Preventing Violence in Our Schools

[decocker 7,198]

In the meantime CNN MSNBC and even fox has made a lot of money from this story.

even fox news huh. are they normally exempt from sensationalized reporting? it isn't a left or right issue - it's the media period.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The unifying theme in all of these shootings is a psychologically impaired person(s), an outcast, on psychotropic drugs. Val erie has a good citation on that.

Can anyone name one single example of a popular, well-adjusted and drug-free kid, video game enthusiast, that suddenly murdered a bunch of school kids? There is no example of that, ever. It has nothing to do with video games. Before that it was cowboys and indians, etc. Video games? I had guns and shot animals as a kid and so did most of my friends. Even shooting living things with real guns doesn't result in mass shootings.

The only thing missing is the press headlines saying "another prescription drug murder" and politicians railing about needing to take action on prescription drugs and psychological disorders. How much advertising revenue on TV is from guns? Zero. How much from drug companies? Billions. There is an enormous chasm in print media too, with gun advertising mainly in specialty media, not mainstream news.

The NRA and a few other groups have lobbying efforts but big pharma is way out in front, along with a huge presence in the schools. Over ten million kids are on prescription drugs and in the schools. But nobody can legally take a gun in.

How can it be that everywhere you look it is debate about guns and almost nowhere are drugs and mental disorders seriously discussed as a public policy problem? Pretty obvious to me.

You are dead on. Remember back when so many that committed violence were on Prozac when it was new ? The media tried to blame it on Prozac, when in fact the reason they were on Prozac becuse it was new and they were disturbed. Remember when the media tired to tie Viagra to causing heart attacks, of course the cause was people about to Croak anyway exerting themselves. The media never gets it right.

[himher 634]

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."

Shut him up. That was Jefferson.

The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

Shut him up. That was Adams

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Shut him up. That was Hamilton

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"

Shut him up. That was Washington

In case said and above liberties are threatened etc...

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." That was Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" That was Patrick Henry

Not my words.

the nra should shut up about putting armed personnel in elementary schools. i have no problem with the second amendment. i agree, the tsa ####### is bad enough.

Edited December 23, 2012 by himher

[Dakine10 5,452]

The unifying theme in all of these shootings is a psychologically impaired person(s), an outcast, on psychotropic drugs. Val erie has a good citation on that.

Can anyone name one single example of a popular, well-adjusted and drug-free kid, video game enthusiast, that suddenly murdered a bunch of school kids? There is no example of that, ever. It has nothing to do with video games. Before that it was cowboys and indians, etc. Video games? I had guns and shot animals as a kid and so did most of my friends. Even shooting living things with real guns doesn't result in mass shootings.

The only thing missing is the press headlines saying "another prescription drug murder" and politicians railing about needing to take action on prescription drugs and psychological disorders. How much advertising revenue on TV is from guns? Zero. How much from drug companies? Billions. There is an enormous chasm in print media too, with gun advertising mainly in specialty media, not mainstream news.

The NRA and a few other groups have lobbying efforts but big pharma is way out in front, along with a huge presence in the schools. Over ten million kids are on prescription drugs and in the schools. But nobody can legally take a gun in.

How can it be that everywhere you look it is debate about guns and almost nowhere are drugs and mental disorders seriously discussed as a public policy problem? Pretty obvious to me.

I'm not sure to what extent "well adjusted" people are involved in shootings anyway. I don't think thats the point the author is making. I don't think any one is suggesting that violent games make somebody snap. However there is some data to suggest he is on to something. Even the US military recognizes the value of using these realistic games as part of training. Specifically, violence is a lot easier if you are already desensitized to it.

There were 109 school shootings in the 10 years after Columbine. Most of them involved a "trouble" kid and easy access to guns. I've said all along that's the problem. Many of them could have been prevented by responsible gun owners. Teenagers - especially troubled ones - should not have free and easy access to guns.

I posted data on the 10 worst mass casualty shootings a few days back. Only 1 out of 11 shooters was taking prescription meds. Most of them did have some type of psychological problem, although some were diagnosed after the fact. More often, the shooters were actually not taking their prescription meds. Two were diagnosed as psychopaths and would likely have killed again if they weren't stopped. One had brain tumor as a causative factor.

