OT: Safety is an Illusion

[SD Realtor]

Here is something interesting…

Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
(Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his
New York high school.

Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….

What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az

What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado

What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or

What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct
Roberts is the only one that I haven’t heard about being on drugs of some kind.

[evolusd]

[quote=Jazzman]The whole pro-gun argument is pretty vacuous. The overwhelming evidence suggests the higher the rate of gun ownership, and the more lax the gun control measures, the higher the rate of gun-related fatalities. It is so simple a child could understand it. However, common sense has been besmirched by visceral arguments, which emanate from an overly-possessive desire to allow the current status quo to prevail. With the waters so muddied, fallacy can masquerade as reason, and is stoked by prejudice and fear. It is the creation of a pluralistic society that has severed ties with competing interests by allowing corporate hegemony the unfair advantage to influence legislation. For sensible gun control to happen, the debate needs to be kept alive until the next (inevitable) Sandy Hook. Hopefully, the impetuous will compel constituents to pressure their representatives enough to shake-off the NRA’s grip.[/quote]

Interestingly, the Newtown school board just voted to put armed guards at every elementary school. Wasn’t that the NRA’s idea? More ‘good people with guns’ argument.

[desmond]

[quote=zk][quote=desmond][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.[/quote]

Smart people? You’re kidding, right?

I’m pretty sure you mean, “people who agree with me.” Or maybe, “people who I think are smart because they agree with me.”[/quote]

ZK, more name calling, blame or attack “people that don’t agree with you”.[/quote]

desmond, you aren’t making any sense. I didn’t call anyone names, blame anybody, or say whether I agreed with CAR (for the record, I don’t).

I’m pointing out that to say that “smart people get this” is ridiculous, regardless of what “this” is.

By the way, didn’t you, just a few posts ago, say, “POS Morgan,” Mr. Pot?[/quote]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……

[Jazzman]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Jazzman]The whole pro-gun argument is pretty vacuous. The overwhelming evidence suggests the higher the rate of gun ownership, and the more lax the gun control measures, the higher the rate of gun-related fatalities. It is so simple a child could understand it. However, common sense has been besmirched by visceral arguments, which emanate from an overly-possessive desire to allow the current status quo to prevail. With the waters so muddied, fallacy can masquerade as reason, and is stoked by prejudice and fear. It is the creation of a pluralistic society that has severed ties with competing interests by allowing corporate hegemony the unfair advantage to influence legislation. For sensible gun control to happen, the debate needs to be kept alive until the next (inevitable) Sandy Hook. Hopefully, the impetuous will compel constituents to pressure their representatives enough to shake-off the NRA’s grip.[/quote]

You’re referring specifically to “gun-related fatalities.” Those of us who support the Second Amendment couldn’t care less about how one decides to kill; we care that someone is willing and able to kill, irrespective of the tool(s) they chose to use in their crimes.

In the U.K., where they have some of the strictest anti-gun regulations, violent crime is off the charts. IMHO, we have the right (and duty!) to protect ourselves and our families. Nobody else’s emotionally-based feelings about guns should trump our rights to self-defense.

The legislation that’s been pushed would not have prevented Sandy Hook, nor the devastation caused by the scum in Boston. Gun registration does NOT prevent crimes, and background checks (which I would support if we could be sure that once someone is checked, their information would be permanently deleted) provide minimal protection against homicidal acts. Criminals can use stolen guns and background checks would do nothing to stop this.

Please provide *evidence* that gun bans and registration reduce homicides or violent crimes. From everything I’ve seen, cities/states with some of the strictest gun laws tend to have the highest crime/murder rates.[/quote]

I care neither one way, nor the other, so am completely dispassionate and divorced from the event. From where I am standing, the pro-gun arguments are completely sterile in the face of a rationale profound in its simplicity. Attempts to derail the truth, with puerile, and hackneyed arguments, or demands for factual evidence that clearly needs no evidencing are as misguided as they are unhelpful. The world watches on in total bewilderment as brokers of fictitious nonsense ply their craft, in an episodic pantomime. The absurdity is so wearisome, most prefer to rise above the fray, in the (fairly) safe knowledge that time will allow the truth its moment of glory. The question is how do you wish your legacy to read? The world was flat?

