"While I think that if many people here were armed in a school would be responsible, most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow and would probably shoot someone by accident."
I think the word we're all looking for here is projection.
To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.
Woah, waitasec. You mean to tell me that there's a bag limit on hoboes?
Turing test
Reading Markadelphia is kind of a strange twist on the Turing test: you're pretty sure it's not a computer; you're damn positive it's not intelligent. Seriously.
I find that after about two sentences I find myself thinking: this crap is from Markadelphia. I haven't been wrong yet.
But enough of the ad hominem.
You're right, Markadelphia, I don't trust "most Americans," and with reason. Apparently "most Americans" are like you.
Damn right. I trust more people with a gun than I trust with a vote -- and that still isn't _most_ people.
.
most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow ... Simply put, I don't trust most American
There we have, again, the basis for the Democrat party policy.
You're an idiot, hand us the money/control so we can spend it smarter than you.
I don't trust most American and I don't think you do either
After all, surely you agree with me! Your writings prove it!
My trust of my fellow man, and my fellow Americans is tempered. On the one hand, overall, I do trust them on a daily basis. (I spent a good deal of my precious leisure time in places where 90+% of the other people have a weapon on them.)
On the other hand, I know that the educational system has been working at collectivism, emotional responses, and feeeeelings. Not critical thinking (I can't not point this out for irony, Markadelphia claims to teach to others.)
But yes, by and by, I do trust people. Except when I don't.
And since I don't know at any given time if someone I don't trust is going to be the next person I encounter, I do my best to carry concealed. Because the gun is civilization.
There are multiple times where I've been able to stop and help someone in need, because if they weren't really to be trusted, I had the ability to defend myself. It has not yet turned out to be the case. Without that ability, I'd have passed them by, and they would have been forced to wait for the "professionals" (assuming they were on duty/available/could be contacted).
That's Markadelphia's world, where everybody wears a uniform to denote their job, everybody is issued chits for required (as determined by the bureaucracy) jobs. No "money" to corrupt or taint. No free will, or pesky free thinkers.
Well. I got a Red shirt on, I'm not stupid, and I'M NOT BEAMING INTO THAT HELL. Because I've got the capability of seeing where that's been tried, how well it worked, and how badly it's failed.
So, this piece begs the question...what if guns were allowed in schools and people chose not to carry one? Would that person be a moron? Is anyone that choses not to arm themselves stupid?
I understand where you are coming from, Kevin. It's not prevention but having a gun does give you a chance. Basically what you are saying, though, is that you are giving up, right? There is no possible way we can elminate this problem at the cause so having a gun is the only reasonable solution? I don't buy it. Sorry.
There needs to be a serious examination of SSRIs and what they do to people. Let's see if it comes out that both of these recent shootings had them involved. I bet they do and I bet you won't hear about it in the MSM. We can't have a billion dollar industry (pharmeceuticals) threatened now, can we?
My favorite song from the Doobie Brothers comes to mind
What a fool believes he sees
A wise man has no power
To reason away
(great, now I have to go listen to it).
This is what I don't get. Idiots like Mr. Mind-Rotting-Psychic-Powers confuse themselves for others. Nobody is forcing him to own a gun. If he *truly* believes his pap, then by all means don't buy one.
However, I'm 100% sure he doesn't believe it. He simply writes it out hoping that others who read it think "OMG! WTF? Someone as sane as this would go crazy carrying a gun? We probably should ban them!."
I'm going to start marketing a line of "Power Crystals" that will negate the mean feelings a gun gives you. If people truly believe an inanimate object causes this kind of thinking, then I can easily make some money by selling them another object which will cancel it out.
"McNichols said the shooter first fired at a police officer at the meeting, then began firing at the council. As people went to the floor, the shooter walked toward the council area.
"He fired at the city attorney, who fended the attacker off by throwing chairs, McNichols said. The shooter went behind a curved desk where the council sits and fired more shots at members of the council, she said.
Then police arrived and shot the attacker."
Now, which takes more time: 1) throwing chairs (note the plural); or, 2) drawing a weapon and firing it?
If someone were shooting at you, which would you prefer to do in response?
