I just noticed that amongst all the 'blame the parents' and 'arm the teacher' threads

[coalition_unwilling]

making the rounds today, there is not ONE SINGLE THREAD blaming the gun manufacturers and their shareholders.

I mean, seriously, don't the folks at Bushmaster and Glock bear some responsibility for Newtown also? We hold tobacconists responsible for the harm their products cause. Shouldn't that same logic apply to the manufacturers of WMD?

[abelenkpe]

1. Yes. K&R nt

[brush]

81. I second that. nt

[barbtries]

2. absolutely.

thank you for the reminder.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. Pursuant to this, I am reviewing all the mutual funds in my IRA this week to make

sure that none of them own stock in any firearms manufacturer (as much as I, a gun layperson, can ascertain through reasonable due diligence). If I find any that do, I will be exchanging those mutual funds for ones that do not partake of the gun culture.

This is easier said than done and I welcome suggestions about how best to do it.

[barbtries]

15. i'd like to do the same

i already tried to get all the dirty oil out of my 401k and there was not one green company for me to choose instead.

[coalition_unwilling]

22. The mutual fund company TRowePrice offers a free tool (called

the Portfolio XRay) that looks at the individual holdings in each mutual fund you own and breaks them down for you. You click on this 'Stock Intersection' button and their tool slices and dices your holdings to show the stocks contained therein. (It's actually quite eye-opening and I was surprised to find out that I own a couple shares of Apple and Facebook stock through these mutual funds. Who'd a thunk it of a Democratic Socialist like me?

You don't have to be a paying customer of TRP, but you do have to sign up for an account and you have to do some data entry to get started.

Only problem I have is that I don't really know or recognize the names of all the weapons manufacturers, other than the obvious ones.

But, if you want to take a look, here's the link to the TRP tool:

http://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Planning-&-Research/Tools-&-Resources/Investment-Planning/Portfolio-X-Ray

[barbtries]

38. thank you

i'll bookmark

[FourScore]

3. Huh? Who's blaming the parents? n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

10. E pluribus unum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022010294

[6502]

71. Holy crap! Your right! It's like a kind of high-jacking of...

... the issue and flying it into a mountain.

The thread's comments seem to be tangled up in the wrecked.

WTF is going on? Who are these people?

[jberryhill]

12. I am

Specifically, I am blaming the owner of the firearms for failing to keep them properly secured.

It so happens that the person in question was a parent. The author of the OP mistakes this as "blaming the parents" qua "parents". But I wouldn't change my mind if the owner of the firearms had been a neighbor, and the kid had broken into the neighbor's house and taken them.

ANYONE who owns firearms has a responsibility to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. If someone owns a tiger, they need to make sure that tiger doesn't get out of its enclosure.

There are going to be suits against the mother's estate, and they are likely to succeed, as it is readily apparent that she failed to secure her firearms.

But some people are going to call that "blame the parents" instead of "blame the gun owner".

[coalition_unwilling]

16. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you but, in this case, with the owner of the firearms

herself a victim, what does 'properly secure' mean? By that, I mean assume for a moment she had the weapons in a locked storage facility. If that facility was accessible by key, should she be blamed for failing to anticipate that her son would gain access to the key and thereby the weapons and shoot her? I can see arguments both ways here so just trying to open the discussion up a bit.

[jberryhill]

21. It makes no difference that she was a victim

The drunk guy driving a car who takes 4 passengers with him to their deaths is also a victim.

What does "properly secure" mean?

That's very simple. You might look up the meaning of the legal term "res ipsa loquitur", Latin for "the thing speaks for itself". http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur

It is a principle applied in negligence cases involving inherently dangerous instrumentalities or practices. For example, if your neighbor keeps a tiger in a backyard enclosure, and the tiger gets out and kills people, then we do not get into whether the neighbor properly maintained the enclosure, or whether the enclosure was considered good enough. Liability is established by the fact that the tiger - an inherently dangerous animal - was under the control of the neighbor, but nonetheless got out and killed people, which is precisely what we expect from uncaged tigers.

So, what "properly secure" in this context means is just as simple, "if you have an arsenal, it is up to you to ensure that someone doesn't take the weapons and shoot a bunch of people".

It is not up to us to tell people things like "how to cage your tiger". It is the responsibility of the tiger owner to do it in such a way that the tiger doesn't get out and kill people. Because if it does, they are going to be held liable.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Wow, I know enough to know when I am in the presence of an expert and

to STFU

I guess, though, what I was trying in my inept way to suggest is that maybe the mother thought she had secured her weapons, never dreaming that her son would kill her to gain access to the arsenal. IOW, how much should she have been reasonably expected to anticipate in trying to secure the weapons?

In your hypothetical, the tiger ate its owner, I think.

That said, I readily take your point.

[ET Awful]

40. Think of it this way . . .

If she had survived, do you believe she would have been sued for negligence in failing to properly store and/or secure the firearms? If she was sued, what do you believe the outcome would have been?

Similarly, do you believe should could have been held criminally liable for allowing access to these weapons?

[Kyad06]

62. her estate will be sued

you can bet on that

[tblue37]

83. He killed her with a gun AFTER gaining access to it,

not in order TO gain access to it (and other weapons).

[coalition_unwilling]

85. Thank you for that annotation. I believe I worded my post to which you

responded very sloppily and should have said instead that I wonder whether the mother thought she had reasonably secured her weapons when living with a 20-year-old, never dreaming that he would access those weapons to shoot her.

I don't suppose we shall ever know entirely.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

30. Owning a tiger is highly regulated, highly restricted, and highly monitored.

Dangerous "pets" are often legally restricted in residential neighborhoods with laws which have withstood many Constitutional challenges.

When ownership is permitted, it comes with restrictions RANDOM INSPECTION, and huge fines for failure to comply.

Ownership of anything more powerful than a musket (strict founding founders Constitutional interpretation) should be subject not only to registration, but random inspection of secure housing.

The right to fly and the right to drive are both subject to random operator and equipment inspections.

[KittyWampus]

48. That was a very good post, thanks. People who own guns should thus secure them & be INSURED in the

event something goes wrong.

[HockeyMom]

23. My husband bought a safe a few weeks ago

It is a big huge thing that weighs about 700 lbs. It does not have a lock and key, but a combination lock. Although I don't know how many guns he owns (6?), if Nancy Lanza had that many guns she was hoarding, why didn't have a stupid SAFE. Don't let your "troubled" son know the combination. Don't tell ANYBODY the combination.

I don't know, or want to, the combination of my husband's safe.

[HooptieWagon]

69. She probably had them secured to some degree

The son tried to buy guns a day or two before the shooting, but was thwarted by the waiting period. I assume buying guns was easier than accessing hers. Being unable to buy guns immediately, he somehow accessed hers.
Son had no criminal record, so I assume he had no prior instances of violence. Reasonable conclusion is the mother probably thought her guns were adequately secured based on her sons prior history. It would be preposterous to think the mother had knowledge her son was going to murder her and 26 others and not do anything.

[barbtries]

17. i find myself

tending to put blame on the killer's mother. if, as i have heard on the news, she was seriously concerned about her son's mental health, she should have gotten rid of all the guns. i doubt she ever imagined he would do something like this but she very well may have been afraid that he would do harm to himself and possibly to her.
but i don't know any of this. it's just another facet and i find myself saying what the fuck! :Cry:
the parents of the victims, not at all, nobody, as far as i know.

[Myrina]

32. I am a single woman in my late 40's ...

... I have a house alarm & 3 big ugly lookin' (but well trained & protective) guard-mutts.

It has crossed my mind a time or two to consider buying a basic handgun for 'self-protection' but they make me squeamish. Not to mention, I'm really not afraid of dying.

Is there any reason on God's Green Earth I would need an arsenal which includes semi-automatic shotguns for "self protection"?

I really, really don't think so.

