K. I added it on the left sidebar. In a rare display of respect for pure democracy I will accept votes on whether to keep it. It is informative and advances rights and freedom in which most if not all ThreeSourcers believe. Yet, it requires 20 more pixels, some time to load, and adds a "busy" look.
Phone lines are open! 1-800-GUNS-001
Whether it makes the cut or not, thanks for sharing. This is a bleak time to be on Facebook. There is a lot of indignant yelling, which I normally like, but even less acceptance of dialog than usual. The common theme on both sides is: "Look, this is no time to discuss politics or policy. Instead I am going to give you a long emotional diatribe on why gun control is 'absolutely required' | 'clearly inoperative.'"
Way too emotional, think I'll stay with cute puppies for a bit.
One very bright well-read lefty assures "'They' say an armed defender could stop this but notice it never works that way." Never? Not the church shooting in Colorado, the mall shooting six months ago (Pennsylvania? I forgot...)? Never?
When the body count is low, we forget. But in a "Gun Free Zone" when the count is high, we remember.
Do my blog brothers accept the two million figure for self-defense? I am sympathetic but it seems subject to the same padding used so frequently on the left. Clicking through, the defense looks interesting. I confess I have never been very comfortable trotting that figure out.
Since the number of American gun owners exceeds sixty million I thought two million self-defenses, of any sort, fits. I stopped investigating when I read that a rabid anti-gunner praised their accuracy, despite the contradiction of his beliefs. The widget, by the way, is intended to help us remember the 364-plus days per year that guns are our friend.
I see two main factors that encourage school shootings. 1) Beyond having armed defenders in schools our goverment trumpets the fact that they are prohibited. Quite a reassurance to even the most cowardly "Rambo wannabes." 2) The widespread use of anti-depressant prescription drugs to treat children, primary boys. A Denver radio caller on Friday night, claiming to be a physician, cited both of my points and added: "Ritalin is not just like methamphetamine, Ritalin is methamphetamine."
Too soon to take these ideas to Facebook though, despite my FBF being more reasonable than it seems yours are.
Okay, not too soon anymore. Commented on a shared LiberalLogic101 pic:
Under federal law, if a typical gun owner comes within 2 miles of a school with his weapon, much less goes on school property and ends or prevents a shooting, he is subject to 5 years in prison. ["Gun Free Schools Act" link above] Why do politicians believe their threat of prison will deter people bent on murder-suicide? Wouldn't they be more detered by the possibility of resistance? Why do voters allow their politicians to disarm law-abiding neighbors? Why not simply target gun crime instead of gun ownership?
And I went hunting for the "never" post to quietly add: contradiction from Eugene Volkh (HT Insty).
But on the way I saw three thank yous to Michael Bloomberg and five to Morgan Freeman. I think I'll go read a book.
When I saw that Morgan Freeman had a comment on the subject I cringed, but after I read it I was impressed. He went after media for making slaughterers famous. Bully.
Still like to see more discussion of the prescription antidepressant factor. Including from you.
I am not certain what is being proposed. You point out that use is widespread -- but mass murder is rare. I suspect it is over-prescribed but don't know enough to comment on efficacy versus risk.
I like the idea of responsible people shooting back.
...and the Morgan Freeman thing is a hoax.
My sense is that prescription antidepressants have been over prescribed to "hyperactive" boys over the last 10-20 years (remember Tom Cruise's 'don't let them drug your kids' campaign) and that school shootings by young males have increased concommitantly. Like to see a graph of the data. Suspect it might be comparable to the BEST CHART EVER! But I know you're a fan of the pharma industry... I think there are bad drugs and good drugs. Anti-depressants, like psychiatrists, piss me off.
Fair. My blog brother has found that rarest of issues -- one for which I have no strong opinion. Had he not quoted a Hollywood celebrity and noted Scientologist, I'd probably be on board...
I suspect without empirical evidence that many, perhaps most, of the patients on anti-depressants are benefitting from them. As long as that number is not zero, your favorite big pharma shill holds them blameless: it is a doctor-patient problem if a tool is misused.
Nor is over-prescription confined to young lads. When the lovely bride was in the hospital, her nurses were amazed that she was not on them. An American woman in her forties without a prescription? There must be some problem. That disturbed me a bit.
Heh. Yeah, that occurred to me too. He almost does a disservice to endorse a cause.
My grandfather was medicated with Xanex. I'm convinced it hastened his passing. The prescribing physician came around at the funeral and offered "whatever you need to my grandmother." My dad ran him off. Said physician died within a couple of years of "drug overdose."
Not a perfect source, but believable:
"This skews data by confusing the cause of the illness with feedback mechanisms potentiated by psychotropic drugs."
"To date, all studied psychotropic drugs potentiate feedback mechanisms, some feedback mechanisms of which have been implicated in causing the same symptoms of the illness the drugs are approved to treat."
And not a Scientologist to be found.
[D'oh! Postted to wrong thread!]
Problematical. But isn't this at worse a medical practices or epistemology issue? Is there a government function? (And I don't mean that in a neener-neener libertarian sense...)
And unless you say that all diagnoses are wrong and the benefits never outweigh the risks, the question is just a judgment of diagnoses -- a path I seldom trod.