My uncle takes an SSRI drug for depression and it's never inclined him to go out and shoot people. I understand side effects vary and that that example is irrelevant in the scope of the entire populous, but I've never heard that claim before.

http://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2012%2F12%2F16%2Fi-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html%3F1355667348%26ncid%3Dedlinkusaolp00000009&h=SAQGuVtuF&s=1

An interesting point.

Also stressedline: your point about one place being poor and having low crime does not a trend make.

You make the claim that there is no relationship between poverty and crime rates, and you choose only one point. That shows nothing of use.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-nation-reports,30743/

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

If you've never heard that claim, you're not paying attention. There are lots of people on SSRI's that don't snap, but that doesn't mean that there aren't well documented cases of people that do. In fact, there is an evolving legal defense that mitigates murder to manslaughter for people who were on SSRI's when they committed their crimes.

MichiganMan, for the last time, everyone has heard and understands that point. Nobody is arguing with you. Why do you keep saying things?

(P.S. "SSRIs" doesn't have an apostrophe in it)
(P.P.S. Apologies for my douchiness, I'm in a terrible mood and reading this bullshit is aggravating it further)

P.P.P.S. Apparently people were arguing with you. Apologies again. Why are they arguing with you?

I keep saying it because I think it's an overlooked factor that is playing a highly significant role in these tragic incidents. All anyone wants to talk about is the tool used by the perpetrator, not the underlying CAUSE of their actions.

We all agree on the cause. We all agree that it's a problem. We don't agree on whether he should be allowed access, directly or indirectly, to something as dangerous as a gun when it is known that he is unstable.

Well, the ONLY way to completely eliminate access to firearms it to completely destroy each and every firearm -- good luck with that. There are literally thousand's of "dangerous" things in this world, to which each and every one of us has easy access. Gasoline, chainsaws, acids, toxic chemical, pitch forms, machetes, ladders, even water. The world is a dangerous place, and we do our best to protect ourselves from those dangers, but sometimes bad shit happens. Banning the bad thing isn't always the case.

Whether you like want to admit it or not, guns are used every day to protect the lives of people all over the world, it's just not reported on with the same zeal. Who are you to tell someone that because someone else died as the result of a gun, that a life that was SAVED because of a gun is less worthy?

"are literally thousand's [sic]of 'dangerous things in this world, to which each and every one of us has easy access. Gasoline, chainsaws, acids, toxic chemical, pitch forms, machetes, ladders, even water."
Yes, it is true, everything is dangerous, but things are dangerous on different levels, and every single one of the things you just listed has a purpose other than harming other living beings.

"Whether you like want to admit it or not, guns are used every day to protect the lives of people all over the world, it's just not reported on with the same zeal. Who are you to tell someone that because someone else died as the result of a gun, that a life that was SAVED because of a gun is less worthy?"
Again with the clarity issues, but I get the gist of what you meant, so I'll respond. It's true that guns often protect people. In fact, they often protect people from other people with guns. If neither had guns, it wouldn't be a problem. You're also ignoring the fact that the majority of self-defense cases are cases of people stopping things such as robbery, rape, or vandalism, which are terrible things, but certainly not on the level of mass murder of children. You have to weigh risk and reward, and when you do that, you should find that the risk far outweighs the reward.

My sentence was perfectly clear, I think you need to look to your reading skills, not my writing skills.

I am not ignoring anything. How does the victim of a robbery or rape KNOW that the assailant isn't going to kill them?

Your bleeding heart liberal bullshit is getting thick dude, very very thick.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what the "majority of self-defenses" entail, so quit acting like you do.

Self-defense is a fundamental right.

"My sentence was perfectly clear, I think you need to look to your reading skills, not my writing skills."
"Who are you to tell someone that because someone else died as the result of a gun, *that* a life that was SAVED because of a gun is less worthy?" What's the second that doing there? As I said, I understood what you meant, but your English was still flawed to the point that it was difficult.

"Your bleeding heart liberal bullshit is getting thick dude"
I always know that I'm close to the other side giving up when arguments stop containing substance and instead merely attempt to insult my belief system.