"
I understand where you are coming from, Kevin. It's not prevention but having a gun does give you a chance. Basically what you are saying, though, is that you are giving up, right? There is no possible way we can elminate this problem at the cause so having a gun is the only reasonable solution? I don't buy it. Sorry."
so what your saying is although gun free zones don't work they shouldn't be removed because that wouldn't be a 100% solution, but we should wait for a perfect solution that will stop people commiting mass murders? have you heard of the phrase the perfect is the enemy of the good?
i'm also not sure where you got the idea that removing the ban on guns would stop the other possibilities you mentioned being investigated - it seems to me that gun control is more likely to block other things as it gives the politicians something to say - how many laws have been proposed/enacted like waiting times and licences that would in no way help but get the magic headling 'tough new gun laws'?
Shortly after the abolition of hanging in the UK 2 known criminals illegally acquired a pistol + ammunition, illegally carried it around and illegally shot and killed a policeman. The govts response was to bring in shotgun licences
is it geekwitha .45 who likes to say "gun control is something you do instead of doing something"?
We can't have a billion dollar industry (pharmeceuticals) threatened now, can we?
I have to say, I was not expecting Mark's deep, dark, murderous conspiracy (du jour) to be the Pharmas at the root.
(I expected one, because, there's always a conspiracy behind his thinking... that is, if you know the right questions to ask. Just not that conspiracy.)
So, this piece begs the question...what if guns were allowed in schools and people chose not to carry one? Would that person be a moron? Is anyone that choses not to arm themselves stupid?
Mark, as noted in the piece, 97-99% of the eligible population chooses not to get a CCW permit in the first place. In 2006 there were approximately 836,000 sworn full-time police officers in the U.S. according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Approximately 70% of those are "field" officers, as opposed to desk officers, so that brings the number down to about 585,000. Split by three shifts, and you get about 200,000 officers "on the street" at any particular time.
Divide that up among a population of 300,000,000 and there is one cop for every 1,500 of us. Obviously we don't have a uniform distribution of either population or police officers, but still, you can see why police officers so seldom prevent or stop a crime in progress, they show up afterwards usually to take a report.
"Most Americans," Mark, don't think about it. Many do, and weigh the odds of needing a firearm against the irritation and responsibility of actually carrying one, and decide that they like their chances. (And carrying a firearm is a pain in the ass.) I'm OK with that. It's called rational decision-making. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Some people are like Barry - terrified of the responsibility and convinced that they are not mature and competent enough to be trusted with a firearm. I'm OK with that, too so long as they do not work to deny me the right to choose for myself.
Consciously choosing not to carry is not a mark of stupidity. Not considering the question is, however.
As noted above, there are about 836,000 sworn officers in the U.S. - that's about 0.3% of the total population. If 1% of the general adult population (which the CDC estimates at about 210,000,000) chose to carry concealed, an additional 2.1 million people would be out there, armed in defense of themselves and (one would hope) their neighbors.
Out of every 100 teachers and administrators, one would probably be armed, familiar with the school and staff, and on site if anything should happen that would require armed response - because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
It's not stupid to decide to go unarmed in this world, Markadelphia. It IS stupid (and in my view, evil) to deny people the CHOICE.
"To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, "
I trained in some martial arts in my younger days. I always have a lethal weapon on me. But, I'm not stupid enough to bring an elbow strike to a gun fight.
I'm not armed because I'm paranoid, I'm armed because I'm a realist. Unless you live in a very unusual area, individual crime will be way down the list of problems to prepare for. That's why you do all the other things first. First aid kits, insurance etc. Then buy your carry piece.
What I have a difficult time understanding is the liberal attitude. A good many of them will work down the same type of list until they get to the point of self defense and then their minds sort of go bugga bugga and refuse to deal with reality. Projection of their own insecurities is probably part of it, but I'm still trying to understand it. I think my mind just works so differently than most liberals we are almost different species.
There needs to be a serious examination of SSRIs and what they do to people. Let's see if it comes out that both of these recent shootings had them involved. I bet they do and I bet you won't hear about it in the MSM. We can't have a billion dollar industry (pharmeceuticals) threatened now, can we? - Markadelphia
I have to say, I was not expecting Mark's deep, dark, murderous conspiracy (du jour) to be the Pharmas at the root.
(I expected one, because, there's always a conspiracy behind his thinking... that is, if you know the right questions to ask. Just not that conspiracy.) - Unix Jedi
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by human stupidity.
In this case I agree that antidepressants are quite probably involved (perhaps not in the domestic violence cases, but in Missouri I would not be at all surprised). I'm convinced that they have contributed to the overwhelming majority of the school shooting cases involving young perpetrators.
