Gun Control: Should We Lose The Right To Bear Arms?

1. 0

   tHErEDpILLposted 10 years ago

   Okay so another guy dresses up like The Joker and kills people.  I will resist the urge to state how bizarre and coincidental that is and stick to the question.
   
   The media is intent on showing Americans all the LEGAL gun killings they can while not informing us about the countless lives that are taken in anit-gun states like Chicago where ILLEGAL guns kill in the double digits by the day.  Google: Chicago body count: 4 dead, 35 shot over the weekend.  This happens everyday, but no news coverage.  Why?  I think you can tell where I stand.  Where do you?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Given a choice between guns killing 4 and a plane or truck bomb killing thousands, I choose the guns.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Wait, what? What do these two scenarios have to do with each other?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Giving up the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with the homicide rate in this country.  Something gun haters don't want to discuss, but well proven throughout the world.
            
            In theory, then, if we take guns away the killers turn to something else.  Whatever the actual mechanism or cause, the result is that just as many people die, just without the use of guns.  Planes, maybe, or truck bombs.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               This conversation again. Geesh! I will state it again and we can have a go at it but with the availability of guns and our societal numbness to others feelings, a gun is a easier, quicker and less personal way to kill another human being. If we were able to magically know who would have the proclivity to commit a murder with a gun, would it inhibit them if an intervention was done to prevent the murder? Maybe but there is no magic way of knowing. Do we all arm ourselves so that no one can get the jump on us and maybe we kill another person who may be innocent? No guns or many guns seems to be the question with little or no compromise in between.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I know.  Your insistence that your gut feeling, your opinion and intuition override all facts and experiences continues to amaze me.  You're better than that, Quite capable of understand and accepting factual experience anywhere else, when it comes to guns your "common sense" is allowed to control all conclusions without regard to experience very clearly showing the opposite, as if saying that taking guns ensures people will no longer kill. 
                  
                  We've all met people who declare that their wants or opinions trump everything and everyone else, but you KNOW better.  On any subject but guns, where your statement that taking the guns away will save lives trumps the experience of the rest of the world and somehow makes it so.

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     And once again you seem to apply all or nothing logic as I intimated in my original post. Logic is what dictates my opinion and not feelings. If the wrong person has easy access to a gun with no compunction to take a second thought about killing someone then they will do so. Such is the case with the Sandy Hook killings. I agree that if someone sane or otherwise wants to kill someone they will do it by whatever means is at their disposal. A gun is merely an instrument by which they can accomplish the task. Easy access to the weapon whether it be a gun or knife or sword make the task that much easier. But a gun is the easiest to accomplish the murder. Lets hear some more all or nothing logic if you please.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I'd have to disagree with you rhamson. A pillow is probably the easiest to access. A kitchen knife, also easy - just ask Jodi Arias or Charles Manson.  A bottle of furniture polish used on a hard floor, simple simon.  Antifreeze in a drink, no problem. Heck you don't even have to register a gas oven and a book of matches. A speeding car in the middle of the night - ask the woman that killed my half-brother. None of these weapons have to be registered, and they can be every bit as deadly and used by any wrong person without compunction to take a life. The only "advantage" guns offer to the want-to-be-killer is it is a phallic symbol. Take away the symbol, they still have the urge to do wrong. And it is this runaway desire to harm in our society that should be addressed. Every time we want to dope it up, it bites back. Every time it is treated as a one-sided political hot topic, it changes course. And every time murder is shown on the silver screen or television as the sexy or trendy answer to a personal dilemma, the problem is embraced by more easily influenced people. We have to stop perpetuating the idea that murder is acceptable, period.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           ...a poisonous mushroom in the scrambled eggs...

                           replyreport
                     2. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Still on it. 
                        
                        "I agree that if someone sane or otherwise wants to kill someone they will do it by whatever means is at their disposal." 
                        