[barbtries]

39. of course not.

i have a strict rule which is no guns in my house ever. i have a chihuahua and live on the second floor. anything could happen except that no one will ever die from a gun that is or ever was owned by me.

i believe the killer's mother was an enthusiast ie, she just liked guns.

[Myrina]

43. Agreed, but the relative they spoke to in the article

... was quoted as saying (paraphrase) &quot Nancy) ...was a divorced female, she needed the gun(s) for self-protection".

Bullpuckey. Just ... bullpuckey.

[barbtries]

44. okay, i didn't read that

i just heard a blurb on the radio. agreed. bullshit.

[tpsbmam]

70. I'm a disabled woman who lives alone & has a 12 lb watch mutt

who I'd defend as much as I'd defend myself. I'm mostly in a wheelchair, using a walker for brief periods of walking or standing (which is an improvement over being 99% w/c bound for a couple of years). I, too, have a house alarm. I say it's total BS that one needs a gun for protection and I'll never own one. I now live in western NC but I grew up in and lived in NYC until I was 30. I lived much of that time as a single woman and never felt the need to own a gun there, either. The community I live in now is probably very similar to Newtown in many ways -- I sure as hell don't feel the need now!

As it turned out, the greatest danger to the murderer's mother was her own damned arsenal. When you look at the stats, having guns in the home for protection turns out to be, statistically, anything but. I'm on a tablet or I'd go get the stats myself -- the Brady center has good stats on the ways in which guns kept for protection end up getting used -- it ain't for protection! I think I remember a stat that indicated a gun in the home was far more likely to be stolen or used on the home dweller than it was to be actually used for protection. That one is pure recall, tho, and could be wrong.

(I'm talking stats, here, gun lovers, not individual instances. Please don't start telling me how aunt Millie saved herself from she big guy who broke in her house!)

[duhneece]

80. Here's a smattering of facts

From the Brady campaign website:

DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of homicide.

States with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership (Miller, Hemenway, and Azrael, 2007, pp. 659, 660).

The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).

Higher gun ownership puts both men and women at a higher risk for homicide, particularly gun homicide (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).

DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of suicide.

Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/gunsinthehome

[kag]

65. I agree with you.

And I've read other posts and comments by people who feel the same. If you have a mentally or emotionally disturbed person living with you, you should not own guns. In fact, you should not BE ALLOWED to own guns. Frankly, I think anyone with children shouldn't own guns, but that's just me. And yes, I think Nancy Lanza is definitely culpable...or would be if she were alive. It's just tragic that her stupidity helped bring about this horror.

[tclambert]

74. Blaming the parents of the shooter, not the victims.

Lots of people. For one thing, they were his mother's guns.

[IDoMath]

4. WMD?

So, now basic firearms are "Weapons of Mass Destruction" on the level of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons. This is how we end up calling peaceful protesters "terrorists."

How about we back off of the hyperbole inflation?

[RomneyLies]

7. I put a weapon like the one used in Sandy Creek at PRECISELY the same level as NBC weapons

Mass murder is mass murder. Ban the tools of mass murder regardless.

[IDoMath]

33. Really? You equate a gun to an atom bomb?

You equate a weapon capable of killing a killing a few dozen to weapon capable of killing millions in a single blast while wiping out every standing structure and leaving the space uninhabitable for centuries.


OK..

[Erose999]

60. The purpose is the same, the only disparity is quantity.

[IDoMath]

61. That's really not my point

My point in all of this is that the inflation of hyperbole renders language useless. Without language we can not have a discussion.

[coalition_unwilling]

11. Yeah, I'd say a weapon that kills 20 people in a single outing

meets my criterion for a weapon of mass destruction.

What's your body count threshold for the WMD cut-off point?

[IDoMath]

36. NBCs

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction


What's next? Categorize knives as firearms?

[billh58]

41. Spoken like a well-trained Gungeoneer.

The main defense of the NRA puppets is the use of semantics: "that's not an assault weapon," or "28 people dead is not 'mass destruction.'" Those of us who are arguing for a return to sane gun control laws don't give a rat's ass about your interpretation of words.

The other disingenuous arguments put forth by gunners is the use of false equivalency standard pieces repeated ad nauseam: "If guns are made illegal, only criminals will have guns," and "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

The NRA is an anti-American, subversive organization with a few million gun-obsessed followers who empower it to subvert the American political landscape with half-truths and outright lies. Guns have only one purpose, and that is to kill living things. Comparing a gun to any other tool, whether it be a knife, a fork, an automobile, or a pitch fork is ridiculous as evidenced by the sheer number of mass murderers who choose guns as their weapon of choice.

Sorry, but it's time to let the grownups decide what, where, and when the proper use of guns will be. The NRA has controlled play time with lethal toys for far too long.

[heaven05]

50. there

really seems to be a lot of muddying of the water here when the logic is VERY CLEAR. Assault weapons kill masses of people = mass extermination weapon. You're right bill58, lot of NRA talking points lately and disingenous pro gun arguments. I am really surprised at all the assault weapon proponents/ protectors here who call themselves compassionate human beings. I really am surprised. NRA needs to be sent to the fireplace and sent up in smoke. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

[IDoMath]

54. So, Bush told the TRUTH about WMDs in Iraq?

If we now count Bushmaster rifles as WMDs then certainly the Iraqi army had thousands of equivalent weapons and worse! Thus, Bush must have been right to start a war in Iraq in order to get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, every country in the world has Weapons of Mass Destruction so we have a ready-made excuse to invade each and every one of them.

So, you see, language DOES matter.

Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Liberal, fascist, terrorist - these are all words which have been rendered virtually meaningless by misuse and overuse.

If someone commits a basic street mugging, are they a terrorist? That question matters because if they are a terrorist we are going to have to warehouse them for a long time in a very expensive prison. People have referred to #Occupy as an act of terrorism.

I am not using semantics to defend guns, this thread started as a request for toning down hyperbole. But I guess that makes me a "child" who is an "anti-American" "subversive" "NRA Puppet."

So, if my main tool is semantics, yours must be hysterical name-calling.

[billh58]

56. Nice try

at using hyperbole in response to being called out as a gunner apologist. And, yes you are still using semantics to defend guns, and gunners. You see, guns DO kill people, and especially when they're in the hands of a lunatic who got the gun from a "responsible" gun owner.

And just to point out, there is a law in most states that covers the use of a gun to threaten someone as "terroristic threatening." Does that make the perp a terrorist? If you want to be a strict semanticist, yes it does.

I'm sure that you are a hero in the eyes of your right-wing NRA Gungeon buddies, but to most of the Democrats on DU you're just another part of the problem.

Ta...

[IDoMath]

57. And you are lying about me and failing to answer my question.

With no facts, you continue to assert my membership and association with the NRA.

And yes, that use of the term terroristic is very troubling and these terms need to be adjusted in the law.

You can't have it both ways. Either Bush was telling the truth about WMDs in Iraq, or firearms do not rise to that definition.

[billh58]

58. I'll tell you what needs to be adjusted:

the concept that guns are harmless, and that words can change the result of what they are designed to do -- kill living things. Repeating guns are a very efficient way of dispatching large numbers of people in one single encounter, and unrestricted access to any amount of ammunition desired adds to the efficient killing equation. Weapons of "mass" destruction? Depends on how you define the number of children killed at any one time doesn't it? Or maybe the number of people killed in the USA on a daily basis by guns?

I don't give two shits what the "legal" definition of WMDs is, or what Bush said or didn't say. Just like the NRA you are attempting to frame the discussion with bullshit talking points, and using false equivalency and semantics as a substitute for a lack of defense of your precious gun.

You may or may not be a card-carrying member of the NRA, but your defense of them and the right-wing DU Gungeoneers certainly makes you a gun apologist of the highest order. Also, your failure to address nothing but "gun" threads on DU is kind of a give away too. The word troll comes to mind, as that is troll-like disruptive behavior.

[coalition_unwilling]

73. Look, I think everyone on this forum who read my use of 'WMD' understood

that I was not speaking literally but, rather, figuratively, employing the language of the Bush Junta to condemn these weapons. For the figurative-challenged like yourself, I guess I could just have said 'semi-automatic firearms' and have been done with it.

[IDoMath]

84. I guess that depends on your goal

And your target audience. Are you trying to promote conversation or shut it down? Are you trying to reach those who might be persuaded or do you just want to preach to the choir? I took your post as an indication you wanted to engage in discussion until the very last word. Then, with that word you invoked a variant of Godwin's law.

I'm just tired of hyperbole as the new normal.

[Tumbulu]

68. Excellent post! nt

[TeamPooka]

45. killing 26 people in two minutes sounds like mass destruction to me.

[RomneyLies]

9. Toyotas are not designed to kill people

Guns are.

[Lightbulb_on]

19. So what?

Intentions matter?

What is the end result? A dead person...

Dead is dead and it happened due to the decisions of a human being.

They put the spork of ice cream in their mouth. They drove drunk or distracted. They pulled the trigger. Etc.. etc.. ad naseum...

The fault lies with the coward shooter.

[billh58]

52. Your own logic fails the smell test.

"The fault lies with the coward shooter"

Without a access to a gun, the coward would not have been a "shooter" or able to kill as many, or maybe even any, children. Guns empower cowards as evidenced by the horrific number of mass killings carried out with guns. Of course you gun apologists can dredge up isolated cases of other weapons being used for attempts at mass killings but they are rare, and seldom result in mass deaths.

These false equivalency arguments (spoons don't make people fat, drunk driving accidents, etc.) are the result of having no real arguments to defend the easy availability of guns, and the lack of responsibility and accountability of some gun owners. That is about to change.

Whether you and your NRA buddies like it, or not, the American people have reached their tipping point, and the past atrocious "gains" by the NRA will be slowly reversed. Even the Heller decision recognized that the 2nd Amendment does not grant an absolute right to carry a gun anywhere, anytime, for any purpose. Reasonable gun regulation is an exercise in Constitutional freedoms and democracy as well, and the pendulum has begun to swing back toward sanity and reason.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. You do accept the possibility that the shooter was experiencing an

acute psychotic break, I trust. If so, criminal culpability becomes far more problematic in a civilized society.

These firearms are fundamentally unsafe products and I'm merely surprised that 'product liability' isn't front and center in this discussion.

[Lightbulb_on]

18. Bullcrap...

I can take my Springfield and throw it down the stairs and it won't do crap.

I have to disengage 3 separate safeties before a bullet will come out of the muzzle. In any case I have to make it happen.

The cause is the shooter. Always...

[coalition_unwilling]

20. You did not respond to my observation about the 'shooter' possibly

suffering an acute psychotic break. (He had received firearms exposure when younger, apparently, so probably knew the raw mechanics of firearms operation whether sane or delusional.)

The 3 safeties on your Springfield offer small comfort to those who might find themselves on the receiving end of it, hence my 'unsafe' comment.

[bowens43]

26. If that asshole didnt have a gun

He wouldn't have shot anyone. Guns ARE the problem.

[Lightbulb_on]

28. If he hadn't been a coward piece of shit...

... he wouldn't have shot, stabbed, spit on or glanced meanly at anyone either.

It is the shooters fault. The method he chose was one of many ways he could have been an asshole coward and killed people.

[groundloop]

35. There wouldn't be 28 dead men, women, and children had he chosen a knife

Yeah, sure, the guy pulling the trigger was a murdering criminal. But guns are just too damned good at killing people.

If you have any ideas for preventing these tragedies let's hear them. But this "guns don't kill people, people kill people" bs isn't gonna' solve anything.

[billh58]

87. And we have a winner!

Pizza for the Dim Bulb from the Gungeon...

[TeamPooka]

46. We're blaming the shooter but there is more blame to go around

whether you like that fact or not.