Why don't we hear about it? I don't think it's because the pharmaceutical companies are paying off the media companies, it's because the "media template" has been in place since the 1960's - the number of guns is at fault, nothing else, and the "gun lobby" stands in the way of "common-sense gun control."
You aren't going to turn that behemoth quickly, no matter what you try.
Oh, I'm not in favor of SSRIs.
But I don't blame big pharma for 'em. There's a huge demand - and more and more people want more of them.
Sure, they push them, and I think some of their efforts are less than savory at times.
But where Mark comes in as SshhH! Conspiracy! They can't know we've told you!, you're looking at it much more logically.
What Mark's not considered, but I bet you have: so what then do you do? Go on an SSRI, and lose your civil rights? Maybe should be locked up in an asylum again? You and I know that's not likely. But Mark's not considered the "next step", he just throws those sorts of barbs around.
The "conspiracy" is nothing of the sort. Every SSRI I'm aware of has somebody I know who say it makes all the difference. As well as someone who says it didn't do a thing, or made them worse.
In the worst cases? Doctors prescribe to keep patients happy - many of whom want a pill/excuse. Patients demand the drugs to avoid having to come to grips with their own mind.
Anyway, SSRI or not, the problem is that this person felt slighted, and felt the need to go revenge himself.
The problem ultimately lies with that individual. Not corporate conspiracy, not Rovian mind-rays, not "systems". The root cause was one person decided to kill others.
We've never found a "cure" to that, other than being prepared to kill someone so deranged.
The root cause was one person decided to kill others.
Yes, but the evidence seems to indicate that SSRIs reduce normal inhibitions against doing things like suicide and mass-murder. I've seen it described as "not making the thoughts go away, but making the fear of the consequences go away."
I think that if some clinical conclusion were reached concerning that, SSRI usage would decrease, or at least doctors, patients, and families would know to look out for such symptoms.
However, there is no pressure for such study because, as we all know, the guns are at fault.
Of course the pharmaceutical companies don't want to hear this. They didn't want to hear about the possible side-effects of Thalidomide, either. But, unlike Markadelphia, I don't think that makes them evil.
However, there is no pressure for such study because, as we all know, the guns are at fault.
Plus, if we can find a pill that'll fix it, or a drug that handles that side effect, we can prescribe it. And bill for it. And demand legislation for it for free, etc. etc.
I think this is an indicator, a weathervane for the failure of the Individual Culture. Something people'll look back on later and say "Yeah, it was obvious here", and we'll say "At the time, not so obvious."
Yeah, lots easier to go after the guns. To do otherwise endangers the Perfect Society.
Paradoxically, in my experience, most people seem to know if they are not responsible enough to own a firearm or not (granted, none of them are young and stupid. Old and stupid perhaps, but not young and stupid).
I can think of several people I know whom have passed on the opportunity because they don't believe they're responsible enough. All of them are law abiding. They just don't want the responsibility.
Fair enough. But just b/c someone refuse responsibility for their own safety is no excuse for them to impose such limitations on the rest of us.
I trust most people to be complete idiots, and I don't trust that CCW seekers and holders are necessarily any better because they recognize the potential necessity.
The reason I still favor concealed-carry is that I trust them to retain the basic inhibition against committing murder that normal civilized people have inculcated in them from birth and predators have lost. The reason police have higher rates of accidental homicide than CCW holders is that that basic internal hesitation has been eroded by constant contact with people that genuinely want to and will try to hurt or kill them.
Carrying a gun doesn't make you any more likely to "shoot at shadows" than carrying a knife makes you to stab at them or carrying martial-arts training makes you to kick at them. The reluctance or eagerness to kill does not recognize instrument.
The reason police have higher rates of accidental homicide than CCW holders is that that basic internal hesitation has been eroded by constant contact with people that genuinely want to and will try to hurt or kill them.
Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that they are required to walk into situations where they don't know who may or may not be a "bad guy," rather than the situation most civilian defenders are in where the person perpetrating a crime is pretty damned obvious.
I can't believe that you're stilling referencing that post of mine four years later, and even more so continue to misunderstand when I spoke about radiation, I was speaking metaphorically.
