- This topic has 295 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 3 months ago by
scaredyclassic.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 31, 2014 at 10:02 AM #774624May 31, 2014 at 10:02 AM #774625
NotCranky
Participant[quote=Blogstar][quote=UCGal][quote=Blogstar]We put more and more kids on Meds about the time this kid was young and we have more psyhco young men going on killing sprees than before and we think them getting off meds is the problem, not putting them on meds in the first place? Man I would have been really angry if my dad and the system succeeded at putting me on meds shortly after their divorce and my moms death , knowing what I know now that would have been a travesty of justice of a high order.
Living with the stigma of mentally ill, 6,7 ,8 years old, with all the normal expectations and a prescription is really a raw deal. It doesn’t set these kids up well in anyway. Most adults can’t even go out in public if our car isn’t late model …how about living with your being not good enough through grade school and forever after?
The kid going off his meds is just part of his decision to finally say fuck you. But the decision was likely made before he quit the meds BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WORK! Big pharma must love it when society at large deem the meds successful and getting off of them being the cause of tragedy. I don’t believe it.[/quote]
I struggled with the medication issue for my son. All the “experts” were saying it was the right thing to do. I researched like crazy and was very uncomfortable with using drugs that effect brain chemistry on an undeveloped brain. I’m really glad I listened to my instincts.
It’s very hard for parents to know what the right thing to do is. Every authority was telling me one thing and my instincts were screaming the opposite. I understand why parents do it – they are told by experts its the right thing to do. They may not have the resources, intellect, etc to educate themselves and they might not have the personality to stand up to authority/medical personnel.
As mentioned before – my son did have a brain chemistry issue. But now that I know it was due to an enzyme problem – I also know that the meds would have been ineffective. That’s one of the issues with this MTHFR mutation – SSRIs and other psychotropic drugs are much less effective.
But – you have to cut parents some slack. The vast majority of parents are doing their very best to do right – and it’s very hard to figure out what “right” is.[/quote]
I am really glad it is working out for your kid and your family, UCGAL, Good job.
I could cut some individual parents some slack, you have no support in going after them anyway, even when the schools or doctors know the family is a complete disaster , which is often the case, not much can be done and instead the often dysfunction is used as leverage to get the kids into the pharma system if anything. …the systematic use of this crap the way I see it applied, no way. It’s parasitical and the hosts are the kids. It’s child abuse and or help perpetuate child abuse.[/quote]
Forgot to add, I can totally see Elliot Rodgers falling under this scam.
May 31, 2014 at 11:20 AM #774626scaredyclassic
Participanti am willing to bet cash that many people who report using a gun successfully in selfdefense are actually guilty of an assault witha deadly weapon or perhaps a brandishing during some incident.
it’s difficult for me to imagine generally likely scenarios where a normal person will be able to get their gun in their hand in a useful way during an actual justifiable situation outside the home.
A super well trained hypervigilant dude who is approaching all movement through society as if he were about to engage in gun battle might have a chance. but not an average schlump walking about.
you don’t get to pull a gun on someone and shoot unless theya re presenting you with deadly force. yelling, screaming, being scary or minority, not enough.
id like to hear more about actual anecdotes of successful self defense witha gun. I havea feeling selfreported successful incidents would in large part not stand up to analysis…
http://shivworks.com/ im going for the edged weapons overview in october. i would like to learn practical ways to dole out deadly force if im actually physically attacked short of fumbling about for a pistol while im getting bit on the faceMay 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM #774627spdrun
Participant^^^
I guess the one exception is hearing someone burgling your home at night and having time to get out a pistol. If someone shoots a burglar (not some poor schmoe who got in a car accident and is knocking on the door asking for help), then I’d call it legitimate use of force.
May 31, 2014 at 5:14 PM #774630CA renter
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i am willing to bet cash that many people who report using a gun successfully in selfdefense are actually guilty of an assault witha deadly weapon or perhaps a brandishing during some incident.
it’s difficult for me to imagine generally likely scenarios where a normal person will be able to get their gun in their hand in a useful way during an actual justifiable situation outside the home.
A super well trained hypervigilant dude who is approaching all movement through society as if he were about to engage in gun battle might have a chance. but not an average schlump walking about.
you don’t get to pull a gun on someone and shoot unless theya re presenting you with deadly force. yelling, screaming, being scary or minority, not enough.
id like to hear more about actual anecdotes of successful self defense witha gun. I havea feeling selfreported successful incidents would in large part not stand up to analysis…
http://shivworks.com/ im going for the edged weapons overview in october. i would like to learn practical ways to dole out deadly force if im actually physically attacked short of fumbling about for a pistol while im getting bit on the face[/quote]In addition to spdrun’s comment about robbers/burglars entering one’s home, there are many people who have a CCW permit and know and when to use a gun in self defense. You’re 100% correct about things happening VERY quickly in most assaults. Criminals will almost always use the element of surprise against a victim. Most people with CCW permits know that certain situations lend themselves more often to violent encounters: walking alone at night, parking lots, alleys, etc. They know that they need to have the safety off and their finger on the trigger ahead of time.
