Better "stock" up boys

[AustinL911]

Not sorry but kids shouldn't get mowed down at school, worshippers shouldn't get shot at church, concert goers shouldn't get killed in the streets of Vegas.

None of those should happen, but they do. We need to wake up and find a solution. Let's start with the kids since society deems them to be the most precious. Not guarding the schools because you don't want your kid subjected to that reality doesn't change the reality. It's the world we live in now; adapt.

I drive through a school zone every morning on my way to work. The school sits on a corner. On both streets, there's a police officer in his/her car every morning waiting to bust people as they might speed through school zone. How about we not waste our time with that type of horseshit and stand them at the front doors instead?

 

[elkduds]

Uh, the facts are well documented sir. And the only one that stands to profit are those pushing mass medication. Might want to do some research.

School Shooters & Stabbings Committed by those on Psychiatric Drugs | CCHR International

Every Mass Shooting Shares 1 Thing In Common, NOT Guns

Another Mass Shooting Potentially Linked to Psychiatric Drugs | Markets Insider

School Shootings: Mental Health Watchdog Says Psychotropic Drug Use by School Shooters Merits Federal Investigation | Markets Insider

We used to laugh about religious and other decriers of MH meds as the cause of mental illness and violence, like those you linked above. To see you inject that into this discussion reminds me how dangerous, not funny, deniers of fact and science are in this uninformed age. I've done some research on the topic, starting in college 40 years ago and continuing in my daily clinical mental health practice. Yesterday I treated 8 patients who depend on MH meds and or therapy to keep them in emotional control and give them some quality of life. All would take issue w your "internet education" on the topic, which is life-and-death to many of them. Each of my 200+ patients is pursuing mental health treatment voluntarily.

One thing missing from your and most other posts on this thread is in-depth research on the topics of opinion. Remember, 90% of an iceberg is not visible from the ocean surface. Human lives and minds are far more complex than ice floating in water. To pass off the problems of others because you don't care to understand them does not make the problems go away- that is the stigma against mental health treatment. It is one reason why we have yet to solve the mass-shooter disasters being discussed here. This is a people problem, violence and laws are just symptoms.

 

[Kevin Dill]

Regarding Parkland and other school shootings: It seems blatantly obvious the immediate discussion should be how to protect children from being killed in our schools. Period. This HAS to be the starting point and all the resulting strategies must come from that premise. Gun control measures...even if enacted swiftly...would not help prevent mass killings for many, many months and more likely years. If your child or grandchild was going to school and you firmly believed their school would be targeted in the next year...what measures would you apply first? What ONE thing would have the greatest benefit to their safety? Your answer must be reasonable and achievable in terms of practicality and funding.

I'll answer it for you. Shooters and criminals must not get inside a school and have access to our unprotected children. Keep the would-be shooter OUT...keep guns OUT... and you eliminate in-school shootings like Parkview. You don't need an armed militia walking the halls. Teachers don't need to all be combat-shooters. Having a good guy-bad guy shootout inside a school is preposterous except as a final strategy. The first line of defense is exclusion by force. A gunman can't shoot up a classroom if they can't get there. It's a hell of a lot easier to prevent a murder than it is to stop one in-progress.

Both damn sides of this political gun-control argument ought to quit pissing over their respective agendas and come up with a brand-new urgent one. How can we immediately protect our children...right now...from a mass murderer trying to kill them in school? Read the quote below:

Here in no where SD where I live our kids grade school has secured entry. Very simple system. All of the doors to the school are locked at all times. If you want in you go to the front door and ring a bell. You are on camera and the office people can see you from windows. You have to state your name and why you are there. They then buzz you in. You walk into an entryway with two sets of doors. The doors that go into the school are locked, you can't go into the school. There is another door to the side that goes directly into the office, you have to go through this door directly into the office before you can get into the school. Simple and effective.