                        So the obvious answer to the killing is to figure out who the killers are and make sure they don't have guns so they can find that "whatever means is at their disposal".  Makes perfect sense, but won't stop or even slow down the killing, as shown all over the world, just as you say.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Unfortunately no. That will only happen when we, as a species, realize how foolish and meaningless that petty wrath and vengeance are

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Anger (and unwillingness to control anger) and insanity, it seems to me, are the primary causes of the death rate here.  There is quite a bit of gang warfare going on as well, and that is neither of those, but is also a very different problem and solution.
                              
                              So how do we "fix" a lack of self control and insanity?  Without making the cure worse than the crime.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 I certainly haven't come up with a strategy on this, but I feel a good start is for each of us to stop idolizing negative cultural trends and reevaluate what such negative trends do to us. And we need to stop isolating ourselves from the rest of the world behind self-made walls, whether these walls are the internet, religion, politics, class division or just ego. We allow ourselves to become de-sensitized when we do this; it is easy to succumb to the fantasy we are all gods and the rest of humanity only pawns on our game board. It is no wonder so many people cannot grasp the reality that everyone else has the right to feel, to right to opinions, the right to exist.
                                 
                                 You are right on target in saying, "without making the cure worse than the crime" - because let's face it, too many of us are content NOT to take on the responsibility for our own behavior. Some want to leave it in the hands of peers, government and otherwise. But history has shown us again and again what happens when we give ourselves over as sheep to wolves dressed as shepherds.
                                 
                                 I'm not Christian, but the golden rule is universally true. And that's about all I can offer

                                 replyreport
               2. 0

                  tHErEDpILLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  We were given the right to bear arms by the same people who created and signed the constitution.  Why would they write that in there you say?  Well because they had just fought to free us from British rule.  They wanted us to have a country where we had rights and we didn't have a KING ruling, but a political system and criminal process.  Do you want to go back into British rule.  Damn, I swear people go to history class and fall asleep when history is the most important class of them all.  To understand your present and future you must know about your past.  Go ahead and wish for that right to be taken from us.  Then when the criminals and government are the only ones left with the necessary weapons to defend themselves you know what this country turns into......IRAQ.  That or Nazi Germany.  Instead of reading all these comic books, short stories, and poems, go read a damn history book.  that's where all these stories come from anyway.  Harry Potter fought magic with magic.  The X-Men fought weapons with weapons (themselves).  In non of these stories did any of the heroes you look up to fact or fiction, wait for the government or someone else to save them.  That's why we like these stories, because inside we have that survival instinct and like to see it portrayed in books and on screen.  It's biological.  You have an instinct to survive in you.  Even you out of shape, couch potatoes or stay at home moms, you have it in you too.  You've just suppressed it.  Let someone attack your kids or your food.  At that point you better hope you can dig down and get it.  Buncha goddamn drones in this country I swear.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Or, you know, Japan. Or The Netherlands. They both have nearly-total bans on guns, and they do fine.
                     
                     (Fun Fact: Citizens of Iraq are, indeed, permitted to own guns. Particularly AKs, though with limited ammo. Looks like you forgot to look it up. Whoops!)

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        tHErEDpILLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        You are correct about Iraq, you are allowed to have select fire AK-47 for home protection, not full carry.  While this is good, that AK won't help you when someone runs up on you while you're out to the market and blows your head of in front of your kid.  Over here in a state like Texas you can walk around with your piece showing.  If you know how to use it I guarantee people will think twice about the same scenario.  As for Japan...eh.  They did good over there, but this is America, a nation built through violence; That is not happening here.  Just like our national debt will never be paid off.  It's not a pessimistic outlook, it's a logical one.  We are too far gone.  Yes there needs to be stricter gun laws, but total gun ban is not a good idea.  That's all I'm saying.  I agree to a certain point with  anti-gun people,  just saying we have to keep it as balanced as we can.  It has been proven that you can not trust the American government (the same one that spies on you), so I'd say you are better safe than sorry.  Hey what do I know?  Maybe people want to die and be enslaved.  Maybe people don't care about their kids anymore.  They certainly don't act like it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           And that's what 90% of gun control advocates are saying. Background checks, limited ammo, limited makes and models--you don't need an armory to fend off an intruder or shoot a deer.