At the time I wrote that, I was thinking back specifically on the Amadou Diallo shooting, in which the police in question shot an unarmed man multiple times, when they had not specifically been called to the scene. (They thought he resembled a serial rapist that had been reported in the area.) They reported seeing him draw a gun- actually his wallet- and some of them reported seeing the gun. I actually have no question that this was so; the kinds of tricks the mind plays under conditions of high arousal and and expectation are well-documented. However, the way a police officer looking for a rapist somewhere in the neighborhood would have interpreted the man's actions- turning to look at the police cruiser, stepping back, and reaching for his wallet to pull out his ID- and the way a civilian who just happened to be there would, are two very different animals.
Barry - Do you feel any different today? Do you think that if you held a gun you'd kill someone? You have the power to kill your neighbors quite easily. A knife across the throat, a little anti-freeze in a glass, some gasoline and matches, or you could just run over them with your car.
Why is a gun is different? Because 270,000,000 firearms in the US alone would indicate that if people generally felt like you, we'd have a population of about 3 to 4.
So, unless you've changed your tune, why should we drop it? You clearly indicate the gun would give you the urge to kill someone else as if it's the gun's fault and not yours. What's different now?
Sounds like someone's never been to Israel. I would venture to say the poster hasn't even done much travelling inside the US, let alone outside.
No disrespect, but you should know better than to make sweeping generalizations. Different cultures definitely have their peculiarities, but it seems to me it's just like the genders: we have more similarities than we do differences. People are people, and that holds true pretty much across the board.
Barry, I'm confident you could safely carry a loaded gun every day and never have a problem. After all, you drive a car (and perhaps even talk on the phone while doing so) with probably only a few mishaps. And the numbers will back me up that guns are much safer than cars--not just in total deaths, but also in number of accidents.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/02/still-man-hears-what-he-wants-to-hear.html (28 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"While I think that if many people here were armed in a school would be responsible, most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow and would probably shoot someone by accident."
I think the word we're all looking for here is projection.
Yup.
Well-placed cluebat swing, Kevin.
I'm glad your Texas trip was enjoyable.
Holy crap! Guns emit mind-rotting radiation?! Why wasn't I notified! I've had guns since I was 18! Is it already too late? Am I doomed?
To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, available and ready to be pulled out and used at a moment's notice to possibly kill...a child. A homeless person. An innocent.
Woah, waitasec. You mean to tell me that there's a bag limit on hoboes?
Since when?
Turing test
Reading Markadelphia is kind of a strange twist on the Turing test: you're pretty sure it's not a computer; you're damn positive it's not intelligent. Seriously.
I find that after about two sentences I find myself thinking: this crap is from Markadelphia. I haven't been wrong yet.
But enough of the ad hominem.
Damn right. I trust more people with a gun than I trust with a vote -- and that still isn't _most_ people.
.
most Americans, unlike Israelis, are fucking morons who jump at their own shadow ... Simply put, I don't trust most American
There we have, again, the basis for the Democrat party policy.
You're an idiot, hand us the money/control so we can spend it smarter than you.
I don't trust most American and I don't think you do either
After all, surely you agree with me! Your writings prove it!
My trust of my fellow man, and my fellow Americans is tempered. On the one hand, overall, I do trust them on a daily basis. (I spent a good deal of my precious leisure time in places where 90+% of the other people have a weapon on them.)
On the other hand, I know that the educational system has been working at collectivism, emotional responses, and feeeeelings. Not critical thinking (I can't not point this out for irony, Markadelphia claims to teach to others.)
But yes, by and by, I do trust people. Except when I don't.
And since I don't know at any given time if someone I don't trust is going to be the next person I encounter, I do my best to carry concealed. Because the gun is civilization.
There are multiple times where I've been able to stop and help someone in need, because if they weren't really to be trusted, I had the ability to defend myself. It has not yet turned out to be the case. Without that ability, I'd have passed them by, and they would have been forced to wait for the "professionals" (assuming they were on duty/available/could be contacted).
That's Markadelphia's world, where everybody wears a uniform to denote their job, everybody is issued chits for required (as determined by the bureaucracy) jobs. No "money" to corrupt or taint. No free will, or pesky free thinkers.
Well. I got a Red shirt on, I'm not stupid, and I'M NOT BEAMING INTO THAT HELL. Because I've got the capability of seeing where that's been tried, how well it worked, and how badly it's failed.
And, no, trying it HARDER this time won't help.
So, this piece begs the question...what if guns were allowed in schools and people chose not to carry one? Would that person be a moron? Is anyone that choses not to arm themselves stupid?