 

[gelton]

We used to laugh about religious and other decriers of MH meds as the cause of mental illness and violence, like those you linked above. To see you inject that into this discussion reminds me how dangerous, not funny, deniers of fact and science are in this uninformed age. I've done some research on the topic, starting in college 40 years ago and continuing in my daily clinical mental health practice. Yesterday I treated 8 patients who depend on MH meds and or therapy to keep them in emotional control and give them some quality of life. All would take issue w your "internet education" on the topic, which is life-and-death to many of them. Each of my 200+ patients is pursuing mental health treatment voluntarily.

One thing missing from your and most other posts on this thread is in-depth research on the topics of opinion. Remember, 90% of an iceberg is not visible from the ocean surface. Human lives and minds are far more complex than ice floating in water. To pass off the problems of others because you don't care to understand them does not make the problems go away- that is the stigma against mental health treatment. It is one reason why we have yet to solve the mass-shooter disasters being discussed here. This is a people problem, violence and laws are just symptoms.

Oh so the "profit" motive is more clear now. So instead of talking down to my "internet education" how about dissecting the facts in the articles? And the Canadian study about inmates. Or better yet show how medicating people keeps them from having violent tendencies. Or even further post the inserts to the meds you are prescribing. What do those inserts have to say about it?

Here are just some of the warnings those inserts contain - Psychotropic Drugs and Violence Studies and Warnings | CCHR International

 

[Tod osier]

Regarding Parkview and other school shootings: It seems blatantly obvious the immediate discussion should be how to protect children from being killed in our schools. Period. This HAS to be the starting point and all the resulting strategies must come from that premise. Gun control measures...even if enacted swiftly...would not help prevent mass killings for many, many months and more likely years. If your child or grandchild was going to school and you firmly believed their school would be targeted in the next year...what measures would you apply first? What ONE thing would have the greatest benefit to their safety? Your answer must be reasonable and achievable in terms of practicality and funding.

I'll answer it for you. Shooters and criminals must not get inside a school and have access to our unprotected children. Keep the would-be shooter OUT...keep guns OUT... and you eliminate in-school shootings like Parkview. You don't need an armed militia walking the halls. Teachers don't need to all be combat-shooters. Having a good guy-bad guy shootout inside a school is preposterous except as a final strategy. The first line of defense is exclusion by force. A gunman can't shoot up a classroom if they can't get there. It's a hell of a lot easier to prevent a murder than it is to stop one in-progress.

Both damn sides of this political gun-control argument ought to quit pissing over their respective agendas and come up with a brand-new urgent one. How can we immediately protect our children...right now...from a mass murderer trying to kill them in school? Read the quote below:

I don't disagree, but Lanza was locked out, he shot his way in. Schools frequently have ground level windows, they are hard to seriously toughen up against an attack.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Kevin I agree but as you probably know but school funding is pretty limited. In many towns across the country it's hard enough to pass a levy to increase school funding, which means fewer materials, higher student/teacher ratios and definitely fewer resources for mental health. I believe in our school district of around 10K students we have 2 psychologists. So lacking legalization of the devil's lettuce or other alternative funding streams, shooter-proofing all of our nations schools isn't feasible.

 

[jmez]

Post a link to the Canadian "study." That chart tells you nothing. You haven't posted any studies or facts. Those are all articles written for mainstream publication. Those aren't facts and they aren't scientific studies. Big difference.

 

[jmez]

Kevin I agree but as you probably know but school funding is pretty limited. In many towns across the country it's hard enough to pass a levy to increase school funding, which means fewer materials, higher student/teacher ratios and definitely fewer resources for mental health. I believe in our school district of around 10K students we have 2 psychologists. So lacking legalization of the devil's lettuce or other alternative funding streams, shooter-proofing all of our nations schools isn't feasible.

How much money is going to be donated/spent over the next month by both sides of the gun control debate? I'd bet enough to shooter proof a whole lot of schools.