"You have absolutely NO IDEA what the "majority of self-defenses" entail, so quit acting like you do."
Do you deny that they majority of gun related violence does not come as the result of murder threats?

"Self-defense is a fundamental right."
Yes, and apparently you believe killing people is too.

Killing a person that is threatening the my life, or the life of my family, you're damn right. If you want to let someone threaten you and yours, be my guest, but don't expect others to share your touchy feely attitude.

Just a commentary about having a gun to shoot burglars:

There are plenty, plenty of things that you CAN do, and that I'm pretty sure a lot of people DIDN'T do, to stop burglaries in your house.

1. Get an alarm system
-Burglaries happen mainly in homes of rich (or slightly better doing) people, so they can afford one.

2. Get a dog
-It also makes good company. Train it to start barking when someone enters your property.

3. Get a fence
-And let plants grow around it so you don't see it.

4. There are locks, doors, windows with extra security.

5. Construct an internal alarm system of any kind. One that doesn't call the police, or a private security company, but simply starts yelling when it detects something bizarre.

6. Organize a neighborhood patrol.

7. Build a safe room in your house where you can hide your family and store your valuable belongings when all of the above fail.

8. Build a garage, so people are less tempted to come onto your property and steel your car.

9. Store valuable belongings at a bank, or at a place that you believe is safe but where your children don't sleep. Seperate emotional from physical value.

10. Get a fake gun that can make a huge "bang" to intimidate people but not hurt them.

11. Beside a key, make sure your home opens with a code so people who happen to have a spare key can't enter without permission.

And this is just out of the top of my head. If you contact a professional security or your insurance company I'm sure they'll have endless ideas on how to organize security without weaponry.

Also, there are multiple discussions at the same time going on on the site. We're not all talking about the same type of guns. What I find particularly nuts about this situation is that the gun used is military equipment. I can find little fault in someone owning a hunting rifle for hunting in an area that has lots of stuff to hunt. Although in NL, I probably wouldn't want to see guns anywhere.

what military grade weapon did he use? a 9mm is not military issue. yes, our military uses them, as do our police, but they are not made exclusive for military.

I jsut googled the weapons again, and now there is an AR 15 involved? Thata was notin the initial report, I distinctly remember them naming 2 hand guns and the .223 he had in the car.

Interesting.

an Ar 15 is a military weapon. It is a better version of our M16 I am going to look into this a bit more, since that weapon was not reported by police that first day, and now is in there.

If you really love something you will defend that thing because you believe in it, that could be a practice that other people find unacceptable or morally repugnant. I think there is a certain love affair between American citizens and there access to purchase and use guns in a social capacity, 'a pastime the whole family can participate in'.
Why would we ask or expect them to give up something they love, this is the land of the free and they don't like being told what to do by foreigners, nor does anyone else.
I think Obama, rather than legislate against weapons should make the rules even more lax than they already are (if that is possible), sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. I didn't miss the irony of the gun-posse accusing people of people bleeding heart liberals when calling for gun controls, you couldn't have a more liberal policy on the control of guns, I understand they used to give them away for free if you opened a bank account.
Also in an enterprise economy like the US how many people would lose their jobs if they brought in gun controls, how many small businesses would be forced to close, what affect would it have on the arms industry. This is not just a moral issue, it's a money issue, the NRA doesn't get funded by thin air.
I don't want to see gun control laws, when you have a kindergarten teacher who thinks it's a good idea to purchase what I would loosely term machine guns so that the family can have some quality time together down the shooting range their is something so wrong, so endemic in the society that a law won't change this. Personally I want to know if my childs kindergarten teacher has a love or a fascination for guns, then I'm changing schools because when that becomes normal and socially acceptable something is fucked up.

' how many small businesses would be
forced to close, what affect would it have on the arms industry. '

Well if people had more money to spend in other areas the effect wouldn't matter, small businesses which had not diversified would fail; but those who had a small fishing bait section to compliment their hunting ammo would survive.

People out of work through no fault of their own would survive on their own finding new jobs - just like they always do (outisde of a centrally planned economy)

With the media eagerly putting out pictures of the wrong shooter, I'm sure they wouldn't hesitate to put out pictures of the wrong gun at any stage of the investigation.