I understand where you are coming from, Kevin. It's not prevention but having a gun does give you a chance. Basically what you are saying, though, is that you are giving up, right? There is no possible way we can elminate this problem at the cause so having a gun is the only reasonable solution? I don't buy it. Sorry.
There needs to be a serious examination of SSRIs and what they do to people. Let's see if it comes out that both of these recent shootings had them involved. I bet they do and I bet you won't hear about it in the MSM. We can't have a billion dollar industry (pharmeceuticals) threatened now, can we?
My favorite song from the Doobie Brothers comes to mind
What a fool believes he sees
A wise man has no power
To reason away
(great, now I have to go listen to it).
This is what I don't get. Idiots like Mr. Mind-Rotting-Psychic-Powers confuse themselves for others. Nobody is forcing him to own a gun. If he *truly* believes his pap, then by all means don't buy one.
However, I'm 100% sure he doesn't believe it. He simply writes it out hoping that others who read it think "OMG! WTF? Someone as sane as this would go crazy carrying a gun? We probably should ban them!."
I'm going to start marketing a line of "Power Crystals" that will negate the mean feelings a gun gives you. If people truly believe an inanimate object causes this kind of thinking, then I can easily make some money by selling them another object which will cancel it out.
Regarding the shooting in Kirkwood, we have this from the Gateway Pundit, a prolific blogger from the Gateway City:
"The Post Dispatch reported:
[...]
"McNichols said the shooter first fired at a police officer at the meeting, then began firing at the council. As people went to the floor, the shooter walked toward the council area.
"He fired at the city attorney, who fended the attacker off by throwing chairs, McNichols said. The shooter went behind a curved desk where the council sits and fired more shots at members of the council, she said.
Then police arrived and shot the attacker."
Now, which takes more time: 1) throwing chairs (note the plural); or, 2) drawing a weapon and firing it?
If someone were shooting at you, which would you prefer to do in response?
Goddamn, but reality is a bitch.
"
I understand where you are coming from, Kevin. It's not prevention but having a gun does give you a chance. Basically what you are saying, though, is that you are giving up, right? There is no possible way we can elminate this problem at the cause so having a gun is the only reasonable solution? I don't buy it. Sorry."
so what your saying is although gun free zones don't work they shouldn't be removed because that wouldn't be a 100% solution, but we should wait for a perfect solution that will stop people commiting mass murders? have you heard of the phrase the perfect is the enemy of the good?
i'm also not sure where you got the idea that removing the ban on guns would stop the other possibilities you mentioned being investigated - it seems to me that gun control is more likely to block other things as it gives the politicians something to say - how many laws have been proposed/enacted like waiting times and licences that would in no way help but get the magic headling 'tough new gun laws'?
Shortly after the abolition of hanging in the UK 2 known criminals illegally acquired a pistol + ammunition, illegally carried it around and illegally shot and killed a policeman. The govts response was to bring in shotgun licences
is it geekwitha .45 who likes to say "gun control is something you do instead of doing something"?
(No, that's SayUncle - Ed.)
We can't have a billion dollar industry (pharmeceuticals) threatened now, can we?
I have to say, I was not expecting Mark's deep, dark, murderous conspiracy (du jour) to be the Pharmas at the root.
(I expected one, because, there's always a conspiracy behind his thinking... that is, if you know the right questions to ask. Just not that conspiracy.)
So, this piece begs the question...what if guns were allowed in schools and people chose not to carry one? Would that person be a moron? Is anyone that choses not to arm themselves stupid?
Mark, as noted in the piece, 97-99% of the eligible population chooses not to get a CCW permit in the first place. In 2006 there were approximately 836,000 sworn full-time police officers in the U.S. according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Approximately 70% of those are "field" officers, as opposed to desk officers, so that brings the number down to about 585,000. Split by three shifts, and you get about 200,000 officers "on the street" at any particular time.
Divide that up among a population of 300,000,000 and there is one cop for every 1,500 of us. Obviously we don't have a uniform distribution of either population or police officers, but still, you can see why police officers so seldom prevent or stop a crime in progress, they show up afterwards usually to take a report.
"Most Americans," Mark, don't think about it. Many do, and weigh the odds of needing a firearm against the irritation and responsibility of actually carrying one, and decide that they like their chances. (And carrying a firearm is a pain in the ass.) I'm OK with that. It's called rational decision-making. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Some people are like Barry - terrified of the responsibility and convinced that they are not mature and competent enough to be trusted with a firearm. I'm OK with that, too so long as they do not work to deny me the right to choose for myself.