 

[541hunter]

Let's take a step back. I would argue that it is currently harder for most to access a firearm than it was say 50 years ago, due too expanding gun control legislation. Yet it seems that events like these have increased in frequency ( I have no proof either way on this statement, just an observation). So despite increased control, the events are still happening and potentially more frequently. I ask that we analyze what has changed between now and then. We form a hypothesis, test it and evaluate it. Banning something is just appease a certain demographic and history has shown that it does absolutely nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rmauch20]

I will start this by saying I don’t care if if the “ gun show loophole” Is open or closed. Please explain to me how restricting private sales of firearms would’ve stopped any of the recent mass shootings. Most of the mass shootings that come to mind Sandyhook, Virginia tech, Pulse, and the most recent all the firearms Were purchased through an FFL and all background checks were passed. It wouldn’t of made any difference whether the gun show loophole is open or closed.Do you really think closing the gun show loophole would make a difference in Chicago or Baltimore?

Something to keep in mind as well. Columbine happened during the assault weapons ban. It didn’t change or stop anything. And to date the deadliest school shooting ,Virginia tech, two hand guns were used.

Just for the sake of argument, i’ll use Sandyhook as an example. Let’s just say assault weapons ban had been continued. Basically meaning you cannot purchase an AR 15. Instead Mrs. Lanza purchased a Ruger Mini 14 which was still available during the ban. Lanza Still murders his mother and instead of an AR 15 he shows up with a Ruger Mini 14 that day, how would the outcome any different?

 

[Murdy]

Let's take a step back. I would argue that it is currently harder for most to access a firearm than it was say 50 years ago, due too expanding gun control legislation. Yet it seems that events like these have increased in frequency ( I have no proof either way on this statement, just an observation). So despite increased control, the events are still happening and potentially more frequently. I ask that we analyze what has changed between now and then.

I agree with your observations and have frequently pondered this myself. When I was a child, we and all our neighbors had guns all over our houses, and we had pretty much free access to them. I would walk down to the neighbor's house to catch the school bus. Right inside the door to the house, which was never locked, sat a loaded 12 gauge, that was there to shoot rabbits in the garden and other pests. We walked right past it for years on our way to the bus.

A hypothesis: We had adults around most of the time when I was young (most often, mothers). Some where along the way, the single wage-earner family died and it became economically necessary for both parents to work to provide for the family. Kids aren't being raised the same way. That, unfortunately, is a lot harder problem to fix.

 

[IdahoElk]

Let's take a step back. I would argue that it is currently harder for most to access a firearm than it was say 50 years ago, due too expanding gun control legislation. Yet it seems that events like these have increased in frequency ( I have no proof either way on this statement, just an observation). So despite increased control, the events are still happening and potentially more frequently. I ask that we analyze what has changed between now and then. .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Breakdown of the two parent family,kids not having a moral or ethical compass due to lack of parental involvement or guidance,kids/society being over medicated,lack of God in today's families.

 

[IdahoElk]

I agree with your observations and have frequently pondered this myself. When I was a child, we and all our neighbors had guns all over our houses, and we had pretty much free access to them. I would walk down to the neighbor's house to catch the school bus. Right inside the door to the house, which was never locked, sat a loaded 12 gauge, that was there to shoot rabbits in the garden and other pests. We walked right past it for years on our way to the bus.

A hypothesis: We had adults around most of the time when I was young (most often, mothers). Some where along the way, the single wage-earner family died and it became economically necessary for both parents to work to provide for the family. Kids aren't being raised the same way. That, unfortunately, is a lot harder problem to fix.

Yes it is a hard fix but everything being done has been a band aid to dealing with our very sick society.
Go make our schools essentially a armed prison,the violence will continue to get worse,guaranteed.

 

[cerec_cat]

Instead of building a wall, why not use that money to fortify and protect the schools

 

[gelton]

Yes it is a hard fix but everything being done has been a band aid to dealing with our very sick society.
Go make our schools essentially a armed prison,the violence will continue to get worse,guaranteed.

I might not agree to your larger point but I do agree about schools being an armed prison isnt the answer. Armed yes, but prison no. It is a very slippery slope for sure though. We shouldn't treat our students like inmates. To a certain extent they already are though.

At the same time we need to recognize that not all kids are cut out for the classroom and many of these outbursts etc are due to the fact that public schools and teachers want everyone to follow a certain mold. Masculinity and boyhood isnt always cut out for that. Instead of putting these, mostly boys, on mind altering drugs we should recognize that its a deeper problem. Whatever happened to metal shop and wood working classes. That's where most of these "problem" kids were sent and they learned how to work with their hands instead of being cooped up in the classroom. Obviously there is not a single answer here.

But I dont agree that violence will get worse, these people choose schools because they are an obvious soft target and a gun free zone already. How many robberies do you see at gun shops or gun shows? Or for that matter anywhere else that has armed security.

 

[Kevin Dill]

Kevin I agree but as you probably know but school funding is pretty limited. In many towns across the country it's hard enough to pass a levy to increase school funding, which means fewer materials, higher student/teacher ratios and definitely fewer resources for mental health. I believe in our school district of around 10K students we have 2 psychologists. So lacking legalization of the devil's lettuce or other alternative funding streams, shooter-proofing all of our nations schools isn't feasible.

I don't completely disagree with your thoughts.

If people think exclusionary strategies cost too much (which is really the only reason to oppose them) what do they think other strategies will cost? What would the salary of an officer cost per year x a decade? Multiple officers? I completely disregard the thinking which has our teachers becoming the armed defenders of our children. That's because I frankly believe a large number of teachers would have no willingness to carry and engage a gunman. They're educated to teach. They aren't pseudo-police and I'll wager the majority of them don't want anything to do with it. Even more honestly, who here believes an armed teacher in your child's school is the top strategy to deal with a (most likely) mentally disturbed or psychotic gunman carrying big firepower and willing to kill anyone he sees? It may sound good in theory but it's no deterrence to a homicidal and mentally deranged person. When have sick mass murderers (who often intend to die anyway) ever been affected by logically considering any consequences?

This isn't a heck of a lot different than protecting an airplane. Keep the criminals and their weapons out...first. Have strategies to contend with anyone who decides to act out violently. Waiting until they are inside and in a position to begin taking the lives of defenseless people...before engaging them in battle...is a formula for a body count.

Edit this to add: Making it extremely difficult for a gunman to get to our children inside their school is not anything akin to prison. Prisons are built to keep people inside confined against their will. This is exactly the opposite. I wonder how many of the now-dead Parkland children wish their school had been constructed to keep their killer from casually walking in and stalking the halls.

 

[elkduds]

Oh so the "profit" motive is more clear now. So instead of talking down to my "internet education" how about dissecting the facts in the articles? And the Canadian study about inmates. Or better yet show how medicating people keeps them from having violent tendencies. Or even further post the inserts to the meds you are prescribing.

Therapy is my clinical specialty. I have never prescribed medications, though I have treated thousands of patients who have benefitted from meds along w therapy. I derive no $ benefit from meds. My work is w patients when they are and are not using meds, so I understand their risks and benefits in treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar, schizophrenia, OCD, addictions, even personality disorders. Patients benefit from meds or they elect not to take meds. As you will read below, more than 12% of teens/adults choose to use antidepressant meds @ some point, making them the third most Rxed class of meds in America. A less selective review of the literature than yours will demonstrate the high bias of the articles you cited.

The first link identifies your source, CCHR, as a mouthpiece for Scientology, that bastion of rational thought, from a galaxy far, far away.

Beware the CCHR: NOT an organization for human rights | Wrong Planet Autism Community Forum

Products - Data Briefs - Number 283 - August 2017

Pat Robertson Blames Texas Shooting on Antidepressants but Science Says He Is Wrong

Antidepressant Use on the Rise

IMO access to quality mental health treatment (not just meds) is lacking in the equation of reducing mass shootings.

 

[gelton]

Therapy is my clinical specialty. I have never prescribed medications, though I have treated thousands of patients who have benefitted from meds along w therapy. I derive no $ benefit from meds. My work is w patients when they are and are not using meds, so I understand their risks and benefits in treating depression, anxiety, PTSD, bipolar, schizophrenia, OCD, addictions, even personality disorders. Patients benefit from meds or they elect not to take meds. As you will read below, more than 12% of teens/adults choose to use antidepressant meds @ some point, making them the third most Rxed class of meds in America. A less selective review of the literature than yours will demonstrate the high bias of the articles you cited.

The first link identifies your source, CCHR, as a mouthpiece for Scientology, that bastion of rational thought, from a galaxy far, far away.

Beware the CCHR: NOT an organization for human rights | Wrong Planet Autism Community Forum

Products - Data Briefs - Number 283 - August 2017

Pat Robertson Blames Texas Shooting on Antidepressants but Science Says He Is Wrong

Antidepressant Use on the Rise

IMO access to quality mental health treatment (not just meds) is lacking in the equation of reducing mass shootings.

The source could be the devil himself but facts have a funny way of standing up to debate.

Are you claiming that the inserts of psychoactive drugs do not state that they can cause anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [less severe form of mania] or mania?

Is that your stance?

Are you claiming that the majority of these mass shootings are done by people who arent using psycotropic drugs?

Both of those facts are easily provable.

 

[5MilesBack]

I too wish to live in a world in which people took responsibility for their actions. I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to wish for all of humanity to fundamentally change its behavior. How Ayn Rand of you.

We certainly can't control how or what other's feel or think, however that doesn't mean that we can't control how or what we think. And in that control I can absolutely put 100% of the blame where it belongs........on the nutjobs that are doing these shootings. It's not the guns fault, it's not the ammo or gun manufacturer's fault, it's not the vehicle's fault in drunk driving accidents, and it's certainly not the alcohol's fault either. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why every other person insists on blaming something else......or focusing their attention on trying to fix something that wasn't the blame.

The bottom line is........good people with guns stop bad people with guns. If that wasn't the case, then we should go ahead and get rid of our police forces while we're at it. So how do we ensure that we have good guys with guns everywhere in society where bad guys with guns might act irresponsibly? Well, we already have that in part. However, we also have the government (Fed, state, and local) and businesses that have made sure that we also have many "gun-free" zones that restrict those law-abiding citizens from being in a capacity to help in any of these situations. And we see it all the time with these shootings.......gun-free theaters, gun-free schools, etc.

We all know that we can't expect our police forces to be everywhere all the time. They are essentially an after-the-fact response force rather than an on-scene deterrent to the crime. The on scene deterrent to any crime is normal every day citizens like us, that are there and willing to stop any and all perpetrators. When was the last time any of these nutjobs went in and shot up a police station? I mean these guys are crazy right? What's more crazy than that? Why do they pick on schools or theaters? Maybe they aren't as crazy as everyone thinks they are. If they were, it would be random targets.....not all gun-free zones. They know exactly what they are doing, because we as a society have no clue what we're doing in allowing these crimes to happen without having an immediate response force available in every location.

I don't know when schools became gun-free zones, but they weren't gun-free when I was in school as recently as the 80's. We all had guns in our pickups, visible right there in the back window. AND WE WERE STUDENTS!! Making schools gun-free zones obviously is part of the problem. We never had any school shooting issues before that, so gun-free obviously isn't helping anything. There is no reason why we can't arm our school administrators and/or teachers and everywhere else in society for that matter, to stop these criminals from having a free for all at our expense. If we're serious about stopping crime and shootings, then we need to get serious about it and arm America's citizens. When such a tiny % of our population is the problem, then 99.99% of our population shouldn't have an issue stopping them in their tracks.

But in order to do that, the left needs to stop with all the gun-grabbing propaganda and mentalities, and people need to be trained and prepared instead of running scared because guns are scary.

 

[gelton]

Post a link to the Canadian "study." That chart tells you nothing. You haven't posted any studies or facts. Those are all articles written for mainstream publication. Those aren't facts and they aren't scientific studies. Big difference.

It is a fact that the inserts of these drugs warn that they can cause aggressive and maniacal behavior. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are on these drugs.

Here is a link to the Canadian study that was peer reviewed and published by the US National Library of Medicine and National Institute of Health that showed violent tendencies increased with the use of psychoactive drugs:

Effect of Psychotropic Drugs on Aggression In a Prison Setting

Oh and here are the inserts...funny that they all contain the same warnings:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/018936s091lbl.pdf

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021323s032,021365s023lbl.pdf

http://general.takedapharm.com/cont...ndomizer=90d62fb0-b682-4ddf-a426-1a193e2f9e74

Need more?