Protection From Gun Violence

Quote from piezoe:

Useful statistics, thanks. I'm OK with the second amendment, uniform enforcement of waiting periods and background checks, and voluntary gun registration which could help recover a stolen gun. But I'm not OK with exchanging so few as a dozen deaths for the right to own semi-automatic or automatic weapons. I don't see the second amendment requiring that we have the right to own these particular weapons any more than we should have the right to own a hydrogen bomb. They are not needed for self defense, and they are not needed for sport, and they are not needed as a defense against government tyranny.

I want to see the NRA come up with something constructive and realistic. So far all I'm hearing is "everyone should be armed" then there would be less crime. Even if that were true, or is true, do you want to live in a country where you have to be saddled with the burden of carrying a gun everywhere? Think of the unintended consequences. I don't like the message that sends to our children either. I want freedom from guns just as much as I want freedom to own a gun and use it.

I'm a little weary of Mr. Winchester's and Mr. Remington's votes counting more than mine.
More...
so far, all I ever hear is whenever there is a problem, doesn't matter what it is, murder, cancer, poverty, any problem at all, "there ought to be a law." And that is just another way of saying, 'It aint my problem."

The government should do something so I can be left alone to live my life with no worry

worry is the governments problem, and whenever I have it they are supposed to do something, anything, even if it is just write a new law, so I feel better

it is the governments job to make me feel good
 
Quote from piezoe:

Even if that were true, or is true, do you want to live in a country where you have to be saddled with the burden of carrying a gun everywhere? Think of the unintended consequences.
More...

Nearly every home in Switzerland has a fully automatic assault weapon and they have a very low incidence of violent crime.

Its the culture, not merely the presence of firearms.

Do you remember there ever being a mass killing in a school, mall or public place before 1981?

That was the year the federal government withdrew funding for state mental institutions and patients were dumped out into the street. Since then it is very difficult to commit a crazy person to a mental hospital. I think that is what must change. We need to identify and institutionalize dangerously ill people when it is appropriate to do so.
 
images
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

Nearly every home in Switzerland has a fully automatic assault weapon and they have a very low incidence of violent crime.

Its the culture, not merely the presence of firearms.

Do you remember there ever being a mass killing in a school, mall or public place before 1981?

That was the year the federal government withdrew funding for state mental institutions and patients were dumped out into the street. Since then it is very difficult to commit a crazy person to a mental hospital. I think that is what must change. We need to identify and institutionalize dangerously ill people when it is appropriate to do so.
More...


+1

It may be unfair to say so but from far away it looks like most issues are settled in the USA by who has the most money. From who is President to gun control etc. Who got bribed to let the loonies out ? Or is that a crazy suggestion ???
 
Quote from Humpy:

+1

It may be unfair to say so but from far away it looks like most issues are settled in the USA by who has the most money. From who is President to gun control etc. Who got bribed to let the loonies out ? Or is that a crazy suggestion ???
More...

That's the way we do it over here.
 
Quote from 377OHMS:

Nearly every home in Switzerland has a fully automatic assault weapon and they have a very low incidence of violent crime.

Its the culture, not merely the presence of firearms.

Do you remember there ever being a mass killing in a school, mall or public place before 1981?

That was the year the federal government withdrew funding for state mental institutions and patients were dumped out into the street. Since then it is very difficult to commit a crazy person to a mental hospital. I think that is what must change. We need to identify and institutionalize dangerously ill people when it is appropriate to do so.
More...

Your point is very well taken and it was a mistake to so limit fundings for mental institutions. However, I don't think we can institionalize everyone who suffers from mental illness. The advancement of Antipsychotics drugs for schizophrenia are quite good, but the problem is there is little oversight. The patients end up self medicating and eventually stop taking it. Having talked with more than a few sufferers they say taking the drugs help relieve the physcotic world they live in when unmedicated, but makes them feel like their living in slow motion thought process. There can be several side effects. Bottom line, many don't like it. It's easier to just let go and be insane.
What we need to do is first remove this stigma which surrounds mental health. Easier said than done. Then we need some serious institutions in place for monitoring people to make sure they stay medicated. Costly and complicated.
Best we can do right now is keep our eyes open for truly unusual behavior. What passes for truly unusal in todays world will not be easy to properly indentify.
 
Quote from BSAM:

Psychiatry is mostly a quack "profession".
More...

Psychiatry is the study of "hope".

"I hope that mutha fucker isn't going to do what I think he's going to do."
 
Psychiatry often reminds me of economists.

Economists inevitably make predictions and say something like, "If you don't like my predictions, well then, I have others."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top