After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

As a practical matter, none of this will make a difference in preventing gun violence. Lawmakers are as beholden to Big Pharma for their campaign donations as they are to the NRA. Psychiatry is an inexact field of medicine, and its practitioners have essentially become drug pushers, since social workers and clinical psychologists have mostly crowded them out of talk therapy. Like all humans, psychiatrists and other M.D.s are susceptible to the pull of career and income considerations, some more so than others. And yes, probably there are instances in which diet might produce more effective results, depending on the particular mental illness and other circumstances. (Scientologists are standing by with saunas and therapies along these line, just waiting to be helpful--at the risk of making the patient more messed up than (s)he was to begin with). Maybe we should have recommended to Nickolas Cruz that he improve his diet or take more nature walks. Maybe we could have saved some lives by getting him into mindfulness therapy or having him say five "Our Fathers" and three "Hail Mary's" before bed. Improving mental health as an alternative to improving gun control legislation is unlikely to work, because we're giving all the money for tax cuts while cutting back on mental health, Big Pharma is pulling the strings, and we don't know how to do it anyway. Saying "we expect trained psychiatrists and medical professionals to know how to do their job" is like saying we expect our elected officials to be responsible public servants.

 

Expectation and Trust are not the same thing. When someone in any profession deliberately commits a violation, they should be held accountable.

There is ways to change it though. The first thing that needs to be done is to stop giving psychiatrists kickbacks for prescribing certain drugs. Psychiatrists can make plenty of revenue from counseling and therapy appointments without the use of medications, and taking a more holistic approach to their patient's needs.




Scientologists are worse, and I do not recommend using the Church of Scientology as an alternative. Most people wind up worse, and their families broken apart thanks to Scientology.

You are entitled to your opinion on gun control. But at the very least if you want to see less violent issues of psychosis, we can at least take this issue to fight Big Pharma. The only people who defend big pharma are the politicians alone; whereas most voting people have a lot of disdain for them. Whereas if you try to fight for harder gun control, it's not just the NRA who will be the only resistance. You've got a ton of gun nuts who will fight back.




Do you see any reason why we mustn't challenge big pharma, and reduce the number of people on prescription drugs?

 

Go for it!

 

First. I have never said one word about disarming citizens. It has been stated here and in a general left wing feeling, that disarming is the only way to solve the problem. I am proponent of gun ownership with controls.

Second. I hate to tell you this but there are very many well armed and fully fortified with thousands of rounds that are very ready and willing stand up to whomever the threat is and it does not exclude the government, or those that are dissident towards it. One you might remember is Waco. And I have been shocked to find some individuals are of the same mind. Thousands of rounds and dozens of weapons.

Third. America has never been a monarchy. And you agree that the standing militia was to supplement a standing army. We will disagree on the "not fight it" part. And while it won't be likely in the U.S that the government will rely on military forces to overthrow its citizens, there could be some National Guard and domestic law enforcement that might be used. Who knows. The constitution is based on historical facts that brought us here. I worked Katrina and the National Guard was there to control portions of town. They were fully armed and not screwing around.

Fourth. What happens if the army decides they don't wish to support Trump? Or the Secretary of Sate calls him a moron and decides to take him on. Who at that point will be looking out for the citizens? And which citizens will be protected by whom?

Its as clear as it ever was.

I have never suggested that the people have ever attempted to overthrow our government. However with the current climate afoot I will reserve the opinion that they may not try to. I have seen and heard more than a few statements made that Trump needs to be killed. While I don't support him, if that were to happen, who would they come after next? And if they did, I'd expect the Trump supporters to arm themselves and take to the streets. Do they take me out because I don't agree with them?

My government today is more towards a tyrannical one than what we had in place 200 years ago.

But in its intended intent, the concept of the 2nd, was to arm the citizens to allow them to PRECLUDE a tyrannical govt. If that meant the citizens revolted against the govt. which is what brought them here in the first place, it ensured there was enough armed resistance to take on an equally armed but less in numbered government force. 200,000 civillian muskets against 45,000 govt ones was the intent. While this may seem extreme to us, it is in fact happening in other countries. Some without the use of an armed military, some with.

How about this. Instead of debating the aspects of what the 2nd amendment does or does not imply about militias. Lets let the well paid and much smarter than us constitutional attorneys battle that out. If you agree that we have a right to keep and bear arms, as it relates to this thread, that is what we are up against when it comes time to figure out how to address who is NOT going to shoot up a school.

 

We should challenge them , but it's difficult to change things when those who benefit from their money make the laws. It seems that we are finding out more and more just how many institutions, businesses, legislators, and regular citizens are doing something wrong or illegal. Money just drives some over the edge into wrong-headed decisions. Shame, that. We , as citizens seem to be in a giant laboratory on the ways people can screw us out of money. Lab rats, basically.

 

I have a friend who has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Asperger's syndrome. I have some hope that his criminal record (meth and assault of police officers) will keep him from getting a firearm, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. The system is fully aware of him, and has decided to to nothing. He gets relief from his meds, but he can't afford them (I sure can't either) and doesn't have insurance coverage. He says that the voices tear him apart. Haven't heard from him for awhile, but I fully expect him to show up on my doorstep some day, and must confess having prayed from time to time" Please, Lord. Let him forget my address.

 

Has his convictions happened after his last background check?

Personally I'd call the PD first. If they blow it off, ATF. There will be a number to call. And FBI office. These are exactly what citizens are supposed to do!!!! In fact I'd hope they start placing PSAs on what to do in cases like this. Get people educated to act.

