Another shooting spree...

[Floyd1982]

Perhaps I should better explain my point. It was that if doctors would stop prescribing people cocktails of drugs, handing them out like candy (which they do very very often) these types of incidents would be greatly reduced. That is far from a ridiculous proposition. There is a common link in most of these cases and it involves someone who takes these drugs and then suddenly they quit them. Just look up statistics on suicide. I have trouble believing that the people who are part of these statistics only commit their acts because they returned to their normal self. Instead they are out of whack because they are withdrawing, creating an instant chemical imbalance, like a sudden rush which is way too much for anyone to handle.

People ARE over-medicated but it isn't just the doctor's fault. If kid misbehaves in class, the teachers scream that he has ADD and the parents agree so they pressure the doctors into medicating them with threats of a lawsuit. People want a quick fix, they don't want to take the time and put in the effort that is required, they either get a pill or they go to a lawyer. You want to blame somebody, blame the effin lawyers and lazy ass parents that force doctors to alway practice defensive medicine. So I am agreeing with you about over-medicating people but for different reasons.

However, if the people in Jackel's link are correct, mass shootings are the lowest they have been in 40 years which would indicate that medications are possibly a reason why. The problem here is that you are making a gross generality about a solution based on nothing but anectdotal evidence and a hunch. You aren't thinking it through b/c you are completely and totally bias b/c of your history (not saying I blame you but you still are). You seem to be surrounding your argument with an impenetrable wall. If the person was taking the medications then you blame the meds. If a person stopped taking their medications then it is still the medication that caused it (or lack thereof).

The point is, the person had an underlying issue, had it not been for that underlying issue, the need for a med would not exist. Most of these people are suffering from illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar, or some other delusional disorder. These people can't function day to day without medications b/c they will come unhinged. This isn't like somebody's dog died and they are depressed so the doctor gives them a pill, they stop taking the pill and then turn into a raving lunatic. It isn't some kid being misdiagnosed with ADHD so he goes on Ritalin and then snaps b/c he stops taking it. These are serious mental disorders that need attention. You can't will yourself our of a manic state or a psychosis, you need medications, your over-medicating argument here isn't valid.

[CaveBear]

People ARE over-medicated but it isn't just the doctor's fault. If kid misbehaves in class, the teachers scream that he has ADD and the parents agree so they pressure the doctors into medicating them with threats of a lawsuit. People want a quick fix, they don't want to take the time and put in the effort that is required, they either get a pill or they go to a lawyer. You want to blame somebody, blame the effin lawyers and lazy ass parents that force doctors to alway practice defensive medicine. So I am agreeing with you about over-medicating people but for different reasons.

However, if the people in Jackel's link are correct, mass shootings are the lowest they have been in 40 years which would indicate that medications are possibly a reason why. The problem here is that you are making a gross generality about a solution based on nothing but anectdotal evidence and a hunch. You aren't thinking it through b/c you are completely and totally bias b/c of your history (not saying I blame you but you still are). You seem to be surrounding your argument with an impenetrable wall. If the person was taking the medications then you blame the meds. If a person stopped taking their medications then it is still the medication that caused it (or lack thereof).

The point is, the person had an underlying issue, had it not been for that underlying issue, the need for a med would not exist. Most of these people are suffering from illnesses like schizophrenia, bipolar, or some other delusional disorder. These people can't function day to day without medications b/c they will come unhinged. This isn't like somebody's dog died and they are depressed so the doctor gives them a pill, they stop taking the pill and then turn into a raving lunatic. It isn't some kid being misdiagnosed with ADHD so he goes on Ritalin and then snaps b/c he stops taking it. These are serious mental disorders that need attention. You can't will yourself our of a manic state or a psychosis, you need medications, your over-medicating argument here isn't valid.

Logical post. But he refuses to see whats logical here. Did I go on a shooting rampage, did his girl...no. Its not the meds, its underlying issues from the home and a perpetuity for violence.

I was in fact very violent, many, many fights over the years...but not once did I ever think about killing people in mass........./shrugs

[Floyd1982]

And for those who aren't in the military you might want to look up military targets we have hit and what the enemy does to protect those targets. To give you a short version, going all the way back to Vietnam (and Garth will back me on this) our enemies will takes innocents and basically drape them around a position they want to defend leaving us with a choice - bomb or do not bomb? In order to reduce or take away their military/terrorist capabilities the only choice available is to bomb or hit the target in question...regardless of what they put around it.

This is where I have a problem. These targets are targets (terrorists) based on who's opinion? The CIA, the same CIA that saw all the warnings for 9/11 but didn't act? The CIA that couldn't accurately report on the Libyan attack? The fact is this, in a time of peace, every person that is suspected of terrorist activity or any other crime must be tried in a court of law. I personally believe this can be waived during a time of war as it is practically impossible to accomplish. However, there has never been a congressional declaration of war and a "war on terror" is about as laughable as the "war on drugs." Using a similar line of thinking, would it be right if we just started bombing meth labs or weed dispenseries without giving the dealer a trial and shrug off other casualties as collateral damage? You may think this analogy is silly but what is the true difference? You can't declare war on an ideal just like you can't claim war on an inanimate object. You can't declare war on an inanimate object and then recklessly blow up people tied to that object just like you shouldn't declare war on a premise and then kill people you believe to be tied to it.