People who have stalkers or know that someone is a threat to them will usually be carrying a weapon in a way that gives them easy and quick access, and most of those people will train and practice what they would do in various situations.
May 31, 2014 at 5:19 PM #774631Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]Yes, millions a year. No bullshit. Most incidents where guns are used in self-defense are never reported (I’m one of them). Even the most conservative estimates show tens or hundreds of thousands of crimes thwarted every year by guns. Something from dailykos/Mother Jones for you, lest anyone suggest we are “cherry picking” our sources:
MJ also points out how the gun lobby claims around 2.5 million instances of ‘defensive gun use’ or self-defense using a gun. The comparison to federal crime data from the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, in chart form, is downright ridiculous. The federal crime data from 2007-2011 tallies 338,700 uses of guns in self-defense, but if you believe the gun lobby, that number should be 12,500,000 — more than 36 times as many. Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/19/1203254/-More-NRA-mythbusting-do-guns-prevent-crime
As a former victim of violent criminals, and also one who supports the Second Amendment because TYRANNY CAN HAPPEN HERE, I fully support the people’s right to own guns. That ownership should not be registered or tracked by the government in any way. Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; the only reason for registration is to ensure the soldiers/police know where to go to confiscate weapons if a tyrant (or tyrants) ever comes into power and they want to prevent a revolution or stop a resistance effort.[/quote]
I think maybe that article you linked to doesn’t say what you think it says. Or at very least, it doesn’t support your “millions a year”. The part you bolded indicates, on average, over a 5 year period, it was fewer than 70,000 defensive gun uses per year.
And nowhere near 60% of the population owns guns. The percentage of homes with guns has very recently risen a little bit (with the very small increase possibly being statistically insignificant), after falling for the last 4 decades. Depending on which survey, it’s somewhere between 34 and 39% of households that have guns. Not individual ownership, but households with at least 1 gun. Note that the falling ownership rate correlates with the falling murder rate over that same time period. Fewer households with guns, fewer murders.[/quote]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.
The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.
As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.
May 31, 2014 at 5:21 PM #774632Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]i am willing to bet cash that many people who report using a gun successfully in selfdefense are actually guilty of an assault witha deadly weapon or perhaps a brandishing during some incident.
[/quote]
Forgot to address this… I think you’re right. They are probably brandishing weapons during some sort of “incident.” The question is whether or not it would have remained a simple “incident” if they didn’t use/brandish a gun. There’s a significant likelihood that it would have escalated if not for the weapon.
May 31, 2014 at 5:40 PM #774633Participant[quote=ocrenter]
If you allowed an unlicensed driver to borrow your car and that person gets into an accident, of course you will be responsible. Not necessarily manslaughter but you will have to bear some responsibility. Even the owner of a pit bull that was not properly caged would be responsible if it mulls down a passerby. Guns are weapons, if the weapon is not stored safely and was accessed by a teen in a shooting or in an accident involving kids, why shouldn’t we blame the gun owner?[/quote]It wouldn’t matter if the driver was unlicensed or licensed. The fact would be that they took/borrowed your car (with or without permission) and killed somebody. Should you be held responsible?
May 31, 2014 at 5:52 PM #774634FlyerInHi
GuestI applied for a concealed weapon permit in Vegas earlier this year. There was a 6 weeks wait time because the “patriots” who are waiting to overthrow a tyrant were all applying. All I had to do was take a bullshit class.
The gun lobby arguments are so laughable. I can understand they are trying to preserve a lifestyle; but their rational for gun safety doesn’t standup to any intellectual rigor.
I go guns just because I can. I figure that if other people have them, then I might as well own guns. I have friends who made good money gun collecting, so why not spend some money to make money later. I already tripled my money, not counting all the ammo sitting in my closet!
But I realize that public policy with regards to guns is just so screwed up because of the NRA.
May 31, 2014 at 5:55 PM #774635Guest[quote=CA renter]
It wouldn’t matter if the driver was unlicensed or licensed. The fact would be that they took/borrowed your car (with or without permission) and killed somebody. Should you be held responsible?[/quote]
If he is doing something on your behalf (ie your agent), like picking up your drycleaning or your kids, then you would be responsible.
May 31, 2014 at 6:08 PM #774636SK in CV
Participant[quote=CA renter]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.
As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.[/quote]
Actually I did read that. And looked into the claim of 2.5 million per year. It’s a number that’s been pushed by the NRA. The data is more than 15 years old, and it comes from a number ofk different surveys. Some of them ask if the respondent has ever used a gun in self-defense. Some ask if they’ve used a gun in self-defense in the last 5 years. And from those surveys they came up with 2.5 million per year. It’s bogus.
