IGX

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Milo...

No one hear is suggesting that psychotropic drugs cause mass shootings. But there is solid science and evidence to suggest there's a link.

Let me repeat so you don't have anywhere to run on this sad tirade....

Ssri's don't CAUSE people to pick up a gun and start killing school kids. That would be as stupid as osaying that access to a gun CAUSES a person to start killin.

No one in their right mind would dispute both pychotropics and ready access to the tool are factors in the way these tragedies play out. BUT I am saying when it comes to MOTIVATION, psychotropics are worth looking at from a causal perspective...at the very least anyone who has used them can describe what a game changer they are in mental faculties and decision-making.

Now maybe you're making a more complicated philisophical argument that the tool influences the mental health of its user. If so, cool. I'm interested in the science on that.

All
of
This

milosz wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

milosz wrote: Doesn't explain shooters not on drugs.

\

Whoa, there ghostrider, which mass shooting perp in the past 20 years has NOT been on SSRIs and the like?

We actually don't know. That's the other problem - the 'common knowledge' that they were is to parrot Infowars and Natural News and other assorted worthless garbage. There's no real source to those claims.

Son, no one is pointing the blame on SSRI's, but just are pointing out it 'appears' all of your mass shooters have them Rx'd.

That's not an Ifowars thing or some such "you won't believe this...." type of site.

Protobuilder wrote:

milosz wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote: We actually do and that answer is 100%.

Your source is?

Alex Jones.

]

I can't even LOL this away as I have no idea who Alex Jones is.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Milo...

No one hear is suggesting that psychotropic drugs cause mass shootings. But there is solid science and evidence to suggest there's a link.

Let me repeat so you don't have anywhere to run on this sad tirade....

Ssri's don't CAUSE people to pick up a gun and start killing school kids. That would be as stupid as osaying that access to a gun CAUSES a person to start killin.

No one in their right mind would dispute both pychotropics and ready access to the tool are factors in the way these tragedies play out. BUT I am saying when it comes to MOTIVATION, psychotropics are worth looking at from a causal perspective...at the very least anyone who has used them can describe what a game changer they are in mental faculties and decision-making.

Now maybe you're making a more complicated philisophical argument that the tool influences the mental health of its user. If so, cool. I'm interested in the science on that.

I didn't say anyone is blaming them directly - though Kenny X might be, he shifts his - but even not blaming them directly is (based on the evidence that we have) nonsense.

I'm repeating what I said earlier: if SSRIs were even 'an influence' on this, we'd see it in other developed nations (same high SSRI rates as the US - some higher, some lower but all significantly high), women shooting up schools, yada yada yada. If someone wants to turn the argument into "SSRIs in a young male population with surging testosterone interact in .00001% of cases," I mean, why bother? That's not even an argument, that's a coincidence.

When you're the exception to the rule - whether that's being morbidly obese or a country prone to outbursts of violence - you start playing "which of these things is not like the others" (vs. 20 fit people or 20 developed nations not prone to outbursts of violence). SSRIs don't fit that bill.

Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side, just like whining about healthcare. I'd sooner see the Cold Dead Hands side be honest ala Jeb Bush - these things are going to happen and they're such uncontrollable outlier events that we shouldn't live our lives in fear of them.

[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side, [/quote]

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?[/quote]
The whole 'gun side' is pretty amusing from Milo as young, uppity, and assumptive as he is probably thinks most IGx'ers who disagree with him have a hurt locker full of weaponry.

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?[/quote]
YES

Really, the thing that most pisses me off is again, legislated ignorance. Outright prohibition on gathering data and analyzing it. You only do that when he fear the facts and know that emotion is on your side.

DonkeySir, add a choice to your poll - Gather Facts and Conduct Analyses

Grandpa's Spells wrote: The people in these situations regularly off themselves as they expect to die. The expectation of getting shot is part of the plan, not a deterrent.

Their payoff is the high body count. That's what draws them to schools, churches, and theaters...typically Gun Free Zones. Not many headlines for the douche who tried to shoot up a mall a year or two ago, got challenged by a citizen with a gun, and retreated into the stairwell to blow his brains out.