Consciously choosing not to carry is not a mark of stupidity. Not considering the question is, however.
As noted above, there are about 836,000 sworn officers in the U.S. - that's about 0.3% of the total population. If 1% of the general adult population (which the CDC estimates at about 210,000,000) chose to carry concealed, an additional 2.1 million people would be out there, armed in defense of themselves and (one would hope) their neighbors.
Out of every 100 teachers and administrators, one would probably be armed, familiar with the school and staff, and on site if anything should happen that would require armed response - because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
It's not stupid to decide to go unarmed in this world, Markadelphia. It IS stupid (and in my view, evil) to deny people the CHOICE.
"To know that I carried an instrument of sure and certain death on my person, "
I trained in some martial arts in my younger days. I always have a lethal weapon on me. But, I'm not stupid enough to bring an elbow strike to a gun fight.
I'm not armed because I'm paranoid, I'm armed because I'm a realist. Unless you live in a very unusual area, individual crime will be way down the list of problems to prepare for. That's why you do all the other things first. First aid kits, insurance etc. Then buy your carry piece.
What I have a difficult time understanding is the liberal attitude. A good many of them will work down the same type of list until they get to the point of self defense and then their minds sort of go bugga bugga and refuse to deal with reality. Projection of their own insecurities is probably part of it, but I'm still trying to understand it. I think my mind just works so differently than most liberals we are almost different species.
There needs to be a serious examination of SSRIs and what they do to people. Let's see if it comes out that both of these recent shootings had them involved. I bet they do and I bet you won't hear about it in the MSM. We can't have a billion dollar industry (pharmeceuticals) threatened now, can we? - Markadelphia
I have to say, I was not expecting Mark's deep, dark, murderous conspiracy (du jour) to be the Pharmas at the root.
(I expected one, because, there's always a conspiracy behind his thinking... that is, if you know the right questions to ask. Just not that conspiracy.) - Unix Jedi
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by human stupidity.
In this case I agree that antidepressants are quite probably involved (perhaps not in the domestic violence cases, but in Missouri I would not be at all surprised). I'm convinced that they have contributed to the overwhelming majority of the school shooting cases involving young perpetrators.
Why don't we hear about it? I don't think it's because the pharmaceutical companies are paying off the media companies, it's because the "media template" has been in place since the 1960's - the number of guns is at fault, nothing else, and the "gun lobby" stands in the way of "common-sense gun control."
You aren't going to turn that behemoth quickly, no matter what you try.
Kevin:
Oh, I'm not in favor of SSRIs.
But I don't blame big pharma for 'em. There's a huge demand - and more and more people want more of them.
Sure, they push them, and I think some of their efforts are less than savory at times.
But where Mark comes in as SshhH! Conspiracy! They can't know we've told you!, you're looking at it much more logically.
What Mark's not considered, but I bet you have: so what then do you do? Go on an SSRI, and lose your civil rights? Maybe should be locked up in an asylum again? You and I know that's not likely. But Mark's not considered the "next step", he just throws those sorts of barbs around.
The "conspiracy" is nothing of the sort. Every SSRI I'm aware of has somebody I know who say it makes all the difference. As well as someone who says it didn't do a thing, or made them worse.
In the worst cases? Doctors prescribe to keep patients happy - many of whom want a pill/excuse. Patients demand the drugs to avoid having to come to grips with their own mind.
Pharma companies research what the problems are, and try and bring out solutions. There's a long way to go - obviously We don't understand all the ramifications of changing 1 variable.
But for every massive screwup... There's also something to admire about big Corporations.
Anyway, SSRI or not, the problem is that this person felt slighted, and felt the need to go revenge himself.
The problem ultimately lies with that individual. Not corporate conspiracy, not Rovian mind-rays, not "systems". The root cause was one person decided to kill others.
We've never found a "cure" to that, other than being prepared to kill someone so deranged.
The root cause was one person decided to kill others.
Yes, but the evidence seems to indicate that SSRIs reduce normal inhibitions against doing things like suicide and mass-murder. I've seen it described as "not making the thoughts go away, but making the fear of the consequences go away."
I think that if some clinical conclusion were reached concerning that, SSRI usage would decrease, or at least doctors, patients, and families would know to look out for such symptoms.
However, there is no pressure for such study because, as we all know, the guns are at fault.