[TwilightGardener]

6. It's a business, like any other--and they profit anytime

there's a "gun grab" threat, sadly. I'd love to start seeing the lawsuits pile up, just as they do when any other consumer product causes so much unintended bodily harm. Edit to add: start suing the dealers too.

[toby jo]

14. Unfortunately, they're engaging in legal commerce.

It'd be nice to someone sue their congressman who voted to make it legal commerce.

[Fumesucker]

37. McDonalds is engaging in legal commerce too

But they got sued for big money and lost when they kept their coffee far too hot despite repeated warnings about it being a danger.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. The gun industry has never claimed their product doesn't kill people...

Big difference between tobacco and firearms manufacturers. Doesn't mean they're not culpable in other ways, however, including the marketing of their product in markets where they KNOW it will be used for illegal purposes.

[progressivebydesign]

27. Agreed. But his mother was a Glenn Beck type, who stockpiled ammo and guns.

And taught her disturbed son how to shoot. And was so paranoid about the rest of her fellow citizens, that she thought she had to be ready to shoot them if they came for her food when the economy collapsed, and taught her son the same (even though he was obviously not equipped for that kind of influence and access.) And she "battled" the schools... which she communicated to him.

I think it's okay to blame the parents, as too many American parents are so fucked up. They think that buying stuff for their kids, and raising them with violent "entertainment" and "games" while also allowing them to disappear in technology that dehumanizes, them and isolates them, is how to raise a good kid. Or they have numerous weapons in the home, unsecured.

I say it's okay to share the blame there. For the parents, for the shooters, AND for the gun mfg and lobby and the right wingers that think that it's okay for people to own 47 weapons and 100k worth of ammo in a residential neighborhood, like the guy in Indiana that was arrested for threatening to start his wife on fire, and shoot up the school nearby.

[Lithos]

29. I don't think they are that responsible for it

The problem is with Gun Culture where people believe that simple answers to complex issues comes at the end of barrel - there isn't any problem that can't be fixed by shooting your way out of it. The analogy stands for much of the shallow thinking which seems to permeate US politics, particularly the GOP.

The manufacturers are just catering to the demand; no where are they

[starroute]

51. See what I posted below about Cerberus Capital

They are very definitely pushing demand and not just catering to it.

[mzmolly]

31. Goes without

saying, but yes they're to blame.

[Odin2005]

34. Good catch, I didn't notice that!

[jsr]

42. Typical deflection tactics. They want people to waste time arguing about parents/drugs/teachers

They want to minimize any mention of guns or gun owners.

[femrap]

47. Hey

Don't ya know it's always the mother's fault.

And dad doesn't seem to know a darn thing about his kids.

Where is the older brother anyway?

And where is the dude that was in the woods in camo taken away in handcuffs saying, "I didn't do it."

And was the father to testify regarding the LIBOR scandal?

Anyone heard anything?

[starroute]

49. Bushmaster is now owned by Cerberus Capital Management

A venture capital firm whose name should be familiar to most here.

They went on a buying spree of small arms manufacturers about five or six years ago and rolled them up into what they called the "Freedom Group." In 2009, with sales surging, they made plans to take the Freedom Group public, but they had to call it off when sales sagged again in 2010-11.

The Freedom Group is currently headed by someone with close ties to the NRA. Increased gun sales are clearly in Cerberus's interest, so they can get that IPO off the ground. And the advertising campaigns that encourage multiple weapon purchases by hard-core gun nutes seem to be part of their financial strategy.

As in most of these things, the key is to follow the money.


On edit: I've posted this link about four times already in different threads, but I guess it doesn't hurt to toss it in one more time, since people still need to get the message:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/business/how-freedom-group-became-the-gun-industrys-giant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[womanofthehills]

53. Hey, how about " blame the pharmaceutical companies"

Did a little research on the drug he was on: Fanapt (iloperiodone)

http://doublecheckmd.com/DrugDetail.do?dname=Fanapt&sid=164543&view=e

side effects of Fanapt - aggressive , violent behavior (frequent), Delusions etc etc etc

plus:

Phychiatric side effects of Fanapt (iloperiodone)

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/fanapt-side-effects.html

Psychiatric side effects including restlessness, aggression, and delusion have been reported frequently. Hostility, decreased libido, paranoia, anorgasmia, confusional state, mania, catatonia, mood swings, panic attack, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, delirium, polydipsia psychogenic, impulse-control disorder, and major depression have been reported infrequently.

