Gun Control History

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian asks GO for a study actually documenting his beliefs)

(GO can't find a study, but posts a cartoon)

And that says it all, doesn't it?

(bunny trail attempt by GO)

Nice try. There's a reason you can't find any research that supports your belief.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There's a reason you can't find any research that supports your belief.

Why, yes there is.

Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence
After many lawsuits and a 2012 U.S. Department of Justice settlement, last month an independent review found that antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers. The finding contradicts the conclusions of the initial 2001 drug trial, which the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline had funded, then used its results to market Paxil as safe for adolescents.
The original trial, known as Study 329, is but one high-profile example of pharmaceutical industry influence known to pervade scientific research, including clinical trials the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires pharma companies to fund in order to assess their products. For that reason, people who read scientific papers as part of their jobs have come to rely on meta-analyses, supposedly thorough reviews summarizing the evidence from multiple trials, rather than trust individual studies. But a new analysis casts doubt on that practice as well, finding that the vast majority of meta-analyses of antidepressants have some industry link, with a corresponding suppression of negative results.​

Antidepressant Review Shows Big Pharma Covers Up Links to Suicide
In 2005, it was revealed that a Harvard psychiatrist and the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co. hid a secret 1988 internal memo showing that Lilly’s own controlled clinical trials of the blockbuster antidepressant drug Prozac had a significantly higher rate of suicide attempts, hostility, violence, and psychosis than four other commonly used antidepressants in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
The shocker is not that the medications can be more dangerous than depression itself, but the fact that drug companies are still lying about it.
Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center, and University College London, analyzed 70 trials of the most common antidepressants, involving more than 18,000 people. They found that SSRI antidepressant drugs doubled the risk of suicide and aggressive behavior in teens under 18 years of age.​

 

[The Barbarian]

Your turn, please post a cartoon that shows that wearing jeans causes school shootings,

Why would I do that? I pointed out that there was the same correlation with school shootings that you lean on, with wearing jeans. Both have the same validity; none at all, until someone can show that one causes the other.

since you can't find any information on the side-effects of wearing jeans.

Great. We now agree that there is no conclusive evidence that either causes school shootings. Thank you.
:chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
There's a reason you can't find any research that supports your belief.

Why, yes there is.

(cites research that says some meds can make one more violent, but doesn't say anything about school shootings)

Keep looking. It might be out there somewhere.

Here's another problem for your belief:

Between 1992 and 2015, total victimization rates for students ages 12–18 generally declined both at school and away from school. The total victimization rate at school declined 82 percent, from 181 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 33 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2015. The total victimization rate away from school declined 88 percent, from 173 victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 21 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2015.

The rate of serious violent victimization3 against students ages 12–18 was lower at school than away from school in most survey years between 1992 and 2008. Between 2009 and 2015, the rate at school was not measurably different from the rate away from school. The 2015 serious violent victimization rate for students ages 12–18 did not differ measurably from the 2014 rate either at school or away from school. In 2015, students experienced about 4 serious violent victimizations per 1,000 students at school and 4 serious violent victimizations per 1,000 students away from school.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=49

And yet, there are more kids on anti-depressants:
The Antidepressant Generation
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/the-antidepressant-generation/

These two facts are inconsistent with your assumption that medications are causing school shootings.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why would I do that? I pointed out that there was the same correlation with school shootings that you lean on, with wearing jeans. Both have the same validity; none at all, until someone can show that one causes the other.

You keep claiming that I am relying on correlation after I keep pointing out that I am relying on reported side effects of the psychotropic drugs that the shooters have taken.
That means you are creating a Straw Man argument.

 

[Stripe]

You keep claiming that I am relying on correlation after I keep pointing out that I am relying on reported side effects of the psychotropic drugs that the shooters have taken.
That means you are creating a Straw Man argument.

Not exactly. He is asking for specific data. Some of his objections are not unreasonable, he just has a difficult time speaking reasonably.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not exactly. He is asking for specific data. Some of his objections are not unreasonable, he just has a difficult time speaking reasonably.

(Stipe thinks asking for specific data is unreasonable) :chuckle:

 

[George Affleck]

I would love to see a poll done that goes like this:

Participants are - only those who have been personally impacted by shooting sprees in the last 10 years. A loved one dying or wounded, being wounded yourself, experiencing the terror, etc.

Question: If you could change only one thing about the incident - that there would have been from 1-10 people present who carried guns and had the guts to immediately apply deadly force back at the perpetrator(s).

Leave it as it happened or make that one change? Vote Yes or No.

 

[Stripe]

(Stipe thinks asking for specific data is unreasonable) ::

See?

It's like he doesn't even try.

 

[genuineoriginal]

See?

It's like he doesn't even try.

Maybe he suddenly stopped taking his antidepressants?

 

[Stripe]

Maybe he suddenly stopped taking his antidepressants?

It's been like this for a long time. :noid:

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe writes:

He is asking for specific data. Some of his objections are not unreasonable, he just has a difficult time speaking reasonably.

Barbarian observes:
(Stipe thinks asking for specific data is unreasonable) :chuckle:

See?

Everyone saw, Stipe. No wonder we laugh at you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

He is asking for specific data. Some of his objections are not unreasonable, he just has a difficult time speaking reasonably.

(Stipe thinks asking for specific data is unreasonable) :chuckle:

See?

Everyone saw, Stipe. No wonder we laugh at you.

We know what we saw.
:mock: The Barbarian

 

[The Barbarian]

We know what we saw.

So does everyone else:

(Stipe thinks asking for data is unreasonable)
Some of his objections are not unreasonable, he just has a difficult time speaking reasonably.


That's why people laugh at you.

 

[Stripe]

:mock: Blablaman.

 

[The Barbarian]

:mock: Blablaman.

(Stipe just has trouble speaking reasonably) :chuckle:

 

[jgarden]

I would love to see a poll done that goes like this:

Participants are - only those who have been personally impacted by shooting sprees in the last 10 years. A loved one dying or wounded, being wounded yourself, experiencing the terror, etc.

Question: If you could change only one thing about the incident - that there would have been from 1-10 people present who carried guns and had the guts to immediately apply deadly force back at the perpetrator(s).

Leave it as it happened or make that one change? Vote Yes or No.

There are more guns in circulation than there are American citizens and yet gun proponents still cling to the "good guy(s) with a gun" being present as a credible defence against a "mass shooter" armed with an AR-15!

In the total confusion associated with these incidents, it is just as likely to have these "1-10 people present who carried guns and had the guts to immediately apply deadly force back at the perpetrator" mistake others carrying a gun to be the "perpetrator," thereby ending up shooting at each other and/or being shot by the police!

 

[Stripe]

Gun proponents still cling to the "good guy(s) with a gun" being present as a credible defence against a "mass shooter" armed with an AR-15

https://youtu.be/B4HEchh0XD8

 

[genuineoriginal]

There are more guns in circulation than there are American citizens and yet gun proponents still cling to the "good guy(s) with a gun" being present as a credible defence against a "mass shooter" armed with an AR-15!

In the total confusion associated with these incidents, it is just as likely to have these "1-10 people present who carried guns and had the guts to immediately apply deadly force back at the perpetrator" mistake others carrying a gun to be the "perpetrator," thereby ending up shooting at each other and/or being shot by the police!

You make it sound like having armed police is the real problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are more guns in circulation than there are American citizens

But it's not what that datum suggests. Fewer and fewer people own guns. But those who do own guns, own more of them. Hence, shooters tend to be well-armed with multiple weapons and lots of ammunition.

and yet gun proponents still cling to the "good guy(s) with a gun" being present as a credible defence against a "mass shooter" armed with an AR-15!

It's not a totally crazy idea, but consider. A "good guy with a gun" is minding his own business, on a street one night, when he sees a black guy pull a gun on another person.

What should good guy do?

Oh, forgot to mention, black guy is a police detective, apprehending a dangerous criminal. Was the first decision a good one?

Suppose you're in bed one night, your spouse with you, and with a gun at your nightstand. You live in a high crime area. Suddenly some guys suddenly break into your bedroom through windows. At least one of them is armed. What do you do?

Oh, forgot to mention. The three guys were police officers who messed up on an address and were doing a "no-knock" raid on the wrong house(they had a warrant for the right one). Was the first decision a good one?

This one actually happened recently. The homeowner (who happened to be black) shot the three cops. Remarkably, the survivors didn't kill him, but arrested him for homicide.

But the "good guy with a gun" idea isn't completely crazy. Few decades ago, the National Safety Council did a study of guns and NRA stats on people who used a gun to shoot or scare off an assailant, and showed that about 20% of Americans live where it's dangerous enough that having a gun is actually safer than not having one. Given the drop in violent crime since then, the number is almost certainly smaller than it was.

So there is that.