All in all, the biggest factor they had in common was their familiarity with, and availability of firearms combined with either a phsycological disorder or severe (and sometime perceived) grievance against society. Unless those factors are addressed, these types of crimes will continue to occur. Everything else we can do will be reactive.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Spot on rlogan, I've been saying the same thing for years now. It seems so damned obvious.

On a sad note, I can never get over how stupid people can actually be with the evidence staring them right in the face year after year. I usually try to avoid calling people with a different opinion than mine stupid, but I'm to that point on this issue. I don't know what else it could be.

Like the fact that guns are the primary factor involved in gun violence? It's amazing how much data we have from other countries that actually have decreased gun violence by decreasing the number of guns.

The bottom line is we are not even having the same discussion. People love their guns here in the US. We are not discussing how to decrease gun violence. That solution is obvious. We are discussing how to minimize gun violence in a society that wants guns. Those are two different issues.

[kev_n_jena 89]

Like the fact that guns are the primary factor involved in gun violence? It's amazing how much data we have from other countries that actually have decreased gun violence by decreasing the number of guns.

The bottom line is we are not even having the same discussion. People love their guns here in the US. We are not discussing how to decrease gun violence. That solution is obvious. We are discussing how to minimize gun violence in a society that wants guns. Those are two different issues.

What is your ideal solution? If you could create any federal law and pass it today, what would it be?

[Dakine10 5,452]

What is your ideal solution? If you could create any federal law and pass it today, what would it be?

I would start with this. The second one sort of based on Canada and Australia but modified since I really don't think there is way to restrict those types of weapons in the US to the extent that they have in other countries.

1) background check on all guns sales

- no guns for history of felony or mental ilness

- extended background check including medical record for anyone with criminal record, restricted prescription drug list, or under age 21.

2) restricted categories (semi automatic weapons, extended capacity clips, high capacity handguns.)

- restricted weapons require special license. Training and education necessary. License must be renewed periodically. Can be revoked.

- mandate for safe storage, transport, and use of restricted weapons. Operation outside of guidelines can result in loss of license and seizure of weapon and criminal penalties.

- demonstrated need to own weapon in this category.

- national registry for restricted weapons.

[rlogan 2,036]

I posted data on the 10 worst mass casualty shootings a few days back. Only 1 out of 11 shooters was taking prescription meds. Most of them did have some type of psychological problem, although some were diagnosed after the fact. More often, the shooters were actually not taking their prescription meds. Two were diagnosed as psychopaths and would likely have killed again if they weren't stopped. One had brain tumor as a causative factor.

.

Great job failing to read the thread, failing to read the article cited with thousands of violent episodes analyzed, and consequently great job with the straw man.

Most of us "get" that taking someone off their psychotropic drugs can lead to catastrophic results, and we are including that in our proof that it is psychologically impaired people on psychotropic drugs that is by far, far and away the most consistent theme in these shootings. That was a major point of the citation and several comments here - and is so well known it resulted in the expression he's "off his meds". Why you are choosing to be disengenuous and say this is not a problem of mental disorders and psychotropic drugs? Because you have an agenda of your own. So it is the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion - we need to look at guns because a lot of the shooters are off their meds. So it can't be psychos and drugs if they are off their meds.

Brain tumors are well known as a problem, and the most famous example of that is probably the Texas tower shooter (Whitman). Here again we have the problem of psychological disorders being the problem we need to address. So long as we have people trying to keep attention away from that we'll never have decent solutions.

Before we leap out with new bad ill-thought laws the most important issue is understanding the problem. It is not even in the popular discourse because of the monied interests distorting coverage. The point has been made that the media makes heros out of these mass shooters - and this problem is much more pervasive than just murderers. We lionize the troops in our unjust wars overseas, pretending that killing Pakistani children and bombing weddings/funerals/community meetings is "protecting our freedoms". Violent killing is glorified on false pretenses in general. We killed/made refugees of millions in Iraq of false pretenses, in Viet Nam - and not only was nobody held accountable but the primary perpetrators of the fraud went on to fabulous careers with books and speaking fees etc. Mass murder pays.