[bulloney]

59. That's typical in our pill culture where there's a drug for everything.

Take a drug to solve one problem and you create at least two new ones. Cripe, on the drug ads, they spend 75% of the time reading the disclaimer on the side effects of the drug and say very little of what the drug is for, other taking it makes the sky bluer, the sun brighter, the grass greener and everyone is happy and horny.

[triplepoint]

55. How Can You Hug Your Kid With Firearms?

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:06 AM - Edit history (1)

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
You assholes who can't come to grips with reality need to get a fucking psych eval. Here's the photo of the weapons used by adam lanza. If the rifle isn't an assault weapon, what is..a bazooka?
.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
Reference Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine
.
.
.
"...We have to save each other because all victims are equal and none is more equal than others. It's everyone's duty to start the avalanche."

--Bartholomew "Barley" Scott Blair, "The Russia House"
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

63. I blame the gun manufacturers for marketing their products to potentially violent,

unstable paranoids.

I blame politicians for passing bad laws that enable, and empower potentially violent, unstable paranoids.

[jerseyjack]

64. People tried suing the gun manufacturers but the Supreme Court ruled it out.

[Skittles]

66. of course not

the stupid and fearful cling to their guns

[Gregorian]

67. When you say 'blame the parents' threads, you're talking about me.

I want to solve a problem, not fix the symptoms. Behind my posts, you might not have realized it, but I never said let's not take guns out of the hands of dangerous people. I shouldn't have to, as that's pretty obvious.

Are we going to argue, or are we going to make this a better world?

And I say the same thing about tobacco. If we're just apes, and relatively brainless creatures, then yes, we go after tobacco companies. And again, if they're lying about the harmful nature of tobacco, then we need to clamp down on them, and we did. But the cost of nicotine for our society was in the operating rooms. So it seems like the problem isn't with the companies but with the people putting the cigarettes to their mouths.

Why is this so hard to understand? I feel like I'm up against George Bush and his "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

I want a better world. Whatever it takes, in fact, everything it takes should be part of the discussion.

It just so happens that those who shape the minds of infants are most likely the biggest factor in what we're seeing. Blame? I don't see any benefit from blame or punishment. I only see repair, healing, learning, recovery. And just maybe a society that is one of health and beauty.

[coalition_unwilling]

72. I actually was not talking about you specifically or even generally. At least I don't

think I was. All I wanted to point out was that firearms are incredibly dangerous. And that there's a serious question of whether the manufacturers of these damned dangerous products should be held responsible. Saying that what the companies do is 100% legal and that the companies are merely meeting a demand begs the question somewhat, I think. Even if we accept the foregoing as true, I still think we have yet another case of capitalism run amok.

[Rachel_Martin]

75. Spam deleted by OKNancy (MIR Team)

[olegramps]

82. I have a measure of difficulty with that statement. What about children who are taught racism.

[The Wielding Truth]

77. When you make people killers and they do their job and kill people, is it the makers or the users or

sellers who are to be blamed? I think it is the society who allows civilians to possess military type weapons. A society that sells products intended to kill without the huge responsibility to never use the product. It is sold under the guise that it is accepted to use these products. They should not be used for the purpose they are made. These products are not to be sold as deterrents, but as offensive people killers.

[LynneSin]

78. We need to make the gun manufacturers pay just like the Tobacco Industry

Instead we layover and allow the gun industry to walk all over us because of '2nd Amendment rights' even though it's never been about '2nd Amendment rights' for the gun industry - it's been about profits.

[duhneece]

79. Amen. nt

[Blue Belle]

86. Thank you.

well said.