                           replyreport
                     2. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Yes, Japan and the Netherlands both do well with fairly low homicide rates.
                        
                        Of course, Iceland, with 10X the gun ownership rate, has a lower homicide rate than the Netherlands.  And Germany, with 50X the gun ownership rate, has 1/5 the homicide rate of Japan.
                        
                        Try again?

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Actually, I was just addressing their claim that the only places where firearms are banned are totalitarian regimes and broken theocracies.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              My bad then.  Carry on with my apologies.

                              replyreport
                  2. 70

                     rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I love how you make a historical stylized post mentioning Nazi's and X-Men in the same post. I too am a student of history and have been for several years. I also like to exercise my constitutional right of free speech as you do. All I ask is a conversation or dialog for a solution. Not an all or nothing application of a right. Is there not any logic other than what both positions offer? Is there no compromise that can appease both sides AND offer a solution? I agree that the right to bear arms is a good one and have even owned guns in the past. But as we see political positions swing dramatically from one side to the other and as incendiary as this topic is there may be solutions no one will like if not discussed with an open mind.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        No, there isn't.  The biggest reason is that to the anti gun group, it will not be over until only criminals own guns.  All firearms SHALL be removed from private citizenry.
                        
                        And although thousands of people say that's nonsense, that no one wants that at all, that's what we see happening.  Try to own a hand gun in Detroit, for instance, or NYC.  Listen to the rhetoric of Gabrielle Giffords or Cuomo and THEN try to claim that no one wants to take all the guns away.  Take a look at laws limiting gun ownership over the past 100 years and consider how it's grown - it will not stop as long as any gun is legal. 
                        
                        The problem is that every time the gun nuts accept a compromise, we find that it doesn't work - that the killing goes right on - and the anti gun nuts crank up again, wanting MORE limitations.  Limitations that will never end, because the killing will never end.

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           ...No, there isn't.
                           only
                           All firearms SHALL
                           no one
                           at all
                           no one wants
                           take all
                           as long as any
                           every time
                           will never end
                           will never end
                           
                           These little phrases that you use make my argument for me. It does not matter what you attach to them it is an all or nothing reasoning that you propose. These types of phrases is what keeps the killing going on because things are not all one way or another. The human being is not all one thing and neither is it's actions. I know I am pi$$ing up a rope trying to explain this to you but maybe someday you will see your way to talking about a solution rather than a hopeless impasse.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              So suggest a solution.  One that doesn't involve limiting our right to bear arms without producing any benefits.  You claim there WILL be benefits while at the same time pointing out there won't - the answer must then lie in another direction.  Suggest it.

                              replyreport
                              1. 70

                                 rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 For a start could we come up with a way that the people who should not have access to guns be discovered and limited. The current system seems to lack a method by which these unstable individuals gain either a permit or use another's gun to commit these horrific murders? This is a key element that intrudes into ones past and has all sorts of legal issues to overcome. So is there any suggestions?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    A game of last man standing might just fix the problem, however the last man might just be the man with his finger on the big red button! ( I assume its red, its always portrayed that way in the movies)
                                    
                                    Here in the UK we have had a hand gun ban for years, it hasn't stopped gun crime and it hasn't really brought murder rates down. In actual fact gun crime is on the increase and continues to blight communities around the country, as we say over here bad men don't give a toss about the law.
                                    