Of course the pharmaceutical companies don't want to hear this. They didn't want to hear about the possible side-effects of Thalidomide, either. But, unlike Markadelphia, I don't think that makes them evil.
However, there is no pressure for such study because, as we all know, the guns are at fault.
Plus, if we can find a pill that'll fix it, or a drug that handles that side effect, we can prescribe it. And bill for it. And demand legislation for it for free, etc. etc.
I think this is an indicator, a weathervane for the failure of the Individual Culture. Something people'll look back on later and say "Yeah, it was obvious here", and we'll say "At the time, not so obvious."
Yeah, lots easier to go after the guns. To do otherwise endangers the Perfect Society.
Just to add my two cents:
Paradoxically, in my experience, most people seem to know if they are not responsible enough to own a firearm or not (granted, none of them are young and stupid. Old and stupid perhaps, but not young and stupid).
I can think of several people I know whom have passed on the opportunity because they don't believe they're responsible enough. All of them are law abiding. They just don't want the responsibility.
Fair enough. But just b/c someone refuse responsibility for their own safety is no excuse for them to impose such limitations on the rest of us.
On trust:
I trust most people to be complete idiots, and I don't trust that CCW seekers and holders are necessarily any better because they recognize the potential necessity.
The reason I still favor concealed-carry is that I trust them to retain the basic inhibition against committing murder that normal civilized people have inculcated in them from birth and predators have lost. The reason police have higher rates of accidental homicide than CCW holders is that that basic internal hesitation has been eroded by constant contact with people that genuinely want to and will try to hurt or kill them.
Carrying a gun doesn't make you any more likely to "shoot at shadows" than carrying a knife makes you to stab at them or carrying martial-arts training makes you to kick at them. The reluctance or eagerness to kill does not recognize instrument.
LabRat:
Basically, people either understand there will be consequences for their actions (law abiding), or they don't (criminals)?
Seems about right.
The reason police have higher rates of accidental homicide than CCW holders is that that basic internal hesitation has been eroded by constant contact with people that genuinely want to and will try to hurt or kill them.
Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that they are required to walk into situations where they don't know who may or may not be a "bad guy," rather than the situation most civilian defenders are in where the person perpetrating a crime is pretty damned obvious.
I can't believe that you're stilling referencing that post of mine four years later, and even more so continue to misunderstand when I spoke about radiation, I was speaking metaphorically.
But still, four years ago, let it go man...
Kevin: Fair point, but I think we're both right.
At the time I wrote that, I was thinking back specifically on the Amadou Diallo shooting, in which the police in question shot an unarmed man multiple times, when they had not specifically been called to the scene. (They thought he resembled a serial rapist that had been reported in the area.) They reported seeing him draw a gun- actually his wallet- and some of them reported seeing the gun. I actually have no question that this was so; the kinds of tricks the mind plays under conditions of high arousal and and expectation are well-documented. However, the way a police officer looking for a rapist somewhere in the neighborhood would have interpreted the man's actions- turning to look at the police cruiser, stepping back, and reaching for his wallet to pull out his ID- and the way a civilian who just happened to be there would, are two very different animals.
Barry - Do you feel any different today? Do you think that if you held a gun you'd kill someone? You have the power to kill your neighbors quite easily. A knife across the throat, a little anti-freeze in a glass, some gasoline and matches, or you could just run over them with your car.
Why is a gun is different? Because 270,000,000 firearms in the US alone would indicate that if people generally felt like you, we'd have a population of about 3 to 4.
So, unless you've changed your tune, why should we drop it? You clearly indicate the gun would give you the urge to kill someone else as if it's the gun's fault and not yours. What's different now?
Sorry, Barry, but your initial comment was archetypal for the anti-gun side, and I have yet to find another person to...
...unmask himself so.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
"most Americans, unlike Israelis,..."
Sounds like someone's never been to Israel. I would venture to say the poster hasn't even done much travelling inside the US, let alone outside.
No disrespect, but you should know better than to make sweeping generalizations. Different cultures definitely have their peculiarities, but it seems to me it's just like the genders: we have more similarities than we do differences. People are people, and that holds true pretty much across the board.
Barry, I'm confident you could safely carry a loaded gun every day and never have a problem. After all, you drive a car (and perhaps even talk on the phone while doing so) with probably only a few mishaps. And the numbers will back me up that guns are much safer than cars--not just in total deaths, but also in number of accidents.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>