Home > Uncategorized > Not just gun control

Not just gun control

mental

A Mom’s Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books…

Click the link above for the whole essay.

[NOTE: I will be moderating the discussion from time to time, unlike on prior threads.  That includes deleting comments I notice that seem to me to be off topic, offensive, incredibly stupid, non-contributing, etc…]

  1. December 17, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Check out Joe Scarborough’s remarks on Morning Joe as reported in this morning’s Politico.Even the Republican’s are starting to come to their senses. About time..

  2. Anonymous
    December 17, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Virtually every mass murder in the US in the last 20 years has been committed by someone addicted to SSRIs like Prozac, Paxil, Effexor. SSRIs are time release amphetamines and long term use of SSRIs leads to a manic condition. Many of them have been on Ritalin or Adderall since they were young children.

    Adderall is pure amphetamine. Is a violent outcome really surprising?

    Big pharma and the doctors who are prescribing these killer drugs are complicit.

  3. Anonymous
    December 17, 2012 at 10:28 am

    Too bad we don’t consider mental illness on the same level as other social problems. Many schools (including local ones) have cut crisis counselors and people to trained to spot mental illness. We have 911 for robbery or fire, but not the same urgency for addressing someone who is clearly not well and headed for a bad place. I’m all for gun control, but the bigger issue to me is addressing mental illness to the same degree that we address other threats to society. This doesn’t mean we prescribe drugs to everyone or lock them up, but we do need to support the infrastructure that provides warning and help before a tragedy occurs. And, there are many other types of mental illness tragedies occurring daily – harm to kids, families, and spouses as well as to individuals themselves.
    It’s a slippery slope, but my observation is we let a lot of mental illness go unchecked with the attitude of the person be “eccentric” or “unconventional”. We need support services so a person at any income level can bring in an expert when the warning signs are evident. The people who commit these heineous acts are not sane people who just happen to get gun happy – they are mentally ill and living in a world where their actions make sense. We need to intervene before they go too deep into those dark places.

  4. A pesky fact
    December 17, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    As a contribution to the productive end of this discussion, I submit this link

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335767/five-point-action-plan-president-obama-reduce-violence-mentally-ill-d-j-jaffe#

    It genuinely saddens me that as our society shifts into “we must do something!!” mode, the real things that need doing are ignored.

  5. Labtech
    December 17, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent.

    Gun control, people…keep your eye on the ball.

  6. Just Watchin
    December 18, 2012 at 5:32 am

    Mental health people……keep your eye on the ball. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

  7. Just Watchin
    December 18, 2012 at 5:37 am

    With a super majority, can’t the California legislators pass just about any kind off gun control laws that they want. Libtards talk the talk on gun control. Why not walk the walk for a change?

  8. Ponder Z
    December 18, 2012 at 5:47 am

    responsible gun ownership is foremost. If you live with a person with mental problems or even just smokes weed evey day, you should keep very tight control of your guns. #2 is right about the over prescribed meds for mental disorders. Even weed is a key factor in unstable mental balance. When you buy a gun, you fill out paper work that declares you are not a mental patient and dont use drugs like MJ among other declarations on the form. If you lie on this form you are braking a law of perjury. We have many ridiculous and restrictive gun laws now. We need common sense and enforcement. Keep your eye on the drug user, and your hands off my guns!

  9. Anonymous
    December 18, 2012 at 5:50 am

    You are right Ponder, anyone who is taking SSRIs like Paxil or Prozac should be disqualified from gun ownership.

    Once they can demonstrate that they are free of the antidepressant addiction then they can get their guns back.

  10. Anonymous
    December 18, 2012 at 7:10 am

    AM Alert: California lawmakers propose stricter gun control

    VIDEO: Dan Walters says pressure is building to raise the minimum wage in California, with the Legislature poised to consider the issue next year.

    State Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles holds a 10 a.m. news conference at the Capitol to announce legislation his office said will combat “the easy accessibility to firearm ammunition that fuels gun violence and criminal activity.”

    The news conference, in Room 1190, comes less than a week after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, announced Monday that he is drafting legislation to close loopholes he said exist in the state’s assault weapon ban.

    Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/12/am-alert-california-lawmakers-propose-stricter-gun-control.html#mi_rss=Latest%20News#storylink=cpy

  11. Anonymous
    December 18, 2012 at 7:15 am

    Joe Scarborough Comes to Jesus

    Published on Dec 17, 2012

    Joe Scarborough said on Monday that the massacre in Newtown had forced him to rethink his “long-held” belief about gun rights.

    In a lengthy monologue, Scarborough talked about how shaken up he had been by the killing of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday. He noted that his children’s ages averaged that of some of the murdered victims.

    “From this day forward, nothing can ever be the same again,” he said. “… Let this be our true landmark … politicians can no longer be allowed to defend the status quo.”

    He said that he was a “conservative Republican” who had been solidly aligned with the NRA during his time in Congress, and had previously held libertarian views on the Second Amendment. But he added that Friday “changed everything”: “I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand for my children. Friday changed everything. It must change everything. We all must begin anew and demand that Washington’s old way of doing business is no longer acceptable. Entertainment moguls don’t have an absolute right to glorify murder while spreading mayhem in young minds across America. And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas. It’s time for politicians to start focusing more on protecting our schoolyards than putting together their next fundraiser. It’s time for Washington to stop trying to win endless wars overseas when we’re losing the war at home … For the sake of my four children and yours, I choose life and I choose change.”

  12. Anonymous
    December 18, 2012 at 9:06 am

    Walmart has pulled the Bushmaster Patrolman’s Carbine M4A3 Rifle from its web store, The Nation reported on Monday.

    The gun, a military-style assault rifle that uses .223 caliber ammunition, is in the same family of guns as the one reportedly used by Adam Lanza to kill 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary school on Friday.