                                    I suppose the US is a different case all together, how would you know how many of the estimated 300 million guns in circulation are illegally owned? And how many would be taken out of service by introducing retrospective gun controls. Just how many of the guns used in those atrocities would have been stopped by tighter gun controls? And what would stop a legal gun owner from going mental at some point in his life?
                                    Here is another thought ( I haven't researched it so maybe someone could tell me) how many of your famous/infamous serial killers used a firearm (legal or otherwise) to dispatch their victims?
                                    Would tighter gun controls have stopped say Ted Bundy or are we destined to life forever with these types of people in our society?
                                    
                                    We have lived with firearms for almost a thousand years and yet still seem to think that we can control either the gun or its owner by a law, a piece of paper drawn up by individuals who either see the benefits or the horrors of someone owning or possessing a firearm.
                                    Governments will usually make laws to keep the firearms out of the hands of the people, society will demand laws to keep the firearms out of the hands of the criminals. And the criminals will still use firearms, why? Because they exist and will always exist while we keep arguing over what to do about them.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 70

                                       rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Thanks, Do you have any idea how the insane or chemically altered behavior people can be restricted from purchasing or attaining a firearm?

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          Do you think a law will stop them from purchasing a firearm from your local criminal firearms distributor?
                                          
                                          Its a difficult one and as I said no amount of retrospective laws or guidelines will solve the problem.

                                          report
                                          1. 70

                                             rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                             Thanks. I think you are right assuming that nothing will get done while you believe nothing can be done.
                                             
                                             Anyone else have any ideas?

                                             report
                                    2. 61

                                       John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       But it has drastically reduced murder by firearms!
                                       
                                       In 2001 there were 847 murders of which 72 were caused by a firearm.
                                       
                                       By 2011/12 there were 553 murders of which 39 were caused by a firearm.
                                       
                                       The intervening years showed a steady decline leading to the conclusion that the murder rate by all methods is falling and the murder rate by firearm is falling with it.
                                       
                                       I live in "Gunchester" and have never seen or heard a firearm whilst I've been living here.

                                       report
                                       1. 95

                                          wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          Does it matter so much, what the murder weapon is, then?  Is the dead happier somehow that they were killed but not with that dreaded gun?
                                          
                                          Sounds like you are attributing the falling homicide rate to a decrease in gun ownership.  Can you back that up with statistics, events, evidence of some kind?  Because if so, the UK will be the only country in the world that could do so.
                                          
                                          Or has the falling homicide rate resulted in a decrease in gun ownership as people no longer feel a need to own a gun?

                                          report
                                          1. 61

                                             John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                             I was only countering Silvers claim that murder, and murder by gun, has increased rather than decreased.
                                             I wasn't attributing anything to anything.

                                             report
                                             1. 95

                                                wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                Fair enough.
                                                
                                                I would question whether murder by gun has decreased, though - seems like I've seen/heard that gun ownership in the UK is on the rise, and in the worst hands to boot.  Illegal guns, in other words, in the hands of gangs and other criminals.  And that shootings are up as a result.
                                                
                                                Are your stats then out of date or is my information incorrect (very possible, and I can't even quote where I got it now).

                                                report
                                                1. 61

                                                   John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Seeing as how my stats are historical, I doubt if they've changed that much. I mean I haven't heard of any slews of late reported murders lately but there might be.
                                                   
                                                   Guns do not appear to be the first weapon of choice in British murders, probably because so very few of them are premeditated and being caught out on the street with a gun, even if you don't use it, can see you doing some serious time.

                                                   report
                                       2. 61

                                          Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                          There are people who live in America John who have never seen a gun.
                                          
                                          In the year Apr 2012 to Mar 2013 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.
                                          
                                          By weapon type:
                                          Long-barrelled shotgun = 288
                                          Sawn-off shotgun = 165
                                          Handgun = 2,256
                                          Rifle = 43
                                          Imitation firearm = 1,225
                                          Unidentified firearm = 725
                                          Other firearm = 456
                                          Air weapons = 2,977
                                          