On an annual basis, I suspect that number is in the low thousands. There doesn’t appear to be any recent surveys asking the question directly. 2.5 million per year would be almost 7,000 a day. Yet we almost never hear about them. How can that be possible?
The drop in crime may be in part related to 3 strikes laws, though all states don’t have them. The larger cause is demographics. Men in their late teens to mid-20’s commit most crimes. There are fewer of them now than there were 3 decades ago.
I think you’re right that the percentage of gun owners is more important than homes with guns. Based on a quick review of 4-6 recent surveys, it appears that number is somewhere between 20 and 25%.
May 31, 2014 at 6:52 PM #774637
svelteParticipant[quote=CA renter] Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; [/quote]
You have absolutely no basis for that statement!
There is no way you can possibly know what would have occurred if a criminal who was tracked down via a gun serial number had not been convicted and sent to prison.
May 31, 2014 at 9:21 PM #774641Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
It wouldn’t matter if the driver was unlicensed or licensed. The fact would be that they took/borrowed your car (with or without permission) and killed somebody. Should you be held responsible?[/quote]
If he is doing something on your behalf (ie your agent), like picking up your drycleaning or your kids, then you would be responsible.[/quote]
Fine, if a person with a gun owned by me were to do something “on my behalf,” then I would absolutely agree that I should be held liable; but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about unauthorized use of another person’s weapon.
May 31, 2014 at 9:22 PM #774640Participant[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]I don’t think “will” or lack of it has anything to do with mass slayings. If anything, the reserve could be argued. Hitler an Stalin spring to mind. Many simple cultures don’t exercise “will” in the cultural sense referred to, and yet don’t suffer the same cultural ills. I also don’t believe making guns too expensive would be a practical solution. You may as well just ban guns, if you are going to do that. The focus should be on an immediate solution to prevent callous killings. Gun control is as clear cut as any solution to address that problem. Apparently, 90% of Americans believe that to be the case. Yet, the legislation that was to bring about greater gun control failed. So whatever you think is the problem or likely solution, you are possibly going to be denied the means do deal with it, if your detractors are more powerful than you. I think that is a concern and needs to be addressed before philosophizing.[/quote]
Gun control, or gun bans? If they require registration for all guns, how long until they are knocking at everyone’s door because the “powers that be” decide to ban guns, altogether? I’d give it 5-10 years, at most. Nobody in established power likes the unwashed masses to be armed.
And who makes up this 90% when 60% of the population is armed? That only counts those who are willing to admit to gun ownership (I’m willing to bet the number is quite a bit higher).
Can you imagine the massive undertaking it would take to force, like you said, 60% of the country to give up their guns?
You just essentially gave the reason why the “powers.to be” would not dare removing and banning guns.
You also just provided the underlying Psyche as to why there is such resistance to any gun regulation, because there is a huge and unrealistic fear about the formation of a police state.
Again, if the narrative is this:
That ALL gun control equal LOSS of liberty.
Then the sporadic but continued loss of innocent lives IS justified as the price to pay for that liberty.It is almost like the Aztec sacrifice of young virgins to please their Gods. It was justified as the price to pay inin order for the sun to return the next day.[/quote]
Right, which is why they want to do it piecemeal. First, they enact more “modest” gun control laws like restrictions on types of weapons allowed, and registration — neither of which, BTW, would stop or reduce violence or homicides — because the PTB could begin tracking the movement of weapons. They would have gun buybacks and other programs that would somewhat reduce the number of guns, and gradually, they would get us to a point where we feel that the govt would have the right to know the weapon status of every single citizen and resident in the U.S.
Once they know the weapons status and everything else about us (and they are making HUGE strides in data aggregation on U.S. citizens), then they can go in for the final kill: full confiscation of all weapons that can be used by a resistance or revolutionary movement.
If you can watch what’s been happening over the past few decades (especially as it relates to privacy, data mining and aggregation, laws regarding “domestic terrorism,” etc.) and still feel that the Second Amendment is some how ridiculous or anachronistic, then you’re either naive and/or not paying attention.
May 31, 2014 at 9:25 PM #774642Participant[quote=svelte][quote=CA renter] Gun registration has NEVER prevented a single crime; [/quote]
You have absolutely no basis for that statement!
There is no way you can possibly know what would have occurred if a criminal who was tracked down via a gun serial number had not been convicted and sent to prison.[/quote]
Okay, you’re right. A person might be tracked *after the fact* and sent to prison. Therefore, the future potential victims of that person might be safe for as long as he’s in jail. But what about when he gets out? And how many murderers are tracked down because the police found them via their legally purchased and registered firearms? (Honest question there, as I don’t have the statistics.) If you register everyone’s gun, which is probably not possible, the market in stolen guns would go through the roof.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.