All of that was a long-winded way of saying that we cannot bomb other countries that we are not at war with and be expected to be seen as virtuous. What we are doing over there is equivalent to what Timothy McVeigh did here and there is very little difference, no matter how one tries to justify it. We are terrorists to the people over here. Would it have mattered if Al Qaeda would have flew those planes into 3 known meth labs and killed 100 people? No, they took the fight to our turf and killed our people. It is the same for them as it is to us but we try to conceal that truth and hide behind a virtuous ideal by claiming "war" on something that we believe to be heinous.

Its a very hard choice but there is a MASSIVE difference between positioning innocents in harms way in a contest between two military forces and innocent kids just sitting in their school in 1st-4th grade in a non military target type zone and getting mowed down by some lunatic.

There is no contest b/w two military forces in Yemen, Libya, and there shouldn't be in Iraq or anywhere else b/c there is no declaration of war. The point is moot b/c the way the people over there see it, there is no difference b/w us and Al Qaeda. It is an act of terrorism, plain and simple.

Now, I would not call it domestic terrorism created by one of their own people so I completely see your point. You can't draw a line connecting the two but the guy who was trying to also said psych meds cause mass shootings. So while I agree you can't say these two circumstances are similar, I will argue that what we do over seas is the exact same thing that we would label as "terrorism" if it happened to us (and we already have).

[(v2)ROVPitViper]

There's no conflict about the primary weapon used. It was an assault rifle of some kind. The medical examiner indicated he knew exactly what kind, but said he would leave that to the police to make known. The article you posted was first published at 7:24am this morning and then updated at 1:03pm this afternoon.

The press conference given by the man who examined the bodies (given several hours after the article you posted was updated) leaves no question what the primary weapon was. I just re-watched the press conference, and when the medical examiner was asked what weapon was used in the homicides, he answered "the long weapon" (I had previously quoted him as saying "the long gun"). He stated it several times. When a confused reporter asked, "But wasn't that left in the car?" (or something like that), the medical examiner, unsure of the answer, then looked off camera to a police officer who said, "No, that is incorrect, sir."

Again, I'm not posting this to argue with you about gun control legislation. I don't give a flying fuck about debating this with you. My intention was to separate fact from rumour. And it's now fact that there is no longer any conflict about the primary murder weapon.

Obviously you do give a flying F@ck...but if the reports are now saying its the primary weapon so be it. Just because the medical examiner says "the long gun" or whatever still doesn't mean it was the AR. From what I have read so far the guy had several hand guns and several rifles to choose from so "the long gun" doesn't narrow that down. I could care less either way because I could care less if he drove an f'n tank into that school I'm still not down with anyone knee jerking legislation to try and cover one extreme event (see da Patriot Act for exhibit A).

Bottom line is if any legislation comes out of this it should be on the mental health side of the equation instead of some looney tune choosing [insert weapon here] to molar people down.

[sonzai]

BTW, just so it doesn't go unremarked upon, might I be the first to applaud the (re)appearance of reasonable, well-argued and articulate JimBear here in this thread? Good to see ya.

[CaveBear]

BTW, just so it doesn't go unremarked upon, might I be the first to applaud the (re)appearance of reasonable, well-argued and articulate JimBear here in this thread? Good to see ya.

Thank you good sir....I'm much happier now. Thank you again.

and I offer this to the anti-gun group:


Osaka School Massacre:

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.






Akihabara massacre:

At 12:33 p.m. JST, a man hit a crowd with a truck, eventually killing three people and injuring two; he then stabbed at least 12 people using a dagger (initially reported as a survival knife[1]), killing four people and injuring eight.





The 2010 China knife attack:

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生)[2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,[3] Fujian province;[4] The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called 南平实验小学重大凶杀案),[2] sparking fears of copycat crimes.[4] Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28.


More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...%E2%80%932011)


Yeah, its the lax gun laws that are the problem.....


jeezus how can people be so blind.

[Floyd1982]

^^^^ Yeah, I read somewhere that the UK had over 130,000 violent knife crimes. Had a girl argue that is okay b/c there are less deaths that way. She also scoffs at "knife control" b/ that is ridiculous.

[Time Warner]

Logical post. But he refuses to see whats logical here. Did I go on a shooting rampage, did his girl...no. Its not the meds, its underlying issues from the home and a perpetuity for violence.

I was in fact very violent, many, many fights over the years...but not once did I ever think about killing people in mass........./shrugs

Too bad I never said that everyone who takes these meds will go on shooting sprees, nor did I ever imply that. I will say that most of the shooters do take those meds though and it happens when they abruptly quit.

But I am sure that this will go right over your head so I don't even know why I bother responding.

[CaveBear]

White, medicated, gun owners are the problem for crime in the USA.....lol.

Ridiculous

[CaveBear]

Too bad I never said that everyone who takes these meds will go on shooting sprees, nor did I ever imply that. I will say that most of the shooters do take those meds though and it happens when they abruptly quit.

But I am sure that this will go right over your head so I don't even know why I bother responding.

lol....I never said everyone, and neither did you. But you put it out there that the cause could well be medication. Absurd. You can back track all you want, doesnt change the fact that you implied it. Your wrong period.