We have a sick definition of heros too, where people who do run out to their car and retrieve a gun to stop a shooter receive almost no attention whereas someone who dies in vain as a helpless victim is glorified endlessly. Look at the pictures of when the Gestapo shows up finally, after it is too late, making all the innocent kids put their hands on their heads and file out in perfect obedience to the paramilitary government shooters. Look how traumatized they are by the so-called rescuers. It reinforces the sitting-duck mentality they are imposing on the kids. Mine will never be in the clutches of a public school, but if they did I would be instructing them to get out a window, to crawl up into the ceiling, or some other manner of self-preservation independent of the sitting ducks.

Edited December 23, 2012 by rlogan

[himher 634]

This isnt Canada nor is it Australia

so step #(1) would be "remove the constitutional barriers"

Requires a bill to be passed and 3/4 of the states to ratify

NOW: Get to work. Fight hard for what you believe in.

Except I've never even read or heard a rumor about a liberal who got anything done through hard work. People who cant and won't protect their own children aren't much of a threat to people who can and will protect their own rights and property anyway.

My opinion. I think if you don't pick up a weapon, train on it, and use it to defend your area of your community you should be taxed, have to send a letter of irresponsible cowardice to all of your neighbors just like a child molester does, and have to pay a fee for the right to shirk your duty to your community

I would start with this. The second one sort of based on Canada and Australia but modified since I really don't think there is way to restrict those types of weapons in the US to the extent that they have in other countries.

1) background check on all guns sales

- no guns for history of felony or mental ilness

- extended background check including medical record for anyone with criminal record, restricted prescription drug list, or under age 21.

2) restricted categories (semi automatic weapons, extended capacity clips, high capacity handguns.)

- restricted weapons require special license. Training and education necessary. License must be renewed periodically. Can be revoked.

- mandate for safe storage, transport, and use of restricted weapons. Operation outside of guidelines can result in loss of license and seizure of weapon and criminal penalties.

- demonstrated need to own weapon in this category.

- national registry for restricted weapons.

Edited December 23, 2012 by himher

[Dakine10 5,452]

Great job failing to read the thread, failing to read the article cited with thousands of violent episodes analyzed, and consequently great job with the straw man.

Most of us "get" that taking someone off their psychotropic drugs can lead to catastrophic results, and we are including that in our proof that it is psychologically impaired people on psychotropic drugs that is by far, far and away the most consistent theme in these shootings. That was a major point of the citation and several comments here - and is so well known it resulted in the expression he's "off his meds". Why you are choosing to be disengenuous and say this is not a problem of mental disorders and psychotropic drugs? Because you have an agenda of your own. So it is the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion - we need to look at guns because a lot of the shooters are off their meds. So it can't be psychos that are off their meds.

Brain tumors are well known as a problem, and the most famous example of that is probably the Texas tower shooter (Whitman). Here again we have the problem of psychological disorders being the problem we need to address. So long as we have people trying to keep attention away from that we'll never have decent solutions.

Before we leap out with new bad ill-thought laws the most important issue is understanding the problem. It is not even in the popular discourse because of the monied interests distorting coverage. The point has been made that the media makes heros out of these mass shooters - and this problem is much more pervasive than just murderers. We lionize the troops in our unjust wars overseas, pretending that killing Pakistani children and bombing weddings/funerals/community meetings is "protecting our freedoms". Violent killing is glorified on false pretenses in general. We killed millions in Iraq of false pretenses, in Viet Nam - and not only was nobody held accountable but the primary perpetrators of the fraud went on to fabulous careers with books and speaking fees etc. Mass murder pays.

We have a sick definition of heros too, where people who do run out to their car and retrieve a gun to stop a shooter receive almost no attention whereas someone who dies in vain as a helpless victim is glorified endlessly. Look at the pictures of when the Gestapo shows up finally, after it is too late, making all the innocent kids put their hands on their heads and file out in perfect obedience to the paramilitary government shooters. Look how traumatized they are by the so-called rescuers. It reinforces the sitting-duck mentality they are imposing on the kids. Mine will never be in the clutches of a public school, but if they did I would be instructing them to get out a window, to crawl up into the ceiling, or some other manner of self-preservation independent of the sitting ducks.

Where did I say mental disorders are not a problem? Sorry man, I've said the opposite of that in every post I've made. I can't really discuss something with you if you don't read what I post. The worst shootings did not involve prescription drugs. That is a fact. The fact is that many of those shooters had undiagnosed mental health issues. They should never have had access to guns in the first place.

I specifically said the author raised an interesting point about violent video games. That doesn't mean video games cause shootings. It doesn't mean mental problems are not an issue.

If you want to stop gun violence, get rid of guns. Failing that, if you want to minimize it, then find ways to stop people with mental health or criminal issues from getting guns. Find ways to make gun owners be more responsible. Any legislation is going to revolve around those two points. Everything else is secondary.

[Dakine10 5,452]

This isnt Canada nor is it Australia

so step #(1) would be "remove the constitutional barriers"

Requires a bill to be passed and 3/4 of the states to ratify

NOW: Get to work. Fight hard for what you believe in.

Except I've never even read or heard a rumor about a liberal who got anything done through hard work. People who cant and won't protect their own children aren't much of a threat to people who can and will protect their own rights and property anyway.

My opinion. I think if you don't pick up a weapon, train on it, and use it to defend your area of your community you should be taxed, have to send a letter of irresponsible cowardice to all of your neighbors just like a child molester does, and have to pay a fee for the right to shirk your duty to your community

The question was asked of me if I could pass any legislation, what would I do. I didn't even want to answer because I knew there would be "you can't do that because blah blah blah..." posts.

I answered the question. If I could pass any legislation, that's what I would do. Assume that legislation would garner enough support for a constitutional amendment.

I suggest you just stick to insulting liberals. That's about the only consistent thing you've brought to these discussions

[himher 634]

I didnt say you can't do it. It can be done.

I said you can't get it done because of the work involved. There's a difference.

You can't even feed your families without help and breaks and programs and agencies much less build a country.

If you feel insulted at that it is because truth hurts and ain't it a cold hard world.

The question was asked of me if I could pass any legislation, what would I do. I didn't even want to answer because I knew there would be "you can't do that because blah blah blah..." posts.

I answered the question. If I could pass any legislation, that's what I would do. Assume that legislation would garner enough support for a constitutional amendment.

I suggest you just stick to insulting liberals. That's about the only consistent thing you've brought to these discussions

[Dakine10 5,452]

I didnt say you can't do it. It can be done.

I said you can't get it done because of the work involved. There's a difference.

You can't even feed your families without help and breaks and programs and agencies much less build a country.

If you feel insulted at that it is because truth hurts and ain't it a cold hard world.

I can't feed my family? That seems like an insult. I guess, if that's all you got, says a lot about your position.

I actually doubt they would need a constitutional amendment for what I suggested. The current restrictions on fully automatic weapons are stricter than anything I said.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I would start with this. The second one sort of based on Canada and Australia but modified since I really don't think there is way to restrict those types of weapons in the US to the extent that they have in other countries.

1) background check on all guns sales

- no guns for history of felony or mental ilness

- extended background check including medical record for anyone with criminal record, restricted prescription drug list, or under age 21.

2) restricted categories (semi automatic weapons, extended capacity clips, high capacity handguns.)

- restricted weapons require special license. Training and education necessary. License must be renewed periodically. Can be revoked.

- mandate for safe storage, transport, and use of restricted weapons. Operation outside of guidelines can result in loss of license and seizure of weapon and criminal penalties.

- demonstrated need to own weapon in this category.

- national registry for restricted weapons.

If only guns weren't protected by the Constitution right? LOL @ those who live in a bubble.

[himher 634]

"they"? LOL

There is always a "They" for you people. One "They" is responsible for what nuts do. Another "They" needs their taxes to go up to balance the budget. Another "They" needs to protect the streets. Some other "They" needs to serve the country.

I can't feed my family? That seems like an insult. I guess, if that's all you got, says a lot about your position.

I actually doubt they would need a constitutional amendment for what I suggested. The current restrictions on fully automatic weapons are stricter than anything I said.