|
On August 28 2012 11:40 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 11:34 OsoVega wrote:On August 28 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 28 2012 06:33 Cirqueenflex wrote:you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htmin 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too. Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdfDespite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor. Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it? Complete myth created by government officials for the purpose of furthering their gun control agenda. They even set up an operation (Fast and Furious) in which they purposefully allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could blame Mexico's violence on American gun laws resulting in the death of an American border patrol agent. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-mythOn August 28 2012 11:33 Trevoc wrote:
I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient. Here are your logistics: Civil war. The banning of guns is not a step towards dictatorship that America is ready to make. I saw a documentary about the criminal cartels in Mexico and one of cartels themselves talked about how they get most of their weapons from South America and that they weren't dependant on US for guns. Either way though, the US needs to step up their border security, it's way to easy for people to travel back and forth on both sides. The reason a lot of politicians including the President of the US are not pushing for more gun control/laws right now is because the election is coming up and they know it's an unpopular idea in the US to push for more gun control/laws, most Americans favor the 2nd Amendment.
Here is what needs to be done, which will solve many issues with Mexico. First, legalize drugs. Without a product to smuggle, the cartel is robbed of the vast majority of it's income stream and they will go the way of the Chicago Outfit. Second, legalize immigration while ending the welfare state. I don't mean completely open borders, but immigration requirements would be reduced to a background check making sure you aren't a criminal or a sympathizer of American enemies. Right now, this is impossible because Mexicans have an incentive to come to America just for the govenrment benefits. Eliminate those benefits and only hard working people would bother coming. This would shut down the illegal immigration underground and all the crime which prospers around it. With legal drugs and legal immigration, nearly nobody would have a reason to illegally cross the border.
|
On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs.
Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them?
I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
|
On August 28 2012 10:42 evanthebouncy! wrote:Show nested quote +
The injured 17-year-old student was flown by medevac to the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center
am I the only one who laughed at the thought of loading it up instead of healing it on the spot? D:
uhh no. I don't see a wounded 17 year old funny...
|
you have people like alex jones, faux networks, everyone telling the people who listen to them that obama is a muslim, obama wants to destroy america, obama is going to take away all of your guns (meanwhile doing nothing about it) and it only takes that to push 1 crazy person over the edge to think so that he can "save america" by killing the "terrorists" who want to destroy the country. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
look at the sikh shooting for example. and i read an article a few weeks ago about a guy who opened fire on police or something because he thought obama was going to ruin the country, although i think that guy was killed also (by the police).
|
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
|
On August 28 2012 11:02 SayGen wrote:
IT IS EASIER TO OBTAIN AN AK47 IN GERMANY THAN IN THE US.
Thats the most stupid thing i've ever read from an american, actually. You know that, right? AK47s are even manufactured in the US, whereas in germany this weapon (like all other assault rifles) is banned. Completely, you cant even get a permission. You will never, EVER will be able to buy that gun, whereas it took me not even 2 minutes to find a phonenumber to order an AK47 in the US.
PS: an AK47 is not just a gun in germany, its a so called "War-Weapon", and falls under the so called "Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz" (war weapons control law). You will never get the permission to own Kriegswaffen.
|
On August 28 2012 03:59 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 03:55 Xiron wrote:On August 28 2012 03:53 heroyi wrote:On August 28 2012 03:51 Xiron wrote:On August 28 2012 03:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:
What is motivating this?
Fail gun laws that grant easy access to weapons. oiii here we go again Yea, sadly that's the foundation of all those shootings. If noone had weapons, those shootings wouldn't happen (as much). Those crazy people are being encouraged by the media, get a weapon and go at it. hahaha oh how wrong you are. When somebody wants to shoot people they find a way to get a gun. It wouldn't prevent anything but unfortunately I know no matter how hard I try there is no way for you to see reason. As for the OP, I think it's just media being able to cover everything. There are lots of murders with guns/knifes/etc. From what it sounds like he was probably bullied by the kid is my guess which caused him to want to kill him. I know this happened at my school or almost happened but somebody turned the kid in. He was going to knife a kid (ironically he bullied me to the kid he was going to knife). If he hadn't been caught he would have done it to.
Australia had one terrible shooting incident. We banned guns. Then it seemed to stop. Just saying...
I understand that's it part of that special piece of paper you guys have, but dedication to a tradition that seems to be hurting your country on a personal, domestic and emotional level for the sake of a tradition is stagnant, self destructive reasoning.
Of course people will still find a way to get a weapon, but there's a lot more time for people to think while they source that black market guns connections through a dodgy second cousin instead of being able to waltz into a Walmart or whatever.
|
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
Yeah but how many will they kill? NIdal Hassan got 17 kills, 30 wounded with a FiveSeveN with the 33 round mags. How many would he have gotten with a knife?
|
On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade?
A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
|
On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours?
Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
|
On August 28 2012 13:52 AlphaWhale wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade? A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you)
No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one?
|
The thing that disgusts me is that the only hyperlink in the text is a bold link saying "midnight release of the dark knight rises".
I guess even bad press is good press nowadays huh, advertising never sleeps.
Fucking disgusting.
|
On August 28 2012 14:08 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 13:52 AlphaWhale wrote:On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade? A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you) No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one?
This reads like one giant, poorly spaced "paragraph" of paranoia. I don't know any old ladies who carry a loaded gun in their handbag or even their bedside table. Not that I'm an expert on what's in an old lady's bedside table/handbag. Simply because they are not afraid of such horrible things happening because they live in a fairly normal world.
