Since about 1980 there have been almost regular mass shooting and every time they scream GUNS GUNS GUNS! We need to get rid of all those nasty looking ,scary guns!
Have you ever read the label on a bottle of Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, Effexor, Prozac, or Wellbutren where they mentions side effects of thoughts of suicide well they fail to mention those same thoughts are of HOMICIDE as well. But then I don't know many people that would willingly take a pill that caused thoughts of homicide so that's left out of the FDA labeling.
Almost without exception ALL of these mass murderers have been on Anti-depressants or taken themselves off of them shortly before their crimes. Those drug warning labels also state that stopping use may cause those same thoughts of suicide (or homicide).
But it's so much easier to see and blame the inanimate object (see SCARY gun) as the cause and not some tiny little pill. and a failed mental health system that is messing and guessing about brain chemistry without a shred of knowledge of what they are doing. There is no lab test, scan or imaging device that can check or measure brain chemical activity, or mental illness, yet they happily will give anyone drugs that alter (often permanently) the brains processes.
I've seen it happen to more than once. One case, a friend that ended up bummed out, got put on antidepressants, had them changed over and over, recombined with others and within two years she was dead. The boundary between real time reality and dream time had collapsed and she committed suicide. I suspect it was going to be a murder/suicide but I wasn't able to go see her when she called to ask me over an hour before the act. The note said she wished she could take ME with her. She probably would have if I had gone to see her.
So if you really want to throw blame don't direct it towards the high capacity AR-15, it didn't all of a sudden decide to kill a bunch of innocent people, Look at Phizer, Lily, and other big Pharma that has carefully shielded themselves from suspicion and a mental health system that fails to identify sick individuals and is incapable of properly treating or institutionalizing them.
And if you still want to blame the gun, just look up the kindergarten and school killings in China over the last few years and their death tolls, all done with knives, cleavers, and other sharp things.
IT"S NOT THE TOOL, BUT SOCIETY THAT'S CHANGED!
'
Have you ever read the label on a bottle of Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, Effexor, Prozac, or Wellbutren where they mentions side effects of thoughts of suicide well they fail to mention those same thoughts are of HOMICIDE as well. But then I don't know many people that would willingly take a pill that caused thoughts of homicide so that's left out of the FDA labeling.
Almost without exception ALL of these mass murderers have been on Anti-depressants or taken themselves off of them shortly before their crimes. Those drug warning labels also state that stopping use may cause those same thoughts of suicide (or homicide).
But it's so much easier to see and blame the inanimate object (see SCARY gun) as the cause and not some tiny little pill. and a failed mental health system that is messing and guessing about brain chemistry without a shred of knowledge of what they are doing. There is no lab test, scan or imaging device that can check or measure brain chemical activity, or mental illness, yet they happily will give anyone drugs that alter (often permanently) the brains processes.
I've seen it happen to more than once. One case, a friend that ended up bummed out, got put on antidepressants, had them changed over and over, recombined with others and within two years she was dead. The boundary between real time reality and dream time had collapsed and she committed suicide. I suspect it was going to be a murder/suicide but I wasn't able to go see her when she called to ask me over an hour before the act. The note said she wished she could take ME with her. She probably would have if I had gone to see her.
So if you really want to throw blame don't direct it towards the high capacity AR-15, it didn't all of a sudden decide to kill a bunch of innocent people, Look at Phizer, Lily, and other big Pharma that has carefully shielded themselves from suspicion and a mental health system that fails to identify sick individuals and is incapable of properly treating or institutionalizing them.
And if you still want to blame the gun, just look up the kindergarten and school killings in China over the last few years and their death tolls, all done with knives, cleavers, and other sharp things.
IT"S NOT THE TOOL, BUT SOCIETY THAT'S CHANGED!
'
I don't agree. I think taking the tool and the anti-depressants away, is the better solution. Civilians don't need military weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee them. Not all shootings are caused by anti-depressants. In fact a lot of mass shootings are committed by sociopaths, crimes of passion etc. Taking an unnecessary deadly weapon, that can deal death at a high rate of speed, away from the equation, is mathematically logical. Less guns = less deaths. We're never going to take it all away, but we sure as hell can make a dent. 
"So if you really want to throw blame don't direct it towards the high capacity AR-15, it didn't all of a sudden decide to kill a bunch of innocent people..."
That argument doesn't cut it. The psycho squeezing the trigger on that high-capacity AR-15, had it made available to him easily, because of current gun laws. Quoting the NRA propaganda isn't the answer. We need to rid our society of the psychos and the weapons. It's not a one or the other solution. We need to be rid of both. These weapons don't belong in the hands of our public. There is no need for them.
"So if you really want to throw blame don't direct it towards the high capacity AR-15, it didn't all of a sudden decide to kill a bunch of innocent people..."
That argument doesn't cut it. The psycho squeezing the trigger on that high-capacity AR-15, had it made available to him easily, because of current gun laws. Quoting the NRA propaganda isn't the answer. We need to rid our society of the psychos and the weapons. It's not a one or the other solution. We need to be rid of both. These weapons don't belong in the hands of our public. There is no need for them.
As one of those 1-2 million of people a year who have used a firearm to PREVENT a violent life threatening assault BEFORE it turned deadly, I beg to differ on there being no need for firearms in the hands of honest people.
OH and contrary to what the media might lead you to believe, a semi automatic rifle is NOT a military weapon! Cosmetics vs. function, big difference. AND the 2nd amendment to the constitution absolutely guarantees firearms to the individual. The supreme court has already cleared that one up.
Here are a few facts to think about:
In 1960 with a population of just under 180 million, the over all homicide rate was 5.1 per 100,000 and remained in the 5 per 100,000 range until 1966
1968 National Firearms Act passed.
Homicide rate climbs to 9.6 per 100,00 by 1975. The peak being 10.2 in 1980
Now as of 2011 with a population of over 311 million the homicide rate is down to 4.7 per 100,000.
The most steady decline occurring since 1996. A lower rate than in 1960 and that's including suicide as those are counted as homicides as well as murders in the U.S.
But when Antidepressants are involved in the majority of murders and suicides regardless of method,
one has to ask if the causal factors might not be the availability of the black scary looking thing but the tinny little prescribed ones that changes the way you think and behave. And with no knowledge of what those thoughts or behaviors might become when brain chemistry is changed I might add. What works for one can mess up another. Combine that with a mix and match approach by drug reps(Dr.) Along with a mental health system that mostly prescribes and prays and what you see is what you get.
It wouldn't be difficult to hook the pharmaceutical computer network up to the instant background check (which actually may have had some effect) and deny sales to those on any antidepressant type drug along with the felons, and other currently restricted people.
This is only one side of the bigger picture.
The crux of the issue is the state of the culture. there are countries with much more restrictive gun laws that have much higher homicide rates than the U.S. such as Mexico and other countries like Sweden that have very high gun ownership (including Fully Automatic selective fire REAL assault weapons)and a mere fraction our murder rate.
What's the biggest difference between the two? EDUCATION!!!!! Weather it's education about guns or education in general, the societies that have the highest level of education have the lower rates of violence.
OH and contrary to what the media might lead you to believe, a semi automatic rifle is NOT a military weapon! Cosmetics vs. function, big difference. AND the 2nd amendment to the constitution absolutely guarantees firearms to the individual. The supreme court has already cleared that one up.
Here are a few facts to think about:
In 1960 with a population of just under 180 million, the over all homicide rate was 5.1 per 100,000 and remained in the 5 per 100,000 range until 1966
1968 National Firearms Act passed.
Homicide rate climbs to 9.6 per 100,00 by 1975. The peak being 10.2 in 1980
Now as of 2011 with a population of over 311 million the homicide rate is down to 4.7 per 100,000.
The most steady decline occurring since 1996. A lower rate than in 1960 and that's including suicide as those are counted as homicides as well as murders in the U.S.
But when Antidepressants are involved in the majority of murders and suicides regardless of method,
one has to ask if the causal factors might not be the availability of the black scary looking thing but the tinny little prescribed ones that changes the way you think and behave. And with no knowledge of what those thoughts or behaviors might become when brain chemistry is changed I might add. What works for one can mess up another. Combine that with a mix and match approach by drug reps(Dr.) Along with a mental health system that mostly prescribes and prays and what you see is what you get.
It wouldn't be difficult to hook the pharmaceutical computer network up to the instant background check (which actually may have had some effect) and deny sales to those on any antidepressant type drug along with the felons, and other currently restricted people.
This is only one side of the bigger picture.
The crux of the issue is the state of the culture. there are countries with much more restrictive gun laws that have much higher homicide rates than the U.S. such as Mexico and other countries like Sweden that have very high gun ownership (including Fully Automatic selective fire REAL assault weapons)and a mere fraction our murder rate.
What's the biggest difference between the two? EDUCATION!!!!! Weather it's education about guns or education in general, the societies that have the highest level of education have the lower rates of violence.
Let me first answer, "Brain Chemistry or Guns?"... I say both. It's not "either or" both issues affect our current situation. Also, semi-automatic or military semi-automatic. I am not making a cosmetic distinction. I am saying ALL semi-autos. There is absolutely no need for a semi-automatic weapon to defend your home. A shotgun will do just fine. In fact it's proven to be the best home defense weapon. Since it doesn't travel through walls, has a wide kill zone and has a very distinctive sound when charging.