    In addition to the one offered by Walmart, there are several other Bushmaster rifles that use .223 caliber ammunition. The authorities did not disclose the exact model used by Lanza.

    Walmart, the world’s largest retailer with 4,602 locations in the U.S., sells more firearms and ammunition than any national competitor, according to several news outlets. While Walmart stopped selling guns in a third of its stores in 2006, citing low demand, the company has in recent years beefed up its sale of weapons. Walmart expanded guns from 1,300 to 1,750 stores in 2011, a Walmart spokesperson told The Huffington Post earlier this year.

  13. December 18, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Well then – let Wallmart show us what a benign corp. it is and pull ALL their assault-type weaponry from ALL their stores………..or will ‘demand’ be up as citizens fear they may be unable to purchase such soon?

  14. Mitch
    December 18, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    I’m not always a fan of sfgate columnist Mark Morford’s style, though I pretty much always agree with what he has to say. This time, though, I think his column is perfect:

    http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2012/12/18/death-to-all-guns/

  15. jr
    December 18, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Mitch: Thank you for posting this column. I have always enjoyed reading Mark Morford when he was in the print edition, but many times forget to go online now to read him. He wrote a nice piece 2007 entitled “If the dolphins talk, let’s listen”. Definitely worth searching for.

  16. Just Watchin
    December 18, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    When San Francisco mayor Diane Feinstein was giving a press conference in support of gun control, she was asked: “why do you carry a gun in your purse?”. It was a poorly kept secret that she had the only concealed carry permit in the city. Her response was:”It’s for my protection” REALLY???

  17. Mitch
    December 18, 2012 at 5:53 pm

    While I cannot vouch for the truth of this letter, purportedly from Dianne Feinstein, QDMcG has provided it to me:

    Dear Dr. TOP:

    Thank you for writing to me about my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

    I possessed a concealed weapon permit for a short time beginning in 1976. In the mid‑1970s, a terrorist organization ‑‑ the New World Liberation Front ‑‑ carried out two attacks against me and my family. In the first, a bomb was placed outside the window of my daughter’s bedroom. It detonated but did not explode. We were lucky: the weather was particularly (and unusually) cold, and the explosive they used didn’t explode in below‑freezing temperatures. In the second, they shot out the windows of our beach home. My husband was terminally ill with cancer at the time.

    Later, some of the members of the New World Liberation Front were arrested, and the threat abated. At that point, I had the gun — and several other weapons that were turned into the police — melted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II when I visited Rome in 1982. Currently, I do not possess a gun, nor do I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    I hope this addresses what you may have heard on the subject. If I can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224‑3841.

  18. jr
    December 18, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Mitch: This is confirmed in the book “Season of the Witch” by David Talbot who writes of the New World Liberation Front’s attacks on page 342 of the book.

  19. December 18, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    There was a horrible massacre in Australia in the mid nineties…35 deaths. Within 4 days of the incident Australia had really strict gun laws and a buy back program for assault weapons. There are lots of hunters and gun owners there and they adopted the attitude that you are a total wimp if you need an assault weapon. A real hunter doesn’t need a weapon like that. They haven’t had any gun massacres since. I like Morford’s column and i’d love to see guns go away! But it is not realistic. So can we agree to ban the assault weapons and get mentally ill kids and their parents some help? Oh, and the reason Australia acted so quickly; they didn’t want to become like America…You can hear the interview on Democracy Now.

  20. Just Watchin
    December 19, 2012 at 5:35 am

    Mitch :While I cannot vouch for the truth of this letter, purportedly from Dianne Feinstein, QDMcG has provided it to me:

    Dear Dr. TOP:
    Thank you for writing to me about my permit to carry a concealed weapon. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.
    I possessed a concealed weapon permit for a short time beginning in 1976. In the mid‑1970s, a terrorist organization ‑‑ the New World Liberation Front ‑‑ carried out two attacks against me and my family. In the first, a bomb was placed outside the window of my daughter’s bedroom. It detonated but did not explode. We were lucky: the weather was particularly (and unusually) cold, and the explosive they used didn’t explode in below‑freezing temperatures. In the second, they shot out the windows of our beach home. My husband was terminally ill with cancer at the time.
    Later, some of the members of the New World Liberation Front were arrested, and the threat abated. At that point, I had the gun — and several other weapons that were turned into the police — melted into a cross, which I presented to Pope John Paul II when I visited Rome in 1982. Currently, I do not possess a gun, nor do I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
    I hope this addresses what you may have heard on the subject. If I can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224‑3841.

    ( I found several statements from Feinstein insiders about this)….What Feinstein does not say in the statement is that the gun she gave up to be melted down was not her own, but a cheap “Saturday night special” that an aid gave her.

  21. Just Watchin
    December 19, 2012 at 5:42 am

    Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. It doesn’t seem to be working…..
    http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/chicago-shootings-spike-49-november-despite-strict-gun-laws

  22. Ponder Z
    December 19, 2012 at 5:57 am

    Mitch, #17, was this terrorist organization associated with the Bill Ayers terror group the Weathermen?

  23. Ponder Z
    December 19, 2012 at 6:02 am

    Another asshole politician “Gun owners and hunters across this country have every right to own legitimate guns for legitimate purposes and our Democratic caucus is not declaring war on guns.”

    note, all guns will be deemed Illegitimate.

    Gun sales have been at an all time high. Because Barry will shut down gun sales, and citizens know it. Hillery must appease the UN ban on guns.

  24. Walt
    December 19, 2012 at 6:08 am

    The problem isn’t guns. . .it’s our society’s obsession with violence. In the movies, on TV, in the video games, in the popular music, it’s Hate, Kill, Maim, Destroy, fantasies of the murderous undead, and folks like Rush Limbaugh (and some mad dogs on the left, too) making piles of money selling something we’ve become addicted to. With a society this sick, is it any wonder the mentally ill become killers? When even the strongest positive adjective in English is “killer”, as in “killer aps”? Mass murders will end only when we tone down our society’s hate, anger, and glorification of violence.

  25. ProudOwner
    December 19, 2012 at 9:07 am

    If Nancy Lanza had only owned a gun she could have defended herself and stopped this rampage at the onset.

    We need to arm our teachers!

  26. December 19, 2012 at 10:06 am

    Thomas Jefferson wrote:
    “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

    “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

  27. Mitch
    December 19, 2012 at 10:40 am

    FQ,

    Should people be allowed to own tanks? What would your solution be when the gubmint comes for your gun with a tank? Will you be buying yourself a missile from the local gun store?

  28. Mitch
    December 19, 2012 at 10:42 am

    ProudOwner,

    You’re probably joking, but it’s now well known that Nancy Lanza was a “prepper” survivalist, which is the reason her son had access to a military grade weapon.

    The statistics are really clear that by keeping a gun in your home you are reducing your safety. I realize that’s a separate issue from whether it should be your right to do so.

  29. Plain Jane
    December 19, 2012 at 10:55 am

    People who think they can overthrow the most powerful country the world has ever seen with small arms doesn’t have both oars in the water. It isn’t assault rifles that preserve our liberty but an informed populace that votes.

  30. ProudOwner
    December 19, 2012 at 11:01 am

    Irony is sometimes as effective as satire.

  31. Anonymous
    December 19, 2012 at 11:07 am

    Seems to me that I read in the local paper that parolees get busted for drugs and have guns. They are not suppose to have either, yet . . . . . . .

  32. Not a gun owner
    December 19, 2012 at 11:57 am

    If you don’t like the fact that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms then change the Constitution. There is a prescribed procedure that allows us to do so.

    But you just can’t decide what parts of the Constitution you will follow and which parts you won’t.

    If there had been even one adult employee at Sandy Hook with a gun a lot of lives could have been saved.

  33. Plain Jane
    December 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Has anyone on this thread advocated changing the constitution to ban guns, Not a Gun Owner? It appears to me that people are advocating common sense rules for gun ownership which protects gun ownership for responsible, law abiding people while preventing crazy people and criminals from getting them. When the constitution was written the most powerful weapons any govt had were cannons against which rebels with small arms had a chance of success. That is no longer true so that justification for weapons is no longer valid.

  34. ProudOwner
    December 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    “If there had been even one adult employee at Sandy Hook with a gun a lot of lives could have been saved.”

    “If Nancy Lanza had only owned a gun she could have defended herself and stopped this rampage at the onset.

    We need to arm our teachers!”

    Then again, the appreciation of irony does require a certain level of intelligence & erudition.

  35. ProudOwner
    December 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm

    Let’s not forget to arm the students too!

    The geopolitical map of Arcata will look a little different with 10.000 well armed Lumberjacks up on the hill! No more takin shit from the townies for sure!

  36. December 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    M,
    I wrote quotes above from Jefferson. Tanks? I don’t live in the “what if?” I have faith in my fellow man.

    The keyboard is mightier than the gun – hence, my ‘Notice to Public Servants’ of yesterday.

  37. December 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Plain Jane,
    Change the Constitution – where do you come up with such an idea? You perhaps believe that ‘we’ won the Revolution – think again – ‘we’ lost it on paper- -called debt.

    Your last sentence doesn’t hold water. Many are waking up – that includes the military.

  38. Just Watchin
    December 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm

    Mitch :ProudOwner,
    You’re probably joking, but it’s now well known that Nancy Lanza was a “prepper” survivalist, which is the reason her son had access to a military grade weapon.
    The statistics are really clear that by keeping a gun in your home you are reducing your safety. I realize that’s a separate issue from whether it should be your right to do so.

    Mitch…..I really question your statement that a gun in the house reduces your safety. Do you have studies to site other than a libtard source? I’m sure it’s unpopular to examine this angle, but Lanza’s mother knew he was in distress. Why didn’t she have her guns locked up??

  39. Mitch
    December 19, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    JW,

    Here’s the first thing I come up with. If you consider it libtard, I’m happy to look for more — this took less than 30 seconds:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full

    ABSTRACT

    This statement reaffirms the 1992 position of the American Academy of Pediatrics that the absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents. A number of specific measures are supported to reduce the destructive effects of guns in the lives of children and adolescents, including the regulation of the manufacture, sale, purchase, ownership, and use of firearms; a ban on handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons; and expanded regulations of handguns for civilian use. In addition, this statement reviews recent data, trends, prevention, and intervention strategies of the past 5 years.

  40. Mitch
  41. Just Watchin
    December 19, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    Mitch…..you said safety in general, not child safety. I doubt that you could determine yes or no if safety is improved. If a man in Eureka blows his “elephant deterrent whistle”, and no elephants are around, does that prove that the whistle works??

  42. Blam Blam
    December 19, 2012 at 4:57 pm

    “And while the nation seeks to demonize gun ownership, it has systematically failed to address the far more dangerous and overreaching affects of mental conditioning that violent video games and movies have on people, especially its youth.”

  43. Anonymous
    December 19, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    “.Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of-its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

  44. Anonymous
    December 19, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    #42, how do you explain the fact that kids in Canada watch the same violent video games and movies, and yet don’t seem to go on these killing sprees?

  45. Just Watchin
    December 20, 2012 at 6:17 am

    Anonymous :“.Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of-its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

    What…..did they run out of diseases to study and thought they’d dabble in guns? Yea…..I’ll take their word for it:

    Epidemiologist Duties and Responsibilities:
    Epidemiologists study the frequency and distribution of diseases within human populations and environments. Specifically, they measure the incidence of disease occurrence and relate it to different characteristics of populations and environments. Epidemiologists perform research, education, and public health practice in universities, government agencies, international organizations, and private corporations. Epidemiologists often:
    Work on developing or refining methods of measuring and evaluating disease occurrences.
    Develop and recommend public health policy.
    Study or research chronic diseases, infectious diseases, disease outbreaks, injuries, occupations, and environments

  46. Just Watchin
    December 20, 2012 at 7:51 am

    Now here’s a level headed reaction from a Democrat: shoot all the NRA members:
    http://www.examiner.com/article/democratic-party-leader-call-to-shoot-nra-members-not-a-death-threat

  47. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am

    In other words, you didn’t bother to read the study and examine its methodology — you don’t like the conclusions, so you’re just going to ignore it. Well thank you for demonstrating one of the common strategies for deliberately remaining ignorant of the facts.

  48. Just Watchin
    December 20, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Anonymous :In other words, you didn’t bother to read the study and examine its methodology — you don’t like the conclusions, so you’re just going to ignore it. Well thank you for demonstrating one of the common strategies for deliberately remaining ignorant of the facts.

    I read it. And if I ever need information on lung cancer, I might look them up. But here’s one for you Anon…..see if you can answer it honestly: You’re a burglar, and you’ve narrowed down your next victim to two houses. One has a window sticker that says “ban all guns now”, and the other a ” Proud member of the NRA” sticker. Which house are you going to break into ??

  49. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    If I was interested in stealing guns, as many burglars are, definitely the latter.

    Now, you say you read the study. So, what, if anything, is wrong with their methodology?

  50. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    If I was interested in stealing guns, as many burglars are, then definitely the latter.

    Now, you say you read the study. So, what, if anything, is wrong with their methodology?

  51. Just Watchin
    December 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Anonymous :If I was interested in stealing guns, as many burglars are, then definitely the latter.
    Now, you say you read the study. So, what, if anything, is wrong with their methodology?

    Actually, the details in the study tend to prove my point. Of the 677 armed assaults in Phill, 94 % were committed against UNARMED victims!! Sounds like being armed tends to deter thugs and robbers. Imagine that.
    As for the methodology, all it says about the control group was:
    “To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.” What does that prove?
    And lastly, YOU should have read the article more closely, instead of cherry picking the parts that you want to hear. From a more reputable source, the Academy of Science said:”A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun.”
    Besides, I question some of the data to begin with. I lived near Philly, and believe me, in way more than 6% of the shootings both participants are armed.

  52. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
    From Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
    Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

    Our country has more guns and we experience many more assault deaths than any other developed country: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

    It’s pretty damn clear that fewer guns in your home, city, state or country means you are MUCH LESS LIKELY to be killed by a gun. You can listen to the gibberish of the NRA or you can look at facts.

  53. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Apparently you’re not very bright, or else your desire to discount this study is clouding your judgement. First of all, the National Academy of Sciences report came out 4 years before this 2009 report, so the statement that we “continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense” was before this Penn study, not after. Which is why the sentence following the quote that you cherry-picked said “These [earlier] studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.” This one did. Then you say that I should “believe you” that in way more than 6% of the shootings both participants are armed, but you supply no evidence to back up that claim. Just your personal belief. The Penn researchers, on the other hand, took a random sample of all the assaults during the period studied, and came up with the 6% figure. Your critique is fatally flawed. This Penn study may or not be accurate, but you’ve given no reason to believe that it is.

  54. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Just to be clear, my comment #53 was aimed at JW’s comment #51, not the comment by the other Anonymous (#52).

  55. Just Watchin
    December 20, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    Too many morons on here going by “Anonymous”. Get a little creative and make up a name. And I’ve done a little study on my own, and determined that if someone breaks into my house, he’s a dead man. Case closed.

  56. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    The question is, do you really think you’d need an assault weapon with a 30 round clip to accomplish that? I don’t.

  57. Just Watchin
    December 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    Anonymous :
    The question is, do you really think you’d need an assault weapon with a 30 round clip to accomplish that? I don’t.

    I actually believe that the sale of assault weapons should be severely restricted, if at all. Surprised Anon? I’m a firm believer in the “one shot……one kill” credo.

  58. Anonymous
    December 20, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    Glad to hear it. Most gun owners (and even NRA members) that I know agree that assault rifles and high capacity clips are not necessary for either hunting or personal protection . Now if only the politicians would stop listening to the extremists in the gun lobby, who seem to represent greedy gun manufacturers and dark fantasy-oriented survivalist whackos, not average gun owners, much less the general public.

  59. HUUFC
    December 20, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Yesterday Oakland had it’s 124 murder, most of them with hand guns. Move along, nothing happening here.

  60. HUUFC
    December 20, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Chicago murders near 500 for this year, most with handguns.

  61. HUUFC
    December 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    Detroit, murders 375 this year, most with handguns.

  62. Anonymous
    December 21, 2012 at 9:09 am

    People say we need to spend more money on mental health. The problem is not that these services weren’t available to that sick killer, his mother had plenty of money. The problem is the ones who are sick don’t want help and don’t think they need help.

    The mentally deranged have always been with us. They have always been killing innocents through history. The difference now is our society is so soft that people wring their hands crying about the rights of the mentally ill. Instead of locking them up in hospitals they are allowed to range freely in society. Then those hand wringers wring their hands again when innocents are slaughtered.

  63. Anonymous
  64. December 21, 2012 at 9:18 am

    In California it was Reagan who closed the mental hospitals. Was Reagan soft? Nationally the Republicans have been cutting mental health money for decades.

    And yes, the mentally ill have the same rights as everyone else. Get over it.

    When a society recognizes the rights of everyone then that society is stronger, not weaker.

    Paranoid schizophrenics do not “choose ” to be paranoid.

    Mentally ill people do ask for help but what they end up with is some pill pusher pushing deadly addictive drugs on them, like Seroquel, Ritalin, Adderall, Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and Effexor.. Mentally ill people need someone to talk to, not to be drugged into submission.

    And yes, I do recognize that talk therapy won’t help everyone, but it should be the first course of action, not drugs!

    And let us remember the VAST majority of “mentally ill” are completely harmless except to themselves.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  65. Plain Jane
    December 21, 2012 at 9:33 am

    Yes, Bill, Reagan threw most of California’s mental patients out into the street, but it is more complex that than. Mentally ill people who are not a danger to themselves or society have the same rights as mentally well people (whoever that may be) and forcing them into mental hospitals is a violation of human rights, as we understand them. Our haphazard system for dealing with the mentally ill, making sure that those who need drugs to function safely actually take them and those who don’t and become dangerous are discovered before they harm themselves or society, compounds the problem and blurs the lines between who should and should not be institutionalized for their own and society’s safety. Unfortunately there is no easy or cheap fix and not much political will to do anything meaningful about the real problems.

  66. December 21, 2012 at 9:43 am

    I agree that there is no easy or cheap solution.

    I think it is provable that people taking Seroquel die at twice the rate of the same mentally ill population that is not taking Seroquel. A lot of Seroquel is diverted to the street where it is known affectionately as “Qwell.” And of course it is costing the county government millions of dollars to dispense these deadly and addicitve drug cocktails.

    Hire some more trained mentai health counselors and cut back on the drug madness.

    If someone is suffering depression or extreme anxiety or disturbing thoughts, who should they call in Humboldt County? If you call Humboldt Mental Health you will be lucky if the receptionist talks to you. I am not being snarky. Does Humboldt mental health have ANY talk therapists on the payroll?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  67. Plain Jane
    December 21, 2012 at 9:53 am

    It seems that a lot of the drugs prescribed for mental illness have such debilitating side effects that many people are loathe to take them as prescribed. More counselors would help, no doubt, but someone keeping a close eye on their behavior and adherence to their drug regime (if any) is also needed, even if it is just a phone call daily to check on their well-being. Expecting a mentally ill person to call mental health (if there were counselors available to take those calls) when they start to spiral out of control is often too little, too late.

  68. Anonymous
    December 21, 2012 at 10:04 am

    Lets not forget the positive contribution that paranoid schizos have made to our community.

    Paranoid schizos gave us religion. The sky gods who talk to us? Who would believe all that unless they are crazy?

  69. Don't blame me I voted Republican
    December 21, 2012 at 10:05 am

    Unbelievable people still blame Reagan for the mentally ill wandering our streets, marshlands and back alleys. HELLO? Reagan hasn’t been governor in 40 years! Democrats have been in control of the state legislature for many decades and now have super majorities in both houses. Democrats own every single statewide elected office in California.

    So why won’t your party do anything?

  70. Plain Jane
    December 21, 2012 at 10:17 am

    Hopefully when Democrats actually have a super majority they will work on providing adequate mental health funding, #69. That won’t be until next month. You surely know that in California having a majority isn’t enough to pass any increases in taxes or the budget when the minority party blocks it, but don’t let that stop you from blaming Democrats for everything.

  71. Just Watchin
    December 21, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Plain Jane :Hopefully when Democrats actually have a super majority they will work on providing adequate mental health funding, #69. That won’t be until next month. You surely know that in California having a majority isn’t enough to pass any increases in taxes or the budget when the minority party blocks it, but don’t let that stop you from blaming Democrats for everything.

    Simple majorities can’t pass tax increases by themselves, but super majorities can. Now’s the time for democrats to walk the walk, instead of just talk the talk.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578106941506837334.html

  72. December 21, 2012 at 11:47 am

    So, Florida Watching, when the Democrats state they will exercise due care and take their time for good exercise of their elected powers, it’s just politics.

    But when the Repubs have been stingy, cruel, Foxy/WS, and refusing, it’s just very proper and mature conservative behavior, right?

  73. December 21, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Bill, on your points, I agree that there should be actually counseling counselors to help the mentally ill in dealing with their lives, which includes getting the useful drugs to be taken consistently.

    Just the point that for schizophrenia, the big recognition psychiatry had to make some decades ago was that there was going to be no talking cure. It’s a physical condition, which needs medication to bring under control.

    Given the ‘spectrum’ talk that now is pervasive, it seems likely that mental illness of some other labels is likely to be recognized also so.

    With the control proper medication can bring, then the counseling can do much good; surely our societal practices of the past, as well as downright human consideration would show that.

    There are unfortunate styles in current psychology and current budgeting that have harmed this practice, but as with other matters (i.e. money), it’s time for much more sensible and balanced ideas to regain their hold.

    Pulling this out of what we as a family have had to learn for a nephew, who in fact earned his right to self-manage and live independently through his own successful efforts, and does very well. I’m quite proud of him. He knows he doesn’t want episodes, and quite carefully takes his meds, which is part of it.

    The rest is what the humanly interested counseling service needs to be there to provide.

  74. Just Watchin
    December 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Narration :So, Florida Watching, when the Democrats state they will exercise due care and take their time for good exercise of their elected powers, it’s just politics.
    But when the Repubs have been stingy, cruel, Foxy/WS, and refusing, it’s just very proper and mature conservative behavior, right?

    All that I’m saying is that democrats can now do all of the things that they’ve preached about forever. Nothing can stop them now. So like I said…..it’s time to walk the walk.

  75. Plain Jane
    December 21, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    It seems like some type of psychiatric in-home health service might be a cost-effective way to monitor the well-being of mentally ill people who are living independently and give them someone to talk to on a regular basis, or provide respite to families who are caring for their own.

  76. Anonymous
    December 21, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    You hate the Republicans so much Jane, tell your Democrat party about your idea. They can do anything they want in Calif.

  77. Anonymous
    December 21, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    This is a fascist proposal to put a fascist paramilitary force in our public schools. This is a purportedly “conservative” gun rights group that is proposing a brand new Federal police force of 250,000 men. So much for small government.

    Just imagine putting the safety of your children in charge of the average TSA agent.

    We need to say NO to the militarization of our schools!

  78. HUUFC
    December 21, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    You all talking about Senator Barbara Boxer’s proposal to armed National Guard troops at schools?

  79. Anonymous
    December 21, 2012 at 8:23 pm

    No I am talking about the NRA’s openly fascist proposal.

    However Boxer’s proposal is just as bad. It takes us far down the road to a fascist militarized society.

    Just say NO!

  80. Just Watchin
    December 22, 2012 at 5:37 am

    Funny how when Barbara (conceal/carry permit) Boxer suggests it, liberals think it’s O.K.

  81. Mitch
    December 22, 2012 at 7:36 am

    I’d assumed HUUFC and JW had heard some new nonsense on their right wing “news” programs. Silly me: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sen-boxer-national-guard-schools-20121219,0,7530900.story

    JW, IMO you win the hypocrisy battle hands down on this one. It’s a stupid attempt at a solution, whether proposed by Boxer or LaPierre. But you’re right that the outrage at LaPierre is next to nonexistent at Boxer, and I’m surprised and amazed.

    Do we as a society really think turning our schools into militarized zones is the only way to protect our kids? Maybe so, maybe so.

  82. Plain Jane
    December 22, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Maybe no. As this editorial makes crystal clear, a heavily armed society is not compatible with liberty and free expression:

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/?src=me&ref=general

  83. Mitch
    December 22, 2012 at 8:05 am

    PJ,

    To clarify, of course I think it’s foolish to turn our schools into militarized zones. My “maybe so” was a statement about public opinion.

  84. Plain Jane
    December 22, 2012 at 8:10 am

    I know, Mitch. But I don’t think society as a whole is buying that “solution” anyway. I’ve been in countries where there are heavily armed guards all over the place and they do not instill a feeling of safety, quite the opposite.

  85. Just Watchin
    December 22, 2012 at 8:41 am

    From the above link:…..”States are now lining up to allow guns on college campuses. In September, Colorado joined four other states in such a move”. Now there’s a GREAT combination…..legal pot and guns on Colorado campuses.”

  86. Mitch
    December 22, 2012 at 8:51 am

    Just Watchin,

    I think you’ve just revealed a lapse in your education. If you want to worry, worry about legal guns and alcohol. Worrying about legal guns and pot is like worrying about legal guns and massage.

  87. December 22, 2012 at 9:02 am

    You should worry more about guns and SSRIs like prozac, paxil, effexor and zoloft.

    Most of the mass murderers in the last 20 years have been people addicted to SSRIs.

    You need to connect the dots. It is not just “mentally ill” people who are committing mass murder. It is “mentally ill people” who are taking a certain class of drugs that are committing mass murder.

    SSRIs are time release amphetamines and long term use results in a manic condition, like mild tweaking. People who are unstable but normally non-violent can be pushed over the edge.

    Anyone who is taking SSRIs should not be allowed to possess a deadly weapon. After they can demonstrate that they are free of the SSRI addiction, then let them have their guns back, absent any further signs of instability.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  88. Just Watchin
    December 22, 2012 at 9:25 am

    It appears that armed guards in schools is not new, and in California no less:
    http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_22242275/bay-area-cold-nras-call-an-armed-guard?source=rss

  89. December 22, 2012 at 9:33 am

    There is a solution, repeal the second amendment…good luck with that one.
    What about when the SCOTUS rules we have a right to be armed for self defense in public?

  90. Plain Jane
    December 22, 2012 at 9:38 am

    While the focus has been on mass killings and mental illness, many times that number of innocent people are killed every year with all types of guns, accidentally and deliberately, by the bat-shit crazy, the scared, the pissed off and the legally sane. How sane is our society when, despite accounting for 80% of the gun deaths in the 1st world, we can’t pass rational, effective gun regulation and safety laws? I wonder if the founders would have been more specific and limiting in the 2nd amendment if they could have envisioned today’s “arms.”

  91. Plain Jane
  92. Just Watchin
    December 22, 2012 at 10:18 am

    I found the article linked below while looking for gun ownership and gun violence data around the world. I have to say I was amazed.It’s no wonder Switzerland has a reputation as a peaceful country…..they’re armed to the gills and nobody screws with them. All the males are trained in gun use, and there’s virtually a fully or semi automatic assault weapon in every home.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

  93. Plain Jane
    December 22, 2012 at 10:21 am

    If someone intent on mass murder is dissuaded by armed guards at schools, wouldn’t he just find targets elsewhere like movie theaters, malls, playgrounds, ball parks, etc? Where would it end?

  94. December 22, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Bill seems to be the only one in here who has a grasp of what’s going on. Gun control or mind control – there’s your choices. The shrinks employed by HUMBOLDT INC. are paid $9,021 BI-WEEKLY, plus benefits to all family members, vacation time, sick-leave, over-time, and early retirement with pension. BEEcause the COUNTY has illegally authorized them as ‘conservators.’ Hence, all of the properties now recorded to the COUNTY’S ownership.

  95. Just Watchin
    December 23, 2012 at 8:12 am

    Just Watchin :I found the article linked below while looking for gun ownership and gun violence data around the world. I have to say I was amazed.It’s no wonder Switzerland has a reputation as a peaceful country…..they’re armed to the gills and nobody screws with them. All the males are trained in gun use, and there’s virtually a fully or semi automatic assault weapon in every home.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

    I find it curious that there has not been a response to this post on Switzerland’s gun ownership.

  96. Plain Jane
    December 23, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Switzerland has half our rate of poverty, spends twice what we do on social programs, has universal health insurance which covers mental illness and has more doctors per capita than we do but spend less, has a smaller gap between rich and poor and their population is more homogeneous.

  97. Anonymous
    December 23, 2012 at 9:02 am

    Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

    http://tinyurl.com/cbl67aw

    Posted by Ezra Klein on December 14, 2012 at 5:36 pm

    My post “12 facts about guns and mass shootings” included a mention of Israel and Switzerland, societies where guns are reputed to be widely available, but where gun violence is rare. Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School, has actually researched this question, and she wrote to tell me I had it wrong. We spoke shortly thereafter on the phone. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.

    Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

    Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.

    For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.

    Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

    The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.

    Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

    EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.

    JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.

    EK: I was surprised by one statistic in your article: You said that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved, you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.

    JR: That’s a requirement. I don’t know a great deal about the ballistics issue there. But that is in the regulations.

    EK: Israel and Switzerland are both small, highly cohesive countries. So some say that the difference in gun crime shows that there’s something about American culture that’s leading to these atrocities. Do you buy that?

    JR: Israel is not a peaceful society. If there were a lot of guns, it may be even more violent. Israeli schools are well known for having a lot of the kicking and punching type of violence. I don’t know that Switzerland has that reputation. But Israel does, and it seems that the lack of guns promotes the lack of firearm violence rather than there being some nascent tendency toward peacefulness and cohesion. That cohesion may or may not exist, but not having guns prevents guns from being used in violence. People do still commit homicide and suicide but they do it with less lethal means. The most common form of suicide in Israel is strangulation, which is striking, because it’s not that common elsewhere.

    EK: Not to derail the conversation, but given that most industrialized countries have quite strict gun laws, if they don’t use strangulation, what do they use?

    JR: I don’t know what other countries have, but I’ve read about suicide in Israel, and it’s striking there, because there’s an age discrepancy. Between ages 18 and 21, when people are in the army and have access to guns, firearm suicide is very common. At other ages, strangulation is very common. So it does seem to suggest that people commit suicide with what they have access to even in the same society.

  98. Plain Jane
    December 23, 2012 at 9:27 am

    Furthermore, the US is the #1 country for gun ownership at 88.8 guns per 100 people while Switzerland is #3 with 45.7 guns per 100 people, or a little over half the gun ownership rate of the US.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_own_gun_per_100_res_2007-guns-per-100-residents-2007

  99. Plain Jane
    December 23, 2012 at 9:28 am

    Of course, those stats are from 2007 before the spike in gun sales in the US after President Obama’s election.

  100. Just Watchin
    December 23, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Feel free to go back as far as necessary to find data that you like.

  101. Plain Jane
    December 23, 2012 at 9:48 am

    Additionally from JW’s link, which he apparently didn’t bother to read, (or couldn’t understand)

    “To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.”

    “After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit (so-called “free arms”). Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.
    Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessories such as sound suppressors (“silencers”) is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker.”

    And, “Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.”

    “To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.”

    And since 2008,

    Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
    Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered.
    Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.

  102. Plain Jane
    December 23, 2012 at 10:21 am

    For the record, since JW’s link at Wikipedia reports changes that WILL OCCUR in 2008, it is obvious (to people with functioning brains) that the 2007 stats provided by Nation Master (a much more reputable site than Wikipedia) are at least as current as those at Wikipedia and there is no dispute in the stats between the 2 sites. JW’s functional illiteracy is the only reason he is so confused and still begging to be spanked with facts.

  103. Anonymous
    December 23, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Stockton is at a record high for homicides over 70. I wonder what the common denominator is?

  104. Plain Jane
    December 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    My guess would be poverty + meth/alcohol + guns = more homicides, #108.

  105. Anonymous
    December 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    I don’t see what poverty has to do with killing other people. Most of the murders are with handguns, how do poor people afford the weapon?

  106. HUUFC
    December 23, 2012 at 8:31 pm

    The last two anonymous post are mine.

  107. Just Watchin
    December 24, 2012 at 5:41 am

    Plain Jane :Furthermore, the US is the #1 country for gun ownership at 88.8 guns per 100 people while Switzerland is #3 with 45.7 guns per 100 people, or a little over half the gun ownership rate of the US.
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_own_gun_per_100_res_2007-guns-per-100-residents-2007

    BJ once again cherry picks data. This time to make it seem as if 89 out of every one hundred citizens is armed. I’m surprised she didn’t find a study that included military guns, so that the number approached 100 %. The truth is:
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

  108. December 24, 2012 at 8:04 am

    Al Jazeera: Mass Psychosis in the United States

    Mass psychosis in the US

    How Big Pharma got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs.
    James Ridgeway
    Last Modified: 12 Jul 2011 06:20

    Drug companies like Pfizer are accused of pressuring doctors into over-prescribing medications to patients in order to increase profits [GALLO/GETTY]

    Has America become a nation of psychotics? You would certainly think so, based on the explosion in the use of antipsychotic medications. In 2008, with over $14 billion in sales, antipsychotics became the single top-selling therapeutic class of prescription drugs in the United States, surpassing drugs used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux.

    Once upon a time, antipsychotics were reserved for a relatively small number of patients with hard-core psychiatric diagnoses – primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder – to treat such symptoms as delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder. Today, it seems, everyone is taking antipsychotics. Parents are told that their unruly kids are in fact bipolar, and in need of anti-psychotics, while old people with dementia are dosed, in large numbers, with drugs once reserved largely for schizophrenics. Americans with symptoms ranging from chronic depression to anxiety to insomnia are now being prescribed anti-psychotics at rates that seem to indicate a national mass psychosis.

    It is anything but a coincidence that the explosion in antipsychotic use coincides with the pharmaceutical industry’s development of a new class of medications known as “atypical antipsychotics.” Beginning with Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel in the 1990s, followed by Abilify in the early 2000s, these drugs were touted as being more effective than older antipsychotics like Haldol and Thorazine. More importantly, they lacked the most noxious side effects of the older drugs – in particular, the tremors and other motor control problems.

    The atypical anti-psychotics were the bright new stars in the pharmaceutical industry’s roster of psychotropic drugs – costly, patented medications that made people feel and behave better without any shaking or drooling. Sales grew steadily, until by 2009 Seroquel and Abilify numbered fifth and sixth in annual drug sales, and prescriptions written for the top three atypical antipsychotics totaled more than 20 million. Suddenly, antipsychotics weren’t just for psychotics any more.

