When we ban guns in the US

[kuronosan]

Pretty sure Taj was only kidding.

It wouldn't hurt to have a culture where people feel it's ok to seek help. There's a lot of folks out there who need help but don't ever seek it because of the stigma society attaches to mental healthcare.

Well, not only this but - as I said before, many doctors that practice psychiatric medicine just prescribe meds and call it a day. Psychiatric care goes far beyond just medicating someone and calling it a night.

I can't tell you how many mental health patients I have interacted with that "don't take their meds". Well, no shit? Have you seen some of the side effects that they list? Doctors downplay the severity of these things and it scares patients. Not only that, they act like psychiatric medicine is just a formula. Read DSM. Diagnose patient and prescribe meds. Adjust meds if necessary.

Too many psychiatric doctors fail to recognize a truly sick person from someone who just needs to talk.

And yes, when you medicate someone who doesn't need it, you might actually fuck them up. Psychotropic meds alter brain activity. An abnormal person might see mean adjustment and be normal. A normal person? Well, let's just say there's a reason I advocate the cessation of prescribing kids Lithium and Meth because they are "bipolar" or have "ADHD".

[CoreyX]

I like how everyone throws around the world "care" and "help" in regards to mental health "treatment", because being doped up on antipsychotics sure doesn't "help" anyone and they certainly don't "care" what happens to you, your body, your mind, or how you feel while you're on them. Take it from someone who has been in the system. "Help" or "Care" are the LAST words I would use describe what I was given.

And if you think they only give meds to truly crazy people that "need" them, you really don't know how it works. They give life-destroying combinations of medications to ANYONE with the mildest of problems (Antipsychotics are constantly used for depression, bipolar, etc... tons of other disorders, and the last ting they do is make anyone better. Go read up the side effects of antipsychotics)

In humans, drugs that reduce dopamine activity (neuroleptics, e.g. antipsychotics) have been shown to impair concentration, reduce motivation, cause anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure), and long-term use has been associated with tardive dyskinesia, an irreversible movement disorder.[32] Antipsychotics have significant effects on gonadal hormones including significantly lower levels of estradiol and progesterone in women, whereas men display significantly lower levels of testosterone and DHEA when undergoing antipsychotic drug treatment compared to controls. Antipsychotics are known to cause hyperprolactinaemia leading to amenorrhea, cessation of normal cyclic ovarian function, loss of libido, occasional hirsutism, false positive pregnancy tests, and long-term risk of osteoporosis in women. The effects of hyperprolactinemia in men are gynaecomastia, lactation, impotence, loss of libido, and hypospermatogenesis.[33] Furthermore, antipsychotic drugs are associated with weight gain, diabetes, drooling, dysphoria (abnormal depression and discontent), fatigue, sexual dysfunction, heart rhythm problems, stroke and heart attack.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[AidenCarby]

Pretty sure Taj was only kidding.



Well, not only this but - as I said before, many doctors that practice psychiatric medicine just prescribe meds and call it a day. Psychiatric care goes far beyond just medicating someone and calling it a night.

I can't tell you how many mental health patients I have interacted with that "don't take their meds". Well, no shit? Have you seen some of the side effects that they list? Doctors downplay the severity of these things and it scares patients. Not only that, they act like psychiatric medicine is just a formula. Read DSM. Diagnose patient and prescribe meds. Adjust meds if necessary.

Too many psychiatric doctors fail to recognize a truly sick person from someone who just needs to talk.

And yes, when you medicate someone who doesn't need it, you might actually fuck them up. Psychotropic meds alter brain activity. An abnormal person might see mean adjustment and be normal. A normal person? Well, let's just say there's a reason I advocate the cessation of prescribing kids Lithium and Meth because they are "bipolar" or have "ADHD".

Can attest, the lithium used to piss me the fuck off for like half an hour. Then the shit makes you cry for another half, then you're fine all day; always felt funky on that shit.

[kuronosan]

I like how everyone throws around the world "care" and "help" in regards to mental health "treatment", because being doped up on antipsychotics sure doesn't "help" anyone and they certainly don't "care" what happens to you, your body, your mind, or how you feel while you're on them. Take it from someone who has been in the system. "Help" or "Care" are the LAST words I would use describe what I was given.