You wrote that you're part of the 1-2 million people involved in a situation that requires a gun. That's actually not even a valid number. That comes from a survey/poll in Florida explained in the link below. The magic number was actually 2.5 Million, which involved 222 respondents. Even if we were to except this BS propaganda as truth 2,500,000 of 311,591,917. There are 124.64 times as many people that are not defending themselves against crimes that would require gun defense. That makes you the extreme minority still, though I would hardly buy the 2.5 million projection from a 222 respondent survey. It's propaganda and fearmongering.
http://propagandaprofessor.net/2012/02/11/make-my-day-mention-gun-defense-statistics/
If you've had to defend your home or person/others with a gun, you are the extreme exception and not the rule. These numbers do no come from the media, but ATF, FBI and Public Safety Divisions around the country. Worldwide numbers come from their respective countries. We lead the civilized world (G3 countries) in the amount of weapons and the amount of deaths caused by them. They do NOT make our citizens safer. In fact, contrarily, more innocent life is taken on average every year, than justified criminal shoots by firearms legally owned by citizens.
The average citizen has more of a chance of being struck by lightning, than being involved in a situation where a gun is needed to save their life. To flood our country with guns, that can be stolen and used by criminals IS NOT THE ANSWER.
"EDUCATION", this is where we agree. Educating oneself can be a difficult thing in a country that is full of corporations, like gun manufacturers and "Big Pharm" with lobbyists that spread propaganda to sell their products. Fearmongering is a useful tool. Americans are notorious for running out and getting themselves inoculated for swine flu, going to war and stocking up on supplies because they think the world will go into chaos because of what the media says (Y2K).
Here's an example:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/24/157281714/gun-sales-are-up-sharply-in-colorado-since-theater-shootings
I am not saying that you should lose your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Have all the bolt-action and pump action weapons you want in your home. Go for it. You just don't need semi-autos. The risk to the average citizen doesn't justify them. It's a simple risks and benefits analysis. We can't very well take the 2nd Amendment at it's open-ended meaning, else everyone would be allowed to own tanks, anti-tank weapons, missiles etc. So we had to have the supreme court narrow things down. What is acceptable "arms" for the citizenry is the question. It's not the individualized case, as with yours, that dictates our country's law, but the majority. The majority aren't in situations that require a firearm to defend themselves.
With respect to disinformation regarding countries and fire arms. I will start with Sweden, who has very strict gun laws.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden
"In Sweden, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted only with special authorization"
"In Sweden, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence, in some cases, but not for the protection of person or property"
With respect to Mexico. Mexico is not a developed G3 country with standardized law enforcement. In fact most of the police are under the employ of drug cartels. Let's talk about (aboot) Canada. The have nearly 1/4 our firearm deaths/crimes and "In Canada, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law",
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada
In Canada, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, except those registered before 197850, handguns with a barrel of 105mm or less in length, and specifically modified handguns, rifles or shotguns51
Compare
Regulation of Automatic Assault Weapons
In Canada, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited, except those registered before 197850 51
Compare
Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Weapons
In Canada, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited with only narrow exemptions52 50 51
Compare
Regulation of Handguns
In Canada, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted, with an authorization to carry50 51 53 54
I do agree with you in respect to anti-depressants. We need to further restrict those with mental issues. I think it's a combination of the two. We definitely need to restrict the type of firearms and where they can be carried. We don't need a bunch of gun-packing citzens on the streets because and isolated tragedy. While these public shootings have increased, they are still VERY VERY rare in comparison to the amount of people haven't been involved in them. We lead the pack in the developed countries with respect to the amount of gun ownership (we have the most guns per capita) and gun murders/gun crimes, per capita. Having more guns is not the answer. More police and stricter control is. Let's spend less on arming untrained civilians and more on arming trained professionals and tightly regulating those who can own those weapons we do permit.
Let me also state that the "homicide rate trends" you posted are not relevant, as they are speaking of homicide as a whole and there is no direct correlating data that links the decline of homicide as whole to civilian gun ownership. There are much more relevant factors like economy, police and medical technology etc. We still lead the developed world and rank in the top ten for the total world in gun related homicide and crime.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Here are some unbiased EDUCATION links straight from the .gov and .edu among others. Feel free to scrutinize the non-gov/edu links:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/
"The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000)."
http://www.vpc.org/studies/moreguns.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/pdf/0921988.pdf
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-car-fatalities-people-516/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1294.pdf
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/12/what-perplexes-me-about-gun-deaths-in-the-usa/
http://aphyr.com/posts/261-firearm-homicides-vs-gun-prevalence
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/gun-murders-vs-gini-coefficient
Stolen guns:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf
Safer Carrying?
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
Interesting topic.
D
You wrote that you're part of the 1-2 million people involved in a situation that requires a gun. That's actually not even a valid number. That comes from a survey/poll in Florida explained in the link below. The magic number was actually 2.5 Million, which involved 222 respondents. Even if we were to except this BS propaganda as truth 2,500,000 of 311,591,917. There are 124.64 times as many people that are not defending themselves against crimes that would require gun defense. That makes you the extreme minority still, though I would hardly buy the 2.5 million projection from a 222 respondent survey. It's propaganda and fearmongering.
http://propagandaprofessor.net/2012/02/11/make-my-day-mention-gun-defense-statistics/
If you've had to defend your home or person/others with a gun, you are the extreme exception and not the rule. These numbers do no come from the media, but ATF, FBI and Public Safety Divisions around the country. Worldwide numbers come from their respective countries. We lead the civilized world (G3 countries) in the amount of weapons and the amount of deaths caused by them. They do NOT make our citizens safer. In fact, contrarily, more innocent life is taken on average every year, than justified criminal shoots by firearms legally owned by citizens.
The average citizen has more of a chance of being struck by lightning, than being involved in a situation where a gun is needed to save their life. To flood our country with guns, that can be stolen and used by criminals IS NOT THE ANSWER.
"EDUCATION", this is where we agree. Educating oneself can be a difficult thing in a country that is full of corporations, like gun manufacturers and "Big Pharm" with lobbyists that spread propaganda to sell their products. Fearmongering is a useful tool. Americans are notorious for running out and getting themselves inoculated for swine flu, going to war and stocking up on supplies because they think the world will go into chaos because of what the media says (Y2K).
Here's an example:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/24/157281714/gun-sales-are-up-sharply-in-colorado-since-theater-shootings
I am not saying that you should lose your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Have all the bolt-action and pump action weapons you want in your home. Go for it. You just don't need semi-autos. The risk to the average citizen doesn't justify them. It's a simple risks and benefits analysis. We can't very well take the 2nd Amendment at it's open-ended meaning, else everyone would be allowed to own tanks, anti-tank weapons, missiles etc. So we had to have the supreme court narrow things down. What is acceptable "arms" for the citizenry is the question. It's not the individualized case, as with yours, that dictates our country's law, but the majority. The majority aren't in situations that require a firearm to defend themselves.
With respect to disinformation regarding countries and fire arms. I will start with Sweden, who has very strict gun laws.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden
"In Sweden, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted only with special authorization"
"In Sweden, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence, in some cases, but not for the protection of person or property"
With respect to Mexico. Mexico is not a developed G3 country with standardized law enforcement. In fact most of the police are under the employ of drug cartels. Let's talk about (aboot) Canada. The have nearly 1/4 our firearm deaths/crimes and "In Canada, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law",
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada
In Canada, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, except those registered before 197850, handguns with a barrel of 105mm or less in length, and specifically modified handguns, rifles or shotguns51
Compare
Regulation of Automatic Assault Weapons
In Canada, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited, except those registered before 197850 51
Compare
Regulation of Semiautomatic Assault Weapons
In Canada, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited with only narrow exemptions52 50 51
Compare
Regulation of Handguns
In Canada, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted, with an authorization to carry50 51 53 54
I do agree with you in respect to anti-depressants. We need to further restrict those with mental issues. I think it's a combination of the two. We definitely need to restrict the type of firearms and where they can be carried. We don't need a bunch of gun-packing citzens on the streets because and isolated tragedy. While these public shootings have increased, they are still VERY VERY rare in comparison to the amount of people haven't been involved in them. We lead the pack in the developed countries with respect to the amount of gun ownership (we have the most guns per capita) and gun murders/gun crimes, per capita. Having more guns is not the answer. More police and stricter control is. Let's spend less on arming untrained civilians and more on arming trained professionals and tightly regulating those who can own those weapons we do permit.
Let me also state that the "homicide rate trends" you posted are not relevant, as they are speaking of homicide as a whole and there is no direct correlating data that links the decline of homicide as whole to civilian gun ownership. There are much more relevant factors like economy, police and medical technology etc. We still lead the developed world and rank in the top ten for the total world in gun related homicide and crime.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
Here are some unbiased EDUCATION links straight from the .gov and .edu among others. Feel free to scrutinize the non-gov/edu links:
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/
"The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000)."
http://www.vpc.org/studies/moreguns.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/pdf/0921988.pdf
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-car-fatalities-people-516/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/1294.pdf
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/12/what-perplexes-me-about-gun-deaths-in-the-usa/
http://aphyr.com/posts/261-firearm-homicides-vs-gun-prevalence
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/gun-murders-vs-gini-coefficient
Stolen guns:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf
Safer Carrying?
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099
Interesting topic.
D