What's new

***jazzfanz official us mass shootings thread***

So, uh, let's say the authoritarians of the world got their wish and disarmed the US populace......however impossible that would ultimately be in reality. How do they address the fact that you can 3D print weapons now? If that technology gains any sort of ubiquity, the gun control crowd globally is in for a very rude awakening.
 
So, uh, let's say the authoritarians of the world got their wish and disarmed the US populace......however impossible that would ultimately be in reality. How do they address the fact that you can 3D print weapons now? If that technology gains any sort of ubiquity, the gun control crowd globally is in for a very rude awakening.

My guess is the same way they would enforce the prevention of acquiring/possesing black market guns. Surveillance that leads to forced searches and confiscations.
 
My guess is the same way they would enforce the prevention of acquiring/possesing black market guns. Surveillance that leads to forced searches and confiscations.


If I'm at my house with a 3D printer on my desk and all I need is a file? It seems enforcement would be more akin to downloading software/music/movies. Maybe controlling ammo would be easier. I'm no gun expert so I don't know the workarounds to them shutting down bullet factories and whatnot would be.
 
If I'm at my house with a 3D printer on my desk and all I need is a file? It seems enforcement would be more akin to downloading software/music/movies. Maybe controlling ammo would be easier. I'm no gun expert so I don't know the workarounds to them shutting down bullet factories and whatnot would be.

You can make your own bullets as well. So like anything, even if it is illegal you can get around it if you want it bad enough. Short of draconian enforcement (and even then...) it will never work.
 
Last edited:
Defensive gun use here in LA...
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow...ner-shoots-kills-intruder-20140623-story.html

And a few in Utahr...
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=30060969&nid=968&s_cid=rec3

Here's another one in Utahr (2013) where the firearm is used as a deterrent and no force is used...
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=24585827&n...ntil-police-arrive&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1

And another one in Utahr...
https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56987605-78/monte-gonzales-invasion-robbery.html.csp

Everyday, law abiding citizens are protecting themselves and the lives of their loved ones.
 
This is the sort of thing our great-grandparents said when complaining about how spoiled our grandparents were.

Pretty sure my great-grand-father wasn't too concerned about math skills on the farm, or pushing his kid to be an astronaut or president or whatever. The "anyone can be a fill-in-the-blank" thing is a relatively new social construct really. In my GGF's day it was more determined by social status, and accepted as such, and any who thought otherwise were bucking the trends.
 
Pretty sure my great-grand-father wasn't too concerned about math skills on the farm, or pushing his kid to be an astronaut or president or whatever. The "anyone can be a fill-in-the-blank" thing is a relatively new social construct really. In my GGF's day it was more determined by social status, and accepted as such, and any who thought otherwise were bucking the trends.

Nostalgia was so much better in our ggf's day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Alger_myth
 
So Horatio Algers fiction proves that parents in the 1800's were encouraging their kids in the dustbowl to try to grow up to be President? Fiction is your source? Ok, works for me. No matter how hard you try to prove that everything really stays the same, there are social constructs that change over time. Obviously in the 1800's no kid was encouraged to try to become and astronaut. Yes, every generation wants the next one to be better off than they were, but the definition of "better off" changes with the times. My parents are children of the depression, and they just wanted me to have a stable job. That was about it. They encouraged us to go to school, get an education, so we could have stable jobs. The depression colored the expectations of that generation, and hence what they saw as "better off" for their kids.
 
So Horatio Algers fiction proves that parents in the 1800's were encouraging their kids in the dustbowl to try to grow up to be President?

The Dustbowl was a 1930s phenomenon. I'm sure not all parents, but it was a big part of the American culture.

Fiction is your source?

No, the popularity of the fiction type.

Ok, works for me. No matter how hard you try to prove that everything really stays the same, there are social constructs that change over time. Obviously in the 1800's no kid was encouraged to try to become and astronaut. Yes, every generation wants the next one to be better off than they were, but the definition of "better off" changes with the times. My parents are children of the depression, and they just wanted me to have a stable job. That was about it. They encouraged us to go to school, get an education, so we could have stable jobs. The depression colored the expectations of that generation, and hence what they saw as "better off" for their kids.

Agreed.
 
I came across an older article in Psychology Today regarding the use of SSRI's in treating patients with mental disorders and the violence that can ensue...

Newtown Shootings: A Caution About Violence and SSRIs
SSRIs rank high in the top ten drugs that cause violence
Published on December 20, 2012 by Lennard J. Davis in Obsessively Yours

As the debate moves forward about how to keep events like the shooting in Newtown from happening, the inevitable topic that comes up is how to best detect and treat young people with mental illness.

Many of our politicians have opined on this subject, sometimes as a way of deflecting from the issue of gun control. While it is obvious that better screening and treatment of troubled adolescents can be of enormous benefit, we also have to exercise caution.

The reason for the note of caution is that when a typical young person is diagnosed with depression and/or a host of anti-social conditions, the standard treatment offered is SSRI’s [Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors] also known as Prozac-like drugs. There has recently been a great deal of debate about the effectiveness of such medications.

But more relevant to the discussion, is that these very drugs we hope can treat mental illness are at the same time drugs that cause violent behavior including suicide and aggression toward others. In fact, SSRI’s are the leading drugs in a recent list compiled of the Top Ten Drugs that cause violent behavior.

It’s been well known that adolescents and young people have an increased risk of suicide when they begin to take SSRIs. But what we may forget is that suicide is an impulsive behavior that is turned against oneself. But impulses, particularly violent ones, can be turned against others.

An accompanying effect of SSRI’s is the dulling of feelings that cause depression—and one of the main feelings in this line is empathy. If empathy is dulled and violent impulses increase when young people are on SSRI’s, then certainly that is a recipe for causing harm to others.

It’s not that SSRI’s are not an important part of a mental-health practitioner’s arsenal against mental illness—they are. But it is important to understand that they are not panaceas and may even contribute to more violence.

It is possible that the SSRI’s were not properly prescribed and therefore were not working. But we also have to entertain the idea that those drugs may have directly or indirectly contributed to the violence that resulted.

After all, drugs are drugs—with effects and side effects. We need to know more about how these drugs work before we decide that the best policy is to get as many trouble adolescents on them as possible. The physician’s motto: “Do no harm” is more relevant than ever in this scenario.

I also came across this peer reviewed study about the use of SSRIs. It's not long and it's an easy read.

https://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

As I've stated a numerous of of times, our issues here in the States with gun violence have less to do with guns and more to do with individuals being prescribed drugs that put them over the edge.

From the study:

There is a natural reluctance to attribute “bad behavior” or loss of ethical restraint (dyscontrol, loss
of impulse control) to a psychoactive substance. Western philosophy, religion, and tradition tend to hold
human beings responsible for their harmful behaviors and eschew “excusing” such behavior on the basis
of “mental illness.” Indeed, the concept of mental illness has been subject to challenge by this author and
many others. Nonetheless, the weight of considered evidence indicates that psychoactive substances can
play a role in causing suicide, violence, and other forms of disinhibited criminal conduct.
 
Back
Top