And if you think they only give meds to truly crazy people that "need" them, you really don't know how it works. They give life-destroying combinations of medications to ANYONE with the mildest of problems (Antipsychotics are constantly used for depression, bipolar, etc... tons of other disorders, and the last ting they do is make anyone better. Go read up the side effects of antipsychotics)

In humans, drugs that reduce dopamine activity (neuroleptics, e.g. antipsychotics) have been shown to impair concentration, reduce motivation, cause anhedonia (inability to experience pleasure), and long-term use has been associated with tardive dyskinesia, an irreversible movement disorder.[32] Antipsychotics have significant effects on gonadal hormones including significantly lower levels of estradiol and progesterone in women, whereas men display significantly lower levels of testosterone and DHEA when undergoing antipsychotic drug treatment compared to controls. Antipsychotics are known to cause hyperprolactinaemia leading to amenorrhea, cessation of normal cyclic ovarian function, loss of libido, occasional hirsutism, false positive pregnancy tests, and long-term risk of osteoporosis in women. The effects of hyperprolactinemia in men are gynaecomastia, lactation, impotence, loss of libido, and hypospermatogenesis.[33] Furthermore, antipsychotic drugs are associated with weight gain, diabetes, drooling, dysphoria (abnormal depression and discontent), fatigue, sexual dysfunction, heart rhythm problems, stroke and heart attack.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Oh goodie, someone who can demonstrate my point.

[archibaldcrane]

This is why republican lawmakers are keeping their heads down. They can't say "guns aren't the problem, lack of pysch care is the problem" because they don't have a solution for that either. All they can do is lay low and hope that the tide doesn't swell up too high.

[quannum]

Aus. example

The Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person.[5] Gun control laws in Australia, which had been relatively lenient before the massacre, were reviewed and tightened significantly after the incident.

..

After discovering that the Christian Coalition and US National Rifle Association were supporting the gun lobby, the Government and media cited their support, along with the moral outrage of the community to discredit the gun lobby as extremists.[15]

What they did.

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.[2]
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

counter post - "gun violence was going down anyway"

But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."

Firearm homicides in Australia were declining before 1996 and the decline has simply continued at the same rate since, McPhedran says. (In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate.) Of course, it's possible there might have been a spike in firearm homicides — and one or more Port Arthur-style events — if not for the gun law reforms. "It's very easy to raise what-ifs," McPhedran counters. "The what-ifs are interesting as discussion points. But, ultimately, for policy making, we have to deal with what is."

[archibaldcrane]

Here's some Australia graphs:
http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publ...tandi269-1.gif
http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publ...tandi269-2.gif
http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publ...tandi269-3.gif

And the thing this makes most clear, which is also the case in the US, is that suicide is the leading cause of gun deaths (1.6 or so suicides for every homicide in America) and likely the factor most affected by gun "bans".

[Churchill]

I hate to say it, but fuck proof, if it's registered under your name you're guilty. Learn to secure your shit.

Damn it's been awhile, I do miss you Mr. Medieval Catholic Church.

[Callisto]

Damn it's been awhile, I do miss you Mr. Medieval Catholic Church.

way to prove my point, they had like no gun violence at all back then, they had to be doing something right

[Churchill]

Damn it's been awhile, I do miss you Mr. Medieval Catholic Church.

way to prove my point, they had like no gun violence at all back then, they had to be doing something right

Way to fall into a real trap buddy, all you did was prove that without guns people would kill themselves with swords on a massive level.

[Callisto]

this isn't a sword control debate, don't try to force your ideals on me

[Dimmauk]

Way to fall into a real trap buddy, all you did was prove that without guns people would kill themselves with swords on a massive level.

Lol wow.

[Kuya]

On Up with Chris Hayes it was explained that guns are a big part of the culture in the south, and that if you hear radio shows about this recent shooting, alls you get is people calling in to say that the teachers should have had guns or that they better not take their guns away. If guns are so ingrained in southern culture, then it sounds like trying to limit guns is gonna make the south real butthurt.

[Ksandra]

it sounds like trying to limit guns is gonna make the south real butthurt.

Yet another reason to limit guns.

[ronin sparthos]

On Up with Chris Hayes it was explained that guns are a big part of the culture in the south, and that if you hear radio shows about this recent shooting, alls you get is people calling in to say that the teachers should have had guns or that they better not take their guns away. If guns are so ingrained in southern culture, then it sounds like trying to limit guns is gonna make the south real butthurt.

The counterpoint made was to sell gun control as gun safety, bringing the argument to those who are ingrained in the gun culture that we trust them to handle guns as they've done for generations but that certain restrictions such as magazine limitations and background checks should be apart of responsible gun ownership. Loopholes like internet sales or gun shows should be closed. You don't need huge clips of ammo to shoot deer or to protect yourself from a burglar breaking into your home. It isn't like normal members of the NRA don't already believe this is common sense legislation but the overarching body of leadership in the organization is staunchly against such measures.

If you turn members against the organization then the organization will have to concede something has to be done other than hiding behind the 2nd amendment for their current stance of 'arm all the things!'

[Churchill]

I think one of the concerns the NRA has (and this would apply to other situations not pertinent to gun control as well) is that if they concede that you are right, agree with limiting magazine capacity and closing private sale loopholes, 5 years from now when someone shoots up a daycare because he finds out his kids aren't his kids, what measures will be taken then. It's not so much a slippery slope but more that they understand no measures taken will stop tragedies from happening unless you ban all guns (and even then it would still occur) so conceding anything is a loss. For the NRA, I doubt it is anything as noble as wanting to find a solution to the cause as opposed to just self preservation, but I don't think the concession concern is invalid.

Does limiting magazine capacity effect me as a shooter? Only in situations against other shooters.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, having to reload more often isn't ideal when you're trying to massacre a school, for example.

The thing gun advocates seem to forget or ignore, is that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is overwhelmingly on their side.

When they get their slopes all slippery, they seem to forget that you can't even ban handguns in the city limits of the murder capital of America, much less all guns everywhere.

[Nephlite]

I think one of the concerns the NRA has (and this would apply to other situations not pertinent to gun control as well) is that if they concede that you are right, agree with limiting magazine capacity and closing private sale loopholes, 5 years from now when someone shoots up a daycare because he finds out his kids aren't his kids, what measures will be taken then. It's not so much a slippery slope but more that they understand no measures taken will stop tragedies from happening unless you ban all guns (and even then it would still occur) so conceding anything is a loss. For the NRA, I doubt it is anything as noble as wanting to find a solution to the cause as opposed to just self preservation, but I don't think the concession concern is invalid.

Does limiting magazine capacity effect me as a shooter? Only in situations against other shooters.

Well put. Closing of those loopholes HAS to be priority in any kind of legislation as sales are spiking so high for guns now that the open market sales are dumping massive amounts of guns/ammo/clips in to circulation. Removing the high capacity mags and assault style rifles will curb a big portion of people dumping rounds in to a crowd as a start. It'll at least force people to slow down their spree just enough for someone else who's going to fight back to kill them or subdue them. If that saves one life, it's worth it.

Legislation like this has to start on the DoD level as well. A vast majority of high capacity mags and firing assemblies are scavenged from (usually unguarded) trash piles or armor huts that are someday thrown back out in to the streets for sale. And since gunsmithing has become so popular, a lot of inoperable or insufficiently decommissioned guns are finding their way back out in to circulation. In D.C., the city melts the guns it confiscates or obtains through the buy-back program and turns them in to profitable scrap or recycles the metal for building materials.

What is generally needed, and perhaps my opinion is bias since I work in the field as a psychotherapist, is more awareness of the issues and the options available. Too often we hear about all the problems neighbors, friends, and family perceived before these mass murders, and yet the perpetrator did not get the care they needed.

This as well. Too many suicide calls I've been on where there were precursors to the death of the person and all it would have taken to help that person is for someone else to tell someone. Threat Assessment courses LEO's take to raise awareness are amazing classes but it's never taught to communities till something happens. Even then, it's a quick 1-2 hour seminar that no one remembers with no literature or follow-up to keep people in the know. Should be a Public Service Announcement during peak TV-watching hours or something.

[Dotsudoku]

More Facebook fun (there should be an entire thread devoted to chainshares)

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b9...psbe9a2ea7.jpg

Which is great, except:

In this 1 October 1997 incident, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death with a butcher knife in their home, then drove to his high school in Pearl, Mississippi, with a .30-.30 rifle, where he killed two classmates and wounded seven more. Woodham was apprehended in his car by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who confronted him with a .45-caliber pistol he had retrieved from own vehicle.

Joel Myrick didn't actually "halt" the shooting at Pearl High, as Luke Woodham had broken off his attack and was attempting to leave the school in his car when he was stopped by Myrick. The claim that Myrick's actions saved additional lives stems from reports that Woodham was on his way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting when Myrick subdued him, but evidence documenting that Woodham had such an intent is not conclusive.

[kuronosan]

I hate chain letters.