You can't stop him from buying one illegally, but you might be able to get him in the system before he decides to try that route.

 

Try to set him up for a 211
You'll fuck around and get caught up in a 187

 

Actually, I don't know if he's even tried to get a firearm. I was just responding to post #262 about going after psychotropic drugs. I think some people need them. I suspect they are over-prescribed and that the dynamics 6 talked about occur in some cases. I also suspect it may be an exaggeration to think it's the norm, although it is a problem. Pharm funded psychiatrists and conflicts of interest | CCHR International The "kickbacks" surely violate professional codes of conduct and even the law, but they do occur .Medscape: Medscape Access "Diagnostic inflation", the notion that the normal problems of everyday life are mental disorders is a real phenomenon, manifested in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5,and Big Pharma seems to have played a role in it. About 20% of the US population now takes a psychotropic drug and psychotropic drugs are an $18 billion/year industry in the U.S. The past, present and future of psychiatric diagnosis In some cases, though, I think the drugs are needed because nothing else effective is practically available for people like my friend. What a world we live in! There seems to be no indication though that Nikolas Cruz, Dylan Roof, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters, etc., did their mass-murdering because they were on psychotropic drugs. So I don't see how a war against the drugs or Big Pharma would really address the topic at hand.

 

Need some more fucken gunz brah!

 

If political contributions were better regulated that would go a long ways towards fixing issues with gun control AND the pharmaceutical industry. The NRA and the pharmaceutical industry are two of the biggest lobbying groups there are .

 

^ ^ Yeah, and as long as lobbyists are a thing, not much is going to change. Politicians are for sale.

 

Wait----its too late, the people have already overthrowb the United States government and it's military forces through a different right when they elected Trump.

...Oh, wait... I'm wrong, that was Russia.

 

Repent of War

 

Seriously--what else can we do? You can blame the problem on state of Mental Health in this country, you can blame it on moral decadence, or the lack of religion, whatever----can these problems be easily solved?

Prayer and talk just aren't doing the job----and we can't talk about it anyway because of the ridiculous excuse that we can't talk about it out of respect for the families (though other things such as airline safety don't seem to be a problem to talk about right away, or as in the case of the Las Vegas shooting---hotel safety), which means becasue there are always school and orther mass shootings----there will never be a time to talk. Arming the citizens isn't doing anything either-----look at how gun sales have skyrocketed over recent years.

So maybe someone gave the answer previously in these 14 pages about what to do instead of gun control----something that is quick and affordable. But skimming through, I did not see it.


There has to be some kind of additional gun control. It won't stop killings by gun, but it will help----we desperately need to do something that helps.

Or do we continue on the same trajectory?

Do you prefer that, starting from 5 and 6 years old, your kids go to school and practice lockdowns and how to duck and hide from shooters and bullets, because a very real boogey man can and probably will come to try to get them? Do you like the fact that there is a growing probability that everytime you kiss your child goodbye as they go to school, that may be the last time you will be able to hold them alive? And do you like the fact that, just going to a public event like a concert, or a movie, or a night club, or even to the store, puts you and your family at a statistically greater risk than ever before in Modern American history---possibly ever in American history outside of the Civil and Revolutionary Wars.

(By the way, there was a shooting at a Walmart here about 4 or 5 months ago in which random people were shot. This included an older gentleman who was loved by many with his friendly smile and gentle loving manner. He was shot to death trying to shiled his wife from the gunman. This happened in a metropolitan area of well over 4 million people. But we happened to know his family, and we knew probably 3 or 4 more people that randomly knew him and was touched by his life. And talking to people we discovered that there even people who's friend's knew him. We even helped the family by watching his two nieces and nephews, aged 2, 3, and 5, while the family made funeral arrangements, went to court for the murder trial, and so forth. His family and friends were all too happy to talk gun control and putting an end to all this senseless violence. In fact the anger and grief made it far more important to them than it had ever been.)

 

It has to be remembered that Hitler was popular in Germany, especially amongst certain groups, they thought he was preventing a ‘tyranny’ of Jews and bolsheviks.

I mean think about it the other way – US gun owners say their guns are in part held to defend against a ‘bad’ government, but what is the definition of a ‘bad’ government, what is the demographics of gun ownership in the US, and I believe it’s mainly white, male and politically right wing and politically in the US who are the biggest defenders of gun rights, does it come from the right or left?

What do you think they would define as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ government?

Think about the thousands of black people murdered by the KKK and other racists in the southern states of the US was that ‘tyranny’ was that ‘bad’ government – so why didn’t the ‘decent’ and ‘good’ white people of those areas protect the black people being abused, I mean they had access to guns.

It seems to me that it’s basically a well-armed right wing group threatening the rest of US society with violence if it does things it doesn’t like – for instance bringing in gun control, I mean as one person put it they would begin killing police officers

It does make one wonder if the gun lobby are the ones most likely to support ‘bad’ government if it fitted in with their viewpoint?

As I say I hope the FBI are taking note.

 

Anyway

Four more pages and still the same crap coming from the anti-gun control people, nothing of substance or even of relevance.

It has all been looked at before and none of it has ever stood up to rational, reasonable or objective scrutiny.

Look, it seems to me that many Americans are beginning to realise that those that are opposing prudent gun control regulations are virtually all delusional fantasists or cynical lobbyists being paid by the arms manufacturers so they can sell more guns.

Its a hope