HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Psychologists for Social ...

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 08:26 AM

Psychologists for Social Responsibility Statement on Gun Violence

Confronting the Violence That Betrays Young Lives



Twenty children were horrifically gunned down last month at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Their untimely deaths have highlighted for all of us the stark vulnerabilities that our nation faces from gun violence. Mass killings in the United States are indisputably linked to the ready availability of assault-type weapons; such easy access is virtually unknown anywhere else in the world. But we should not overlook an equally disturbing reality: in separate incidents that receive far less media attention, dozens of children and teens are killed by handguns each week in this country – in street violence; at the hands of friends or family; as victims of suicide. The simple truth is that serious examination and reform of our laws to promote greater gun control and gun safety are long overdue. Psychologists for Social Responsibility joins other broadly respected voices in calling for our nation’s leaders to move swiftly and effectively on these fronts.



At the same time, PsySR believes that there is also a critical need to address the prevalent institutional sources of structural violence that condemn so many of our nation’s children to childhoods of neglect, abuse, lost opportunities, and shattered dreams. This is violence just as real, and it takes many forms, including racism, discrimination, social exclusion, inequality, and chronic poverty. On a daily basis in their early environments, children challenged by structural violence must confront inadequate medical care, food insecurity, dangerous air and water quality, neighborhood crime, and deficient schools. Their life chances are diminished and their futures as adults become uncertain – solely due to chance circumstances of birth that people living in the wealthiest country in the world should never find acceptable. And yet today politicians are debating the extent to which government spending should be reduced by further eviscerating key social programs on which disadvantaged youth and their families depend. PsySR calls upon elected representatives and the public to take the steps necessary to protect our children from this senseless violence as well.



In this context, it is noteworthy that the United States is one of only three countries that still has not ratified the decades-old UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (along with Somalia and South Sudan). The Convention directs us to be devoted to the best interests of the child and to respect children’s views. It identifies as human rights with special relevance to children the right to survival; the right to protection from harmful influences, abuse, and exploitation; and the right to participate fully in family, cultural and social life. These need not be controversial principles. Yet politically influential opponents of ratification argue that the Convention would weaken US sovereignty and place unwarranted limits on parental authority. PsySR views these claims as misguided, undercutting valuable international collaborative efforts. We call upon the President and Congress to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.



Although here we have highlighted issues of violence within the United States, PsySR wishes to emphasize that child welfare is a matter of profound global concern. Violence against children is deplorable wherever it occurs, whatever form it takes, whoever the perpetrators may be, and regardless of the circumstances. Societies throughout the world strive to educate and empower children so that they can grow into socially engaged and responsible adults, creative and productive workers, and loving parents. We aim to provide both the protections and challenges that enable them to thrive. We witness the remarkable resilience of children in the face of hardship, but we know that it is not limitless. And we recognize that among the most difficult and unforgiving adversaries for youth everywhere are the peril and trauma that violence brings. We can best honor the lives lost in Newtown – precious young children and the courageous adults who sought to protect them – by working together with determination to reform our gun laws and to address all forms of violence against children at home and abroad.



January 10, 2013

19 replies, 1701 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Psychologists for Social Responsibility Statement on Gun Violence (Original post)
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 OP
ezekialrage Jan 2013 #1
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #2
gollygee Jan 2013 #4
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #6
ezekialrage Jan 2013 #7
ezekialrage Jan 2013 #10
gollygee Jan 2013 #11
Paladin Jan 2013 #14
Follow The Money Jan 2013 #18
Go Vols Jan 2013 #3
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #5
ezekialrage Jan 2013 #8
marions ghost Jan 2013 #9
ezekialrage Jan 2013 #12
marions ghost Jan 2013 #13
ezekialrage Jan 2013 #16
marions ghost Jan 2013 #19
Fire Walk With Me Jan 2013 #15
Follow The Money Jan 2013 #17

Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:19 AM

1. as a psychologist...

 

I would think that you would have more insight into this issue. You make statements that put the blame squarely on weapons instead of the mental health of the person who committed the crime.

Any psychologist should be acutely aware of the side effects of many of the prescription meds folks like this are on. Such as suicidal and homocidal behaviour. But we dont point fingers at the drug companies.

As for the rights of the child act, you do realize the consequences? I dare say that the abortions so many advocate would not be allowed since it would deprive the child of life. And since it is a multinational treaty the us would need to follow the worlds view instead of roe v.wade making most abortions against the treaty.

Shame on you as a psychologist.

Do we blame cars for killing over 33000 people in the us last year and injuring 387000 others? Do we call for a ban on those?

No, we blame the driver. Drunk, texting, talking on a cell, not maintaing their vehicle or just a plain accident.

But we do not put the same standards to another inanimate object.

For someone who is supposed to be rational and see into the true cause of an event you are quite blind to the truth.

How can you blame the ground for hurting you if you misstep and fall?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:38 AM

2. I think cars with 30-round magazines should be outlawed.

Yes, I'm aware of the med-violence connection & have posted here about it. I have also posted about our culture of violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:50 AM

4. Why would "rights of children" apply to a fetus?

If we're one of only three countries that haven't ratified it, then obviously there are a great number of pro-choice countries that have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:52 AM

6. I think we're only seeing the tip of the wingnut here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:27 AM

7. ah yes

 

Name calling is a great way to show credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:15 AM

10. you may...

 

Want to look into those "pro choice" islamic nations. They pretty much prohibit abortions after 40 days, in some cases 120, unless the advice of a "recognized" doctor suggests it will harm the mother.

Mind you, the treaties like these bind all member countries' populace. Do you think 57 sharia ruled nations would sign something against their religion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:30 AM

11. 193 countries have ratified it

including many, many pro-choice countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:42 AM

14. If You Really Are A Psychologist (And I Have Very Real Doubts That You Are)....


...I am thankful that neither I nor any member of my family is being subjected to your attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:57 PM

18. thank you!

 

i thought it insane that a psychologist group would blame guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:47 AM

3. Prior to 1989,

there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more non-perpetrators were killed by firearms at a school.....

.... Eli Lilly introduced the very first SSRI drug PROZAC in 1987.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022170975

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 09:51 AM

5. By about 1989 or '90, we strongly suspected

that Prozac (fluoxetine) increased the likelihood of suicidality in some patients.

What seemed to happen was that it lifted the energy level before lifting the mood, so people remained bummed-out but got the ambition to "do something about it."

I also originally thought that OJ's defense team would pull an SSRI diminished-responsibility defense argument.

A good question is what is it about our society that makes these drugs (and all mood-altering drugs) so popular?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 10:41 AM

8. well

 

The simple fact is that as the proliferation of prescription meds for mