Page 1 of 30 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 291
Thanks Tree82Thanks

Thread: Propose a gun law, then discuss how your law would have stopped a past shooting.

  1. #1
    your better Rev. Hellh0und's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    38,071
    Thanks
    3992

    From
    NYC

    Propose a gun law, then discuss how your law would have stopped a past shooting.

    Propose a gun law, then discuss how your law would have stopped a past shooting.


    We talk about gun laws non-stop these days often with little discussion on how it would have prevented any of the previous mass shootings. Let's do that now.


    I'll go first.


    I propose we ban those on psychoactive drugs black boxed by the FDA to highlight side effects such as "homicidal ideations" and "suicidal thoughts" from buying, owning or possessing guns while on the medication.

    This would have potentially stopped

    1. Columbine - Zuvox
    2. Aurora - Zoloft
    3. V-tech - Prozac
    4. N Ill U - Prozac
    5. Pinelake - Lexipro
    6. Newton - fanapt (this ones a doozy)



    There are about a half dozen more that I can list, but I believe that my proposed ban on those on such medications might have prevented 1 or more of these shootings.

  2. #2
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    26,052
    Thanks
    17233

    From
    Kansas
    I've had various mental health challenges in my life, but ever since Ritalin fucked me up as a boy, I have sworn off the drugs.

    There's a way to calm yourself down and cope with the stresses of life and the nonsense in your own mind ... it's called alcohol.

    Cracking down on Big Pharma in general, between these fucking things and the opioids, strikes me as a fundamentally good idea.

    The only people who should be on a persistent drug regimen are those whose physicians believe with certainty they will harm themselves or others if they don't get them.
    Thanks from Crusher and Friday13

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8,639
    Thanks
    6803

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Hellh0und View Post
    Propose a gun law, then discuss how your law would have stopped a past shooting.


    We talk about gun laws non-stop these days often with little discussion on how it would have prevented any of the previous mass shootings. Let's do that now.


    I'll go first.


    I propose we ban those on psychoactive drugs black boxed by the FDA to highlight side effects such as "homicidal ideations" and "suicidal thoughts" from buying, owning or possessing guns while on the medication.

    This would have potentially stopped

    1. Columbine - Zuvox
    2. Aurora - Zoloft
    3. V-tech - Prozac
    4. N Ill U - Prozac
    5. Pinelake - Lexipro
    6. Newton - fanapt (this ones a doozy)



    There are about a half dozen more that I can list, but I believe that my proposed ban on those on such medications might have prevented 1 or more of these shootings.
    Which assumes the drugs caused or had part in the behavior, and assumption that lacks any factual basis.
    Thanks from Devil505 and Friday13

  4. #4
    your better Rev. Hellh0und's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    38,071
    Thanks
    3992

    From
    NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    Which assumes the drugs caused or had part in the behavior, and assumption that lacks any factual basis.


    Why can't you people just do what the thread asks?
    Thanks from Crusher

  5. #5
    Populist Rabblerouser Ronin Tetsuro's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    17,162
    Thanks
    1025

    From
    Broadcast Depth
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Hellh0und View Post
    Why can't you people just do what the thread asks?
    Because Pro-gun ban slaves have no idea why they believe the things they do. It just sounds good coming out of their facehole and it lets them forget about their irrational fear for a while.
    Thanks from Crusher and Abatis

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    8,639
    Thanks
    6803

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Hellh0und View Post
    Why can't you people just do what the thread asks?
    It was your OP, which featured a flawed premise. Seemed to me I was on topic.
    Thanks from HadEnough2 and Friday13

  7. #7
    your better Rev. Hellh0und's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    38,071
    Thanks
    3992

    From
    NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Think for myself View Post
    It was your OP, which featured a flawed premise. Seemed to me I was on topic.


    What law do you propose that would have stopped any of the past shootings? that's the op, that's the thread, not "I propose the following, please change my mind".


    It's actually really simple so either you are playing dumb, or you are being evasive on purpose.

  8. #8
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    26,052
    Thanks
    17233

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Rev. Hellh0und View Post
    Why can't you people just do what the thread asks?
    Well, for one, it's dumb to suggest that a gun ban would've stopped any given mass shooting because

    1) It's impossible to know how determined mass shooters, most of whom are dead or behind bars not talking about their experiences, would've been to evade a gun ban or if they even would've known how to get a black market gun

    2) Hindsight judgment of any particular crime is usually not something which supports original, productive research. This is part of the reason why professional journalists, criminologists and police agencies focus on trends and statistics, not individual cases, in trying to determine how best to fight crime.

    SMART advocates for reform on guns focus their arguments on how studies consistently show that if there are fewer guns in a given society, with few exceptions (e.g. Switzerland), fewer homicides and suicides occur.

    I'm well aware that the #MarchForOurLives people are focused on the notion that we could've stopped a mass shooting, their mass shooting in particular, with new gun rules. It's an emotional argument, one I don't often make. That said, they still deserve to be heard.
    Thanks from Friday13

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    62,731
    Thanks
    19731

    From
    Mass and Florida
    If the 1994-2004 AWB had been allowed to continue there would have been no massacres at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Las Vegas or other places because the weapons and the high capacity magazines used would not have been available on gun store shelves where they were all bought.
    Thanks from HadEnough2, Panzareta and Friday13

  10. #10
    your better Rev. Hellh0und's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    38,071
    Thanks
    3992

    From
    NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    Well, for one, it's dumb to suggest that a gun ban would've stopped any given mass shooting because

    1) It's impossible to know how determined mass shooters, most of whom are dead or behind bars not talking about their experiences, would've been to evade a gun ban or if they even would've known how to get a black market gun

    2) Hindsight judgment of any particular crime is usually not something which supports original, productive research. This is part of the reason why professional journalists, criminologists and police agencies focus on trends and statistics, not individual cases, in trying to determine how best to fight crime.

    SMART advocates for reform on guns focus their arguments on how studies consistently show that if there are fewer guns in a given society, with few exceptions (e.g. Switzerland), fewer homicides and suicides occur.

    I'm well aware that the #MarchForOurLives people are focused on the notion that we could've stopped a mass shooting, their mass shooting in particular, with new gun rules. It's an emotional argument, one I don't often make. That said, they still deserve to be heard.


    you are off on so many levels here.


    we look to the past to see if possibly a law might have prevented something. I also never said "would have" prevented, but "might".


    We raise or lower speed limits based on data collected. why are you saying we should not do that here?

Page 1 of 30 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. How to propose like a man!
    By The Man in forum Current Events
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21st April 2015, 07:24 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed