On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:38:51 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Perhaps it could be as simple as gun sales requiring a sanity test of
> some kind for people buying guns.

Most states in the US do require it.  The problem is that often times 
people develop mental issues *after* they've purchased a weapon.

So what then?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:43:00 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:22:06 -0500, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> Fact:  There are always going to be people who abuse freedom.
>>> it's just that there seem to have been a lot more of those lately. 
>>> I'm not aware of many shooting incidents in school in the 50's of
>>> something.
>>>  While surely there was a lot of shooting in the Old West or Chicago
>>>  in
>>> the 20's, this happened outside of schools.
>> 
>> I don't know that there is any more or less than there used to be, but
>> there certainly is more media coverage of these terrible events.
> 
> don't know or don't wanna know?  You sound overly optimist...

I said I don't know, and I meant I don't know.  If I'd meant I didn't 
want to know, I would have *said* that.

That said, the phrase is fairly common parlance (at least around here and 
where I'm from) - not really stating *knowledge* (one way or the other).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:16:22 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:42:13 +1000, Brian Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>>> news:47b5d140$1@news.povray.org...
>>>
>>>> Suppose that psychotic purchased the weapon prior to their break?
>>>>
>>>> Or they decided not to take their medications?
>>> It seems you are closer than you were probably yet sure of.
>> 
>> It's a fairly common theme in shootings like this.  Similarly we had
>> two here in Salt Lake City over the last 10 years that were similar
>> situations - people who were on medication to deal with mental
>> instabilities who owned weapons prior to their diagnosis stopped taking
>> their drugs and went off the deep end.
>> 
>> 
> One thing that is glossed over is that many of the anti-depressants,
> SSRI types, have serious withdrawal. Paxil, the big one for a while, was
> a once a day pill that no one noticed had a half life of about 2.5 hours
> and was out of the blood in something over 12. Withdrawal on a daily
> basis mixed with what ever already caused the depression/anxiety/what
> ever.

Yes, some of them do have those kind of adverse effects - no doubt about 
that.  For some people, the side effects are worse than others.

I really think Lewis Black got it right when he said there's no such 
thing as general health guidelines, because everyone's health is 
different.  While he was taking the idea to an absurd extreme (he is, 
after all, a comic), the core idea does make a certain amount of sense.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 22:29:50 -0500, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

>> LOL!  I mean, it isn't funny, but it is, if you know what I mean. :-)
>> 
> Funny as in the cat chasing my nose around the yard, or not funny in 'oh
> crap, I lived with a cat that I couldn't go near growing up.' . . . Oh,
> both, I see.

Yes, more or less. :-)

>> Not really sure myself - all I know is when it became apparent that the
>> drug was the problem, I saw the doctor and told him what was happening
>> and he changed the prescription after giving a brief explanation.  I've
>> got a friend who worked in a hospital and learned a lot about drug
>> interactions, I suppose I could ask him.  He did confirm from his
>> sources (probably a PDR as he no longer works in the industry) that
>> that was a rare side effect.
>> 
>> 
> Sorry, my geek side started showing. I couldn't study medicine, so I
> just study drugs.

Nah, that's OK - no need to apologise for geekiness.  I tend to geek out 
about a fair number of things myself. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:38:51 -0200, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps it could be as simple as gun sales requiring a sanity test of
>> some kind for people buying guns.
> 
> Most states in the US do require it.  The problem is that often times 
> people develop mental issues *after* they've purchased a weapon.
> 
> So what then?

oh.  so the guy buys a weapon and go nuts.  explains a lot... :)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:40:47 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:38:51 -0200, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps it could be as simple as gun sales requiring a sanity test of
>>> some kind for people buying guns.
>> 
>> Most states in the US do require it.  The problem is that often times
>> people develop mental issues *after* they've purchased a weapon.
>> 
>> So what then?
> 
> oh.  so the guy buys a weapon and go nuts.  explains a lot... :)

That was the case both at the Triad center shooting here in SLC, as well 
as at the LDS Family History Library.  Both of them were unstable, but 
passed the background check years earlier when they purchased their 
weapons.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:15:50 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>Oo ar well I be in the country so we get a lot of shotguns and the odd  
>rifle. No handguns of course since the ban. Incidently we seem to be  
>getting increased reporting of stabbing incidents.

Increased reporting, indeed. But I see little difference from when I was young.
The media loves a panic it gives them a greater audience. Oo ar, Oo ar, Oo ar :)


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:51:11 -0500, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:

[Snip for brevity]

To reply to your last point (mine) first. I think that you are right, gun laws
won't help. It is too late for you, (not personally) there are too many guns in
circulation and the belief that you need a firearm to defend yourself too
ingrained. To quote a long dead poet who died in a fight. Why, this is Hell nor
am I out of it.
As for depression and drugs; it would probably be better (IMO) if drugs were
used as a last resort if at all. But then you would have to put more effort into
helping people which would not be as profitable to the established money makers.
"Drugs" are both fashionable and a dirty word. The easy way out until you have
to pay the final price and it looks like judgement day is getting closer.
If it is of any interest to anyone other than myself. I have turned down two job
opportunities to work across the pond because I don't want to put myself through
the hassle of living the life I see over there. Now this is not to say that I
haven't met many fine people from the land of the free, I have. Some of them
here on this newsgroup, a lot at work, some as visitors to my country etc. but
it seems like a society that is best experienced from a distance. 

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:47b61208$1@news.povray.org...

> I don't know that there is any more or less than there used to be, but
> there certainly is more media coverage of these terrible events.

True. There are, what, 17000 murders per year in USA, which means ~47 people
got murdered the day the shooting happened, but because it's a school, it
makes the headline news. The other 42 don't.

It really doesn't matter if people get shot at a school or bus stop.
*School* shootings is not the problem, and constitute a very minor risk and
a very minor problem/disturbance in society, when one looks at it
objectively. *Shootings* are the problem. But school shootings get an
inordinate amount of media attention.

Same thing happens in all kinds of media coverage. How many people go
missing in USA per year? But if one white, wealthy, attractive, young woman
goes missing, it busies the headlines for weeks and months.

We waste way too much time and effort with the inconsequential and miss the
forest for the trees.

Post a reply to this message

somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> Same thing happens in all kinds of media coverage. How many people go
> missing in USA per year? But if one white, wealthy, attractive, young woman
> goes missing, it busies the headlines for weeks and months.

  I somewhat agree with this. While cases like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_McCann
are terrible, the media attention *this* one case got is way out of
proportion IMO. How many children (and adults) disappear in Europe
every year without any newspaper even mentioning it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message