FYI, violent crime statistics in the UK are distorted by a large number of kid-on-kid assaults over cell phones. This is just another example of an untruth being manipulated to serve an end. I’ve heard all these arguments over and over, and have read enough statistics and facts that have satisfied my own curiosity.

[zk]

[quote=desmond]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to make sense, that’s fine. But to expect others to make sense (which you certainly appear to) while not expecting yourself to make sense…doesn’t make sense. Which makes sense, since you already said you don’t make sense. Make sense?

[paramount]

You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist – Cato Institute

http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist

[CA renter]

[quote=Jazzman]

I care neither one way, nor the other, so am completely dispassionate and divorced from the event. From where I am standing, the pro-gun arguments are completely sterile in the face of a rationale profound in its simplicity. Attempts to derail the truth, with puerile, and hackneyed arguments, or demands for factual evidence that clearly needs no evidencing are as misguided as they are unhelpful. The world watches on in total bewilderment as brokers of fictitious nonsense ply their craft, in an episodic pantomime. The absurdity is so wearisome, most prefer to rise above the fray, in the (fairly) safe knowledge that time will allow the truth its moment of glory. The question is how do you wish your legacy to read? The world was flat?

FYI, violent crime statistics in the UK are distorted by a large number of kid-on-kid assaults over cell phones. This is just another example of an untruth being manipulated to serve an end. I’ve heard all these arguments over and over, and have read enough statistics and facts that have satisfied my own curiosity.[/quote]

What “ficticious nonsense”? With every anti-gun argument so far, it’s based entirely on emotional, hysterical nonsense. I have yet to see any facts or data to back up the pro-gun argument. If you don’t believe that facts and statistics have a place in this argument, that’s entirely your choice; but don’t think that it entitles you to push for legislation that would very negatively affect other people’s lives just because the anti-gun position makes you feel better.

I’ve made this point before, but will make it again: My mother and almost all of her friends lived through WWII in Austria, Germany, Poland, etc. They had to live through horrible atrocities because they were not able to defend themselves (against soldiers from all sides, since they were all guilty of committing crimes against the citizens there). Why? Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” I do not trust any entity/government that thinks it should be able to overpower the masses, and I’m especially cynical when they claim it’s “for our safety.”

Additionally, for three years I had to deal with a stalker who had threatened to kidnap me and take me to Mexico to have his “Jesus babies.” I had never had relations of any kind with him, but he was convinced that I was his “wife” and even expressed his beliefs to the police. I slept with a gun under my pillow every single night, and that was the only thing that got me through that period of time. Under no circumstances do you or anyone else have the right to take away my ability to defend myself or my family.

If a person doesn’t like guns, don’t buy guns, but do NOT think you have the right to push your beliefs (which are based exclusively on “feelings,” and not facts or evidence) on others who strongly disagree with your “logic” and opinions.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]
I’ve made this point before, but will make it again: My mother and almost all of her friends lived through WWII in Austria, Germany, Poland, etc. They had to live through horrible atrocities because they were not able to defend themselves (against soldiers from all sides, since they were all guilty of committing crimes against the citizens there). Why? Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” [/quote]

The bolded part? It’s false. The vast majority of Germans (some government employees were exempted) were prohibited from owning guns since the end of WWI. For 5 years before Hitler took power, gun laws were relaxed to REQUIRE permits for both acquiring and owning handguns. By 5 years after Hitler took power those requirements were abolished altogether for most people. Hitler reformed gun ownership laws, EXPANDING gun ownership. This isn’t a belief, its a fact.

Now, who is pushing falsities to support their “beliefs” rather than relying on facts?

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]

What “ficticious nonsense”? With every anti-gun argument so far, it’s based entirely on emotional, hysterical nonsense. I have yet to see any facts or data to back up the pro-gun argument. [/quote]

You’ve seen facts. The fact is, the U.S. has a homicide rate 300%-400% that of the U.K., which has a similarly violent culture to ours, but much stricter gun laws. That’s a pretty significant fact. But somehow, despite having seen that fact in this very thread, you continue to say you haven’t seen any facts.

[desmond]

[quote=zk][quote=desmond]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to make sense, that’s fine. But to expect others to make sense (which you certainly appear to) while not expecting yourself to make sense…doesn’t make sense. Which makes sense, since you already said you don’t make sense. Make sense?[/quote]

Zeek,
Just getting discussions going. What really does not make any sense is reading the same posts before the recent gun control vote and the same ones after the recent vote.

[zk]

[quote=desmond][quote=zk][quote=desmond]

zeek, Thanks I try not to make sense, or I don’t really have to try……[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to make sense, that’s fine. But to expect others to make sense (which you certainly appear to) while not expecting yourself to make sense…doesn’t make sense. Which makes sense, since you already said you don’t make sense. Make sense?[/quote]

Zeek,
Just getting discussions going. What really does not make any sense is reading the same posts before the recent gun control vote and the same ones after the recent vote.[/quote]

Just getting discussions going? That’s a copout. “I don’t make sense. But I expect everybody else to. I only do it to get discussions going.” What a bunch of bs.

The recent gun control vote does not, by any means, negate all previous posts.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: Actually, you’ve omitted a few key points, but they change the entire thrust of your argument. Yes, Hitler did expand gun ownership, but only for “citizens” and those it deemed friendly to the Nazi Party (NASDP members, for instance, were not required to have a permit).

Those who were not “citizens” (Jews fell into this category) and who were deemed enemies of the Party, were denied permits (or disarmed or imprisoned). The police forces, which were now under Hitler’s sway and included the Gestapo (Geheime Staats Polizei, or Secret State Police), now spent far less time investigating crimes and far more time investigating people, which included arbitrary disarmament of those inimical to the Nazi cause and jailing/imprisonment on trumped up charges.

In this case, it’s the context and the background that really counts.

[SK in CV]

Allen, in this particular context, the omitted parts aren’t terribly important. The claim is that Hitler limited guns. He didn’t. He expanded rights in 1933 and then again in 1938 for the vast majority of Germans. By 1938, when the laws went into effect limiting the rights of Jews to own guns, it was the end, not the beginning of the persecution. Their citizenship had already been stripped. Kristallnacht was not the beginning. It was the beginning of the end. By then, guns wouldn’t have made a damn bit of difference. As Dr. Sung Park, my new favorite neurosurgeon would say, no guns dead, guns dead.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

SK: Again, by 1938, “the vast majority of Germans” had been cowed into silence by the Nazi security apparatus, including rank-and-file police (who, if they weren’t Party members, knew enough to keep their mouths shut and follow the script) and the Gestapo.

So, to make the assertion that Hitler expanded gun rights, is correct in theory, but false in application. The “vast majority”of “Good Germans” knew enough about Hitler and the Nazi Party by 1938 to not ask questions and go along with what was happening, including events like Kristallnacht.

In essence, you’re rebutting your own argument with the implicit recognition that, by the time of Kristallnacht, the will of the people had been effectively broken, expanded gun laws or no. Yes, Hitler did expand gun laws, but, in point of fact, it was largely to consolidate power behind NASDP and also to strip non-“citizens” (and this was not just limited to Jews) and other enemies of the very rights it purported to expand.

[SK in CV]

Allen, I didn’t rebut my own argument. I was responding to “Because, in the early stages and prior to the war, Hitler and others decided that the people needed to be disarmed “for their own safety.” It wasn’t the early stages. It was a year before WWII started. And it didn’t apply in Austria, yet Austria was annexed, even though they had guns. The Czechs had guns, yet in Sudetenland that didn’t matter. As did Hungary and Poland. My point was, and it remains, claiming that Hitler took the guns and then everything else happened is simply inconsistent with history. It didn’t happen that way. And as with most anti-gun control rhetoric, using gun control in Germany as pertinent history to bolster anti-gun policy here is not only counter-factual, it’s disingenuous.

[Author]

Posts