criminal complaint, Smith said he was in the basement of his home when he heard a window breaking and footsteps. Fearful of other recent break-ins, he shot Schaeffel when he came into view.
When the teenager tumbled down the stars, Smith shot him in the face as he lay on the floor, looking up.
He dragged the body into his workshop and then sat in the chair, the complaint said. When Kifer began walking down the stairs, he shot her and she fell down the stairs.
He tried to shoot her again with his rifle, but the gun jammed and Kifer laughed at him, the complaint noted.
‘If you’re trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again,’ Smith, 64, told investigators, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.
He then shot her several times in the chest with a .22-caliber revolver, dragged her next to her cousin, and with as she gasped for air, fired a shot under her chin ‘up into the cranium’.
‘Smith described it as “a good clean finishing shot”,’ according to the compliant, and acknowledged he had fired ‘more shots than (he) needed to’.
Smith said he left the bodies in his home overnight before calling a neighbor to ask if he knew a good lawyer. He later asked the neighbor to contact police.
‘Mr. Smith intentionally killed two teenagers in his home in a matter that goes well beyond self-defense,’ Morrison County Attorney Brian Middendorf said at the hearing.
‘They were just really great people,’ friend Rachel Stauffer, 15, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. ‘They could make anyone laugh.’
Further insight into the lives of the cousins was given by Brady’s sister, Crystal Shaeffel, as she visited Smith’s home and spoke with his brother.
‘They were 17 and 18 years old, and didn’t need to die,’ she told Bruce Smith.
‘That all depends on your perspective,’ he responded, referring to a series of break-ins his brother had endured. In one in October, thieves stole $10,000 worth of guns and electronics, he said.
But Shaeffel insisted that her brother had no need to turn to burglary, as he made good money working for their father’s tree-trimming business.
She added that her cousin, who had undergone treatment for substance abuse, could have been after pills from the home.
Yes, she had an addiction problem and stuff, but that doesn’t mean she deserves to get murdered at 18 years old,’ Shaeffel said. ‘I understand they came there to rob them, or whatever, but shoot them in the shoulder and call the cops.’
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