                                          Only those items proven to be "imitations" (which includes BB/soft air types) or air weapons are classed as such, otherwise they are placed by default in the main "live" categories, e.g. an imitation pistol not proven to be such would be counted as a live "handgun." "Other firearm" includes CS gas (135 crimes), pepper spray (90), and stun guns (117).
                                          
                                          By crime type:
                                          Violence against the person:
                                          Homicide = 30
                                          Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 503
                                          Other = 1,484
                                          Robbery = 2,206
                                          Burglary = 102
                                          Criminal damage = 2426 (2,091 of which involved air weapons)
                                          Other = 1384[94]
                                          
                                          Considering the 1997 firearms act has been in operation for 17yrs there is still a lot of firearms activity.
                                          
                                          Modern restrictions on firearms in the UK started in 1903 so after 110 years of restrictions we still have gun crime.

                                          report
                                          1. 61

                                             John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                             Are those figures US or UK?
                                             
                                             Of course you'll never stop crime but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to control it.

                                             report
                                             1. 61

                                                Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                UK John
                                                
                                                And the government loves when some nutter runs amok with a gun, it gives them even more opportunity to protect themselves and stop any armed revolt.
                                                
                                                Nothing wrong with trying to reduce crime but its clear that what they are doing just isn't working.
                                                
                                                
                                                
                                                I take it you have seen the latest in a long line of tax collection increasing methods, £10000 max fine for speeding on the motorway? What's that all about?

                                                report
                                                1. 61

                                                   John Holdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                   You do realise that possession of those things you list is an offence in the UK. You don't actually have to use them to commit an offence.
                                                   
                                                   The government loves anybody running amok with anything be it a gun, a stone or a piece of paper.
                                                   
                                                   I think the figures I posted indicate quite clearly that murder with firearms is dropping quite considerably.
                                                   
                                                   You generally don't have an option when it comes to paying tax. As you have the option to avoid speeding fines it obviously isn't a tax. I suspect it's all about stopping people speeding on motorways.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 61

                                                      Silverspeederposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I do understand that John, I believe there was a case of a man who took a shotgun that he found in his garden to the police station he was arrested and charged with the possession of a firearm and was duly imprisoned for 5 yrs, it was only public outcry that effected his release.
                                                      
                                                      Agreed
                                                      
                                                      I think it does john. But the incidents of gun crime has risen by over 40% showing criminals are more inclined to use a firearm as a tool of their trade.
                                                      
                                                      Fines don't stop anyone doing anything john, increasing the amount of a fine just enables the richer people and footballers to break the law. Maybe a better option would be to leave the fines as they are and make the offender do community service, people hate being force to give their time for free. I think it would work well if someone who drove at twice the speed limit had to spend 10 hrs a week cleaning up the aftermath of motor accidents for a year.

                                                      report
                                 2. 95

                                    wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    I asked you to define who should not have guns and what to do about them and you tell me they (whoever they are) should not have guns.  I'm sorry, but that "solution" isn't worth the digital cost of the letters typed onto the screen.  We ALL know that and I can't imagine anyone in the country that would argue the violently insane should have access to weapons of any kind, including guns.
                                    
                                    And no, I have no ideas on either how to identify the violently insane out there OR what to do about them if we CAN identify them.  Which is why I asked for ideas, after all.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 70

                                       rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have an idea?

                                       report
   2. 82

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't like guns personally, which is why my defense weapon of choice is a sword. However, look at China, where guns are outlawed and they have mass killings involving people brandishing kitchen knives. The two school age girls in Wisconsin that killed their school mate just to impress "Slender Man" used knives. Blades aren't the only other weapon used: 3 persons have been killed in a fire set by an arsonist in Jefferson Parish, LA. Casey Kasem's is being killed by a court order to stop feeding him. Children and infants are killed practically every hot day of summer in cars because their parents rolled up the windows. Even more are killed through mere child abuse and neglect. We have Vets who have died because of greedy, lazy and inept VA administrators that deemed it more appropriate to let our warriors die than to have them treated. What all this tells me is if someone is bent on killing another person, they will look for a means to attempt it, whether guns are outlawed or not. Yes, we have a very serious problem in this nation with people killing others. But I blame the problem on a growing widespread indifference to the sanctity of life.
      Just my two-cents.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         +1
         And your conclusion is borne out by hard numbers, statistics throughout the world.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         tHErEDpILLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         A sword?  COOL