    Source: Al Jazeera

    read the rest of the article:

    http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/20117313948379987.html

    http://urlet.com/history.many

  109. Anony
    December 24, 2012 at 9:03 am

    Now we know the root of bill’s problems. He gets his news from al jazeera.

  110. December 24, 2012 at 10:44 am

    “I don’t see what poverty has to do with killing other people.”
    I feel this statement is made in all honesty, without any irony. But I think if we look at it closely we can see how outlandish it is. For me, poverty is the one single common denominator in violence around the world.
    I understand the question though, how do they get the money for the gun? But that’s the problem, guns are everywhere and it’s so easy to get them.

  111. Just Watchin
    December 24, 2012 at 11:05 am

    Just Watchin :It appears that armed guards in schools is not new, and in California no less:http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_22242275/bay-area-cold-nras-call-an-armed-guard?source=rss

    I noticed there were crickets when I posted this. Interesting………

  112. Anonymous
    December 24, 2012 at 11:10 am

    We have always had poverty in the US and in every other country in the world throughout history.

    Here in the US the poverty used to be far more desperate than today with real starvation & death. Yet the number of murders and other crimes is higher today. Why is that? It isn’t guns, more people had them in the past. The answer is the breakdown of morals. That is yours I want it mentality has inflicted too many people today. I am only poor because you made me that way is being taught in the media and by the Democrats. You poo poo the Ten Commandments and laugh at the sense of honor people, including the poor, used to have.

    People used to also have a sense of shame. Meaning they would feel shame if they stole from other people or worse. They would work any job they could to avoid welfare.

    Now they feel entitled. I see no signs of it ever getting better only worse.

  113. Anonymous
    December 24, 2012 at 11:12 am

    Just Watchin :

    Just Watchin :It appears that armed guards in schools is not new, and in California no less:http://www.contracostatimes.com/education/ci_22242275/bay-area-cold-nras-call-an-armed-guard?source=rss

    I noticed there were crickets when I posted this. Interesting………

    David Gregory on Meet the Press lambasted the NRA spokesman yesterday for advocating armed guards at schools. Turns out Gregory’s own kids attend a private school with armed guards.

  114. HUUFC
    December 24, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Well said anonymous, especially when the President of the United States continues with his one trick pony mantra of taking money away from people that have it to give to people who don’t. That thinking is all the justification criminals need to get what they want. Poverty isn’t the cause of violence, criminals are.

    BTW, Merry Christmas everybody.

  115. Anonymous
    December 24, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Turns out Obama’s daughters attend elite private schools with 11 armed guards. But the children of us peons don’t deserve even one?

  116. Anonymous
    December 24, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    The average person and their children are not targets for assassins like a head of state. Next stupid comment please.

  117. Anonymous
    December 25, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    Tell that to the children of Sandy Hook.

  118. December 28, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    @ anonymi # 111 who said:” You poo poo the Ten Commandments and laugh at the sense of honor people, including the poor, used to have.” and “People used to also have a sense of shame.”

    No one here is ‘poo-pooing’ the 10 commandments (remove their Christian context and it’s all good – most religions say about the same).

    As to your ‘sense of shame’ – that would be appropriately embraced by those ilk who earn upwards of $1,000 an hour! Plenty of people looking for work, ready to take any work (see fucking Walmart…..). Those who ought exercise their sense of shame would be those who control/own so much more than they can even use (being as wanton as they possibly could!) while there are millions starving. It should be experienced by those who have sent us to war (your children to die) for minerals and oil. By bankers who destroyed lives (Grandma’s pension?) and rolled out with their golden parachutes.

    Wake up! Wake up! Wake up!

  119. December 28, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    I’m up, I’m up.
    And I totally agree with you. All this finger-pointing and the laying of blame and shame all over the place, but none for the ruling class, which actually has the power to make changes in policy as a majority of one.
    It seems people have been “Serfing” for so long, those most directly responsible for a lot of the misery we experience in this country, are completely immune from the attacks of those looking to place blame. Instead they lay it all at the feet of “Progressives” and “Liberals,” who are in constant battle with the uber-wealthy on behalf of the accusers themselves.
    Way too many “Good Germans,” in this country, attacking their natural allies on behalf those who don’t give a damn about them. Propaganda has done its dirty work, my friend.
    It takes an incredible amount of effort to avoid reality to such a degree that it allows a person to accept what they’re told by the aristocracy’s media as “truth.”
    I call it: “Serfing USA.”

  120. January 3, 2013 at 8:48 am

    #118, and #119 great posts!

    Here’s to “Serfing USA”

    1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
    2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
    3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
    4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country, but don’t really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
    5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country, if they could find the time – and if they didn’t have to leave Southern California to do it.
    6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.
    7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t to sure who’s running the country and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
    8. The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
    9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but who need the baseball scores.
    10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from another country or galaxy, provided, of course, that they are not Re publicans.
    11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
    12. The Key West Citizen is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.

  121. Just Watchin
    January 3, 2013 at 8:52 am

    Movie Dad……I’m still waiting to hear about those mass murders that you said took place after Connecticut, and the news was suppressed.

  122. January 3, 2013 at 10:21 am

    John Boston was a Marine deployed to Afghanistan between the years of 2004 through 2005. He is no longer in the Marines, but penned this letter to Senator Diane Feinstein
    following her announcement to outlaw 120 specifically-named firearms including certain semiautomatic riles, handguns, and shotguns.

    I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of persons who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
    I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am one of the people who you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
    I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
    I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

    We, the people, deserve better than you.

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Joshua Boston
    Cpl, United States Marine Corps
    2004-2012

  123. Just Watchin
    January 3, 2013 at 10:34 am

    All I can say to Cpl. Boston is OOH RAH!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s