As Nappy said, they don't attack police stations.

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

YES

[/quote]

Do tell. And again, please understand I happen to respect you in terms of the miles you've walked and the perspective that brings.

Do tell what you believe has *changed* in say, the last 50 years of America that has created 300 mass shootings per year today vs. when you and I were in Pampers.

The guns aren't any better, the ammo isn't any more accessible, what is different?

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

YES

Do tell. And again, please understand I happen to respect you in terms of the miles you've walked and the perspective that brings.

Do tell what you believe has *changed* in say, the last 50 years of America that has created 300 mass shootings per year today vs. when you and I were in Pampers.

The guns aren't any better, the ammo isn't any more accessible, what is different?[/quote]

What do we mean by "300 mass shootings"?
Three people were shot in Brooklyn this morning. Is that a mass shooting? Because I'm betting none of you have heard about it, in the way a school shooting, or movie theater shooting, would be all over the news right now.
But it just may be "mass shooting #301" if that can be used for someone's political agenda.

milosz wrote: I didn't say anyone is blaming them directly - though Kenny X might be, he shifts his - but even not blaming them directly is (based on the evidence that we have) nonsense.

I'm repeating what I said earlier: if SSRIs were even 'an influence' on this, we'd see it in other developed nations (same high SSRI rates as the US - some higher, some lower but all significantly high), women shooting up schools, yada yada yada. If someone wants to turn the argument into "SSRIs in a young male population with surging testosterone interact in .00001% of cases," I mean, why bother? That's not even an argument, that's a coincidence.

When you're the exception to the rule - whether that's being morbidly obese or a country prone to outbursts of violence - you start playing "which of these things is not like the others" (vs. 20 fit people or 20 developed nations not prone to outbursts of violence). SSRIs don't fit that bill.

Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side, just like whining about healthcare. I'd sooner see the Cold Dead Hands side be honest ala Jeb Bush - these things are going to happen and they're such uncontrollable outlier events that we shouldn't live our lives in fear of them.

Assumes a whole slew of facts not in evidence. What's the prevalence of SSRI usage in similarly violent countries (UK) what is the age and income range of those people? What is the health history of same? What is the total health care package in those instances compared to the US?

I don't know those answers...neither do you. But it's far form shuck and jive to want to look.

"They have SSRI's in other countries" ergo..... Is a shite argument and you know it. All anyone is saying is analyze the factors. You'r argument is far more dismissive than the straw man argument you created on behalf of the "Gun Side"

And yes...FTR...I am squarely in the "this is not a health issue" camp. My own mother and niece have been in a live shooter incident in Baltimore...it's freaskishly rare and not something we should be focused on as a primary national debate.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

milosz wrote:
And yes...FTR...I am squarely in the "this is not a health issue" camp. My own mother and niece have been in a live shooter incident in Baltimore...it's freaskishly rare and not something we should be focused on as a primary national debate.

Me too. I recall the event your mom was a part of and also have some unique insights into the Connecticut shooting a couple of years badi. It is absolutely freakish and while horrible, not anything that deserves the attention these events get relative to the day in, day out vanilla shootings that happen on the :15 in terms of American street crime.

This is a classic case of no one wants to argue about what they are arguing about.

Worried about "gun violence".... Ok let's talk about brown skinned poor people illegally aquiring cheap handguns,

Want to talk about obesity public health? Ok..lets talk about food and cars and cities and lack of vigorous movement.

You want to talk about crazy people doing crazy shit? Let's talk about the factors that play a role there... Drugs, alcohol, poverty, genetic disorders, ptsd,....

If you want to advance the ball you've got get into the weeds a bit on all sides. When it comes to psych meds, we are nearing crisis levels without including mass violence as a factor.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

YES

Do tell. And again, please understand I happen to respect you in terms of the miles you've walked and the perspective that brings.

Do tell what you believe has *changed* in say, the last 50 years of America that has created 300 mass shootings per year today vs. when you and I were in Pampers.

The guns aren't any better, the ammo isn't any more accessible, what is different?[/quote]
Well, lets gather the data and do the deep analysis and determine what the difference is, rather than shouting with opinion. Really, climate change science has better data and models to go on. There's just enough data now for everyone to draw their own conclusions. Makes for sporting arguments tethered loosely to reality.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

milosz wrote:
And yes...FTR...I am squarely in the "this is not a health issue" camp. My own mother and niece have been in a live shooter incident in Baltimore...it's freaskishly rare and not something we should be focused on as a primary national debate.

Me too. I recall the event your mom was a part of and also have some unique insights into the Connecticut shooting a couple of years badi. It is absolutely freakish and while horrible, not anything that deserves the attention these events get relative to the day in, day out vanilla shootings that happen on the :15 in terms of American street crime.

Yet folks talk about arming teachers (after paying to train and qual them, finding ones that actually want to pack heat), paying for armed guards at the schools, etc. Those are fairly big upheavals to contemplate.

So is it a big deal or not?

What the fuck you assmunches have against $4 cans of fucking wasp sppray that is accurate to 20 feet?????

nafod wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

milosz wrote:
And yes...FTR...I am squarely in the "this is not a health issue" camp. My own mother and niece have been in a live shooter incident in Baltimore...it's freaskishly rare and not something we should be focused on as a primary national debate.

Me too. I recall the event your mom was a part of and also have some unique insights into the Connecticut shooting a couple of years badi. It is absolutely freakish and while horrible, not anything that deserves the attention these events get relative to the day in, day out vanilla shootings that happen on the :15 in terms of American street crime.

Yet folks talk about arming teachers (after paying to train and qual them, finding ones that actually want to pack heat), paying for armed guards at the schools, etc. Those are fairly big upheavals to contemplate.

So is it a big deal or not?

Category error.

Ftr....every death is a big deal to someone. These deaths are big deals emotionally because they seem random. Facing random but infinitesimally small risks results in predictably brilliant thinking. Hence TSA theater.. Et al.

Posting armed guards at soft targets is one of the most consistently "well duh" ideas that seems to send people into a lather....yet it's de riguer at private schools all over the world for a host of reasons.

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

The whole 'gun side' is pretty amusing from Milo as young, uppity, and assumptive as he is probably thinks most IGx'ers who disagree with him have a hurt locker full of weaponry.[/quote]

Um... I own a lot of guns and am, at best, ambivalent toward 'gun control' as a concept. What we have in most states today is a decent enough compromise.

I am, however, a fan of honesty and reason. Instead of bullshitting about "mental health" and shifting blame, the NRA/etc. should just say "that's the price of freedom" and that there are no actual solutions in a large nation with easy access to weapons (which will always, until doomsday rolls around, have that access).

The idea that it just won't happen if we don't say their names is insulting to everyone's intelligence. No one without a list can name half the most recent 20 shooters.

milosz wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

The whole 'gun side' is pretty amusing from Milo as young, uppity, and assumptive as he is probably thinks most IGx'ers who disagree with him have a hurt locker full of weaponry.

Um... I own a lot of guns and am, at best, ambivalent toward 'gun control' as a concept. What we have in most states today is a decent enough compromise.

I am, however, a fan of honesty and reason. Instead of bullshitting about "mental health" and shifting blame, the NRA/etc. should just say "that's the price of freedom" and that there are no actual solutions in a large nation with easy access to weapons (which will always, until doomsday rolls around, have that access).

The idea that it just won't happen if we don't say their names is insulting to everyone's intelligence. No one without a list can name half the most recent 20 shooters.

Doing a few very targeted things w/mental health, law enforcement, and protecting soft targets is just as reasonable as safety measures in other areas of our lives. Some number of deaths from guns, alcohol, cars, shitty food habits, etc. are the price of freedom but we can still work towards incrementally lowering mortality in all of these areas.

I'm all in favor of putting guards at schools, though I would wager on the deterrent effect being much larger than the possibility of a guy who can't even make it as a real cop stopping an actual shooting (or, for that matter, an actual cop - those 20 rounds for qualification every 12 months aren't confidence-inspirers), but that's going to cost a lot of money and no one wants to pay taxes in the first place. Particularly the political side that's actively pro-gun. This isn't like the air marshal program where we can pass the cost on to ticket buyers.

Given the size of your average urban/suburban high school, do we pay for guards at all of the doors? Visualizing the 5000 student HS my friend teaches at, there are a dozen entry doors to the main building. Do we funnel those kids through one door? Two? Does it provide any protection to the gyms and athletic buildings that are separate? Seems like every high school in Texas has a colony of temporary buildings outside that wouldn't be governed by the guards, do we ring them with concertina wire?

Why do we freight every "solution" with being THE solution. Few real problems ever get solved with one single measure.

We seem hell bent on putting the wrong people at the forefront of the issues. The Pelosi/Biden crown are the last people who should be working on "sensible reform". The NRA is the last group who should be addressing mental health.


If this country wanted to do something meaningful on this topic it would create 2 distinct working groups. The first would include primarily NRA members, Strict constitutional law scholars and State Agency bureaucrats in charge of administering local firearms laws. This group need to develop 3 acceptable forms of "regulation" that do not "infringe" and are actually able to be administered.

In the second camp you'd put Public Health advocates, Mental health experts and Community service officers and tell them they need to come up with 3 measures which address the "Public Health" issue of violence but none of the solutions can have anything to do with guns.

milosz wrote:I'm all in favor of putting guards at schools, though I would wager on the deterrent effect being much larger than the possibility of a guy who can't even make it as a real cop stopping an actual shooting (or, for that matter, an actual cop - those 20 rounds for qualification every 12 months aren't confidence-inspirers), but that's going to cost a lot of money and no one wants to pay taxes in the first place. Particularly the political side that's actively pro-gun. This isn't like the air marshal program where we can pass the cost on to ticket buyers.

Given the size of your average urban/suburban high school, do we pay for guards at all of the doors? Visualizing the 5000 student HS my friend teaches at, there are a dozen entry doors to the main building. Do we funnel those kids through one door? Two? Does it provide any protection to the gyms and athletic buildings that are separate? Seems like every high school in Texas has a colony of temporary buildings outside that wouldn't be governed by the guards, do we ring them with concertina wire?

Oldest grandson's Jr. High had a cop car parked in the lot every day. Have no idea if there was a cop associated w/it or not but I think its presence alone was a deterrent.

nafod wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

YES

Do tell. And again, please understand I happen to respect you in terms of the miles you've walked and the perspective that brings.

Do tell what you believe has *changed* in say, the last 50 years of America that has created 300 mass shootings per year today vs. when you and I were in Pampers.

The guns aren't any better, the ammo isn't any more accessible, what is different?

Well, lets gather the data and do the deep analysis and determine what the difference is, rather than shouting with opinion. Really, climate change science has better data and models to go on. There's just enough data now for everyone to draw their own conclusions. Makes for sporting arguments tethered loosely to reality.[/quote]

So YOU tell ME what has changed at least in the fuzzy/intuitive sense while you await sme of well vetteed answer......I am asking with respect, FWIW.

nafod wrote:

The Venerable Bogatir X wrote:

nafod wrote:

TerryB wrote:[quote="milosz"
Blaming pills is a shuck and jive from the gun side,

If you want to solve the problem, shouldn't you investigate the possible causes?

YES

Do tell. And again, please understand I happen to respect you in terms of the miles you've walked and the perspective that brings.

Do tell what you believe has *changed* in say, the last 50 years of America that has created 300 mass shootings per year today vs. when you and I were in Pampers.

The guns aren't any better, the ammo isn't any more accessible, what is different?

Well, lets gather the data and do the deep analysis and determine what the difference is, rather than shouting with opinion. Really, climate change science has better data and models to go on. There's just enough data now for everyone to draw their own conclusions. Makes for sporting arguments tethered loosely to reality.[/quote]

So YOU tell ME what has changed at least in the fuzzy/intuitive sense while you await sme of well vetteed answer......I am asking with respect, FWIW.