         replyreport
         1. 82

            bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Sounds unusual, I know. I had to choose a physical activity course in college, and since I already did aerobics at home, I enrolled in the fencing course. I found it highly enjoyable, and went on to take a few more swordsmanship classes. The concentration it requires is actually soothing to the mind; like yoga for the brain! lol

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I vote swords in, guns out!

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  At last! Taking that semester of Fencing in Phys. Ed. will finally pay off!

                  replyreport
2. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 10 years ago

   What makes you think all the shootings in Chicago are illegally owned guns? Sure some are, but most probably aren't IMHO.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      tHErEDpILLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Um it was all street crime, ie. drug or gang related.  You can read the article.  Chicago is a anti gun state just like New York (where I live).  It is almost impossible for anyone to get a legal gun in these states.  I don't know where you live or how much you know about gun laws, but that's how I know it wasn't legal guns.  Unless these people were all career police officers, that's the only way they would be walking around with legal guns.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In part because it is entirely illegal to own a handgun as a civilian if you reside within the city proper.  So, unless those folks are coming in from the suburbs with their legal guns - gun deaths in Chicago come from illegal guns. Automatic assault weapons are illegal pretty much throughout the state of Illinois.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Automatic weapons, "assault" style (whatever that may mean) or not, are pretty much illegal everywhere in the country.  A special license is required and there are very few issued.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Motown2Chitownposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I figured as much, but I knew for certain about Illinois, so that was the only state I mentioned.

            replyreport
3. 77

   Madison Resareposted 10 years ago

   Taking away guns because people might use them for something bad, like shooting another person, is like taking all bikes away from children because they might fall, or like taking all knives away from the kitchen because someone might use them to hurt someone else. I don't have a gun, but I would like to have the option of getting one if I chose to do so.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Taking away guns is not the answer. Why? Because then criminals will be the ones with the guns. The real question is how to keep guns out of those not responsible enough to properly care for their security and use. Any Ideas?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Glad you asked:
         Doctors need to stop prescribing pharmaceutical drugs.  These substances are destroying naturally functioning brains and causing people to go nuts. We need to learn how to help people without damaging their sanity.
         IMO
         PS Guns should not be necessary in a civilized society!
         We are a civilized society
         We are a civilized society
         We are… keep chanting...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            tHErEDpILLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yup.  In just about every one of these "mass shootings", we always find out that the gunmen were on prescription drugs.  But, we all know that won't stop.  Drug companies pay the lobbyists and they in turn get people into office or and or keep them there.

            replyreport
      2. 95

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Taking guns away from crazies won't help - they'll just use something else.  You said so yourself, and statistics bear that out.
         
         Instead we need to find and then either cure or lock away those people.  And no, no ideas that are not worse than the problem of the pile of corpses they produce.

         replyreport
4. 70

   rhamsonposted 10 years ago

   With HIPPA in place a physician is only allowed to break the patient/physician confidentiality if they feel the patient is a threat to himself or others. Could it be expanded to any patient who receives mood altering drugs that could result in a violent episode? Could that person or the persons inside the house that have guns be required to surrender their weapon(s) while the ill person is treated and cleared?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      tHErEDpILLposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Drug companies do not want to lose sales---->their money lines the pockets of most the politicians in the U.S.----->anything that hinders their sales will get Shot down (no pun intended) immediately.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         I hear what you are saying but giving up because congress won't allow it is like not voting if the only outcome is predetermined. We can demand through voting and legislation that is meaningful if we have the will. To have a defeatist attitude will get nothing done.

         replyreport