However look at the points your raising. You're openly admitting that you live in a climate that is rife robberies and murders and that it's not your environment that is at fault for creating such an attitude (that you all need to be gun toting to ensure safety). It's like solving a bad problem with a bad answer.
And your point on "overthrowing tyrannical governments" let's keep it relevant and focus on America. I really don't see any political coups being staged (maybe a few piss weak attempts by new world order nut jobs, but that's it.)
How many absurd gun crimes need to occur before the excuse of "self defense" is realised to be not enough to excuse such horrible things happening in the day to day? That being said, perhaps life will decide to turkey slap me with some home invasion and my position which shift entirely.
|
Why can't guns be a privilege to own, instead of a right? You should go to the same process of getting a drivers liscence as you should with a gun.
|
On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor).
Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything.
|
On August 28 2012 14:23 AlphaWhale wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 14:08 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 13:52 AlphaWhale wrote:On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade? A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you) No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one? This reads like one giant, poorly spaced "paragraph" of paranoia. I don't know any old ladies who carry a loaded gun in their handbag or even their bedside table. Not that I'm an expert on what's in an old lady's bedside table/handbag. Simply because they are not afraid of such horrible things happening because they live in a fairly normal world. However look at the points your raising. You're openly admitting that you live in a climate that is rife robberies and murders and that it's not your environment that is at fault for creating such an attitude (that you all need to be gun toting to ensure safety). It's like solving a bad problem with a bad answer. And your point on "overthrowing tyrannical governments" let's keep it relevant and focus on America. I really don't see any political coups being staged (maybe a few piss weak attempts by new world order nut jobs, but that's it.) How many absurd gun crimes need to occur before the excuse of "self defense" is realised to be not enough to excuse such horrible things happening in the day to day? That being said, perhaps life will decide to turkey slap me with some home invasion and my position which shift entirely.
You view it as paranoia but I'm not paranoid at all. I view it as a right to defend yourself. I suppose you missed my point in that some people are not in the physical shape to defend themselves from people who are bigger or stronger. A gun levels the playing field in that sense. All you want to point is out that bad people commit murder with guns yet you don't want to point out and give any attention to people who have saved their own lives with a gun from criminals meant to do them harm. You also talk in a way banning or passing gun laws will have any impact on homicide. The same psychos will continue to be psychos whether they have a gun or not. There is no way you'd be able to keep guns out of criminal hands if you ban guns, you'd still have criminals who are going to murder and you'd have good people who own guns who abide by the law at risk because they can no longer realisitically defend themselves. Gun banning didn't help cities like Chicago (a city by the way who have the worst crime rates and shootings in the world) where crime rate and shootings increased significantly after they banned guns. Nor New York where guns are also banned yet they have one of the highest crime rates in the country. I suppose I shouldn't try to debate with people from other countries because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to mine. On YOUR point about tyrannical governments, it doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen in the future, or perhaps it hasn't completely happened yet because with the 2nd Amendment. Either way, it's a good law that intends to protect the people.
|
On August 28 2012 14:28 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it. that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor). Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything.
It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
|
On August 28 2012 14:39 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 14:28 Sadist wrote:On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it. that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor). Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything. It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
It sure as hell does. Scientology basically tells people not to spend their money on drugs/psychiatrists/etc if they are unhappy, instead bring your money to one of our Audit sessions for a nominal fee.
Scientology is in direct competition with the current mental health industry. Not to mention that website is a "mental health" human rights organization. IMO that is hardly a Human rights organization especially considering it was started in 1969 by the COS.
-_- There are 2 sides to every coin and I am damn sure the mental health industry has some incredibly sketchy things that go on in it, but see that website for what it is.
|
On August 28 2012 14:47 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 14:39 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 14:28 Sadist wrote:On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it. that site you linked to is affiliated with Scientology lol (I believe they are a direct sponsor). Also Correlation =/= causation. Everything involving health is pretty much misleading nowadays. Need to look for actual double blind studies (For example the myth that eating 6 small meals vs 3 large meals boosts metabolism and helps you lose weight). People can "report" anything. It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less. It sure as hell does. Scientology basically tells people not to spend their money on drugs/psychiatrists/etc if they are unhappy, instead bring your money to one of our Audit sessions for a nominal fee. Scientology is in direct competition with the current mental health industry. Not to mention that website is a "mental health" human rights organization. IMO that is hardly a Human rights organization especially considering it was started in 1969 by the COS. -_- There are 2 sides to every coin and I am damn sure the mental health industry has some incredibly sketchy things that go on in it, but see that website for what it is.
I don't know what you're talking about, there is nothing on CCHR.org that says "go do Scientology" or lists Scientology anywhere on their website. Anyone who would go to CCHR.org wouldn't get the idea to do Scientology instead of taking drugs from the website.
|
On August 28 2012 04:02 Zandar wrote:
Lets allow everyone to have a gun, then be surprised people use them, then build metal detectors at schools...
I'll probably never understand the way how most people in the USA think about guns and security.
I'm against gun control because it gives the citizens a little more freedom and power if things go to shit. However there are a lot of cases where gun control would discourage violence and murders, but I think it's a necessary trade off. The propaganda videos NRA puts out about guns though are really silly. It's so easy to argue for gun control with someone who buys into them. It's still a right I wouldn't want to give up, even if it leads to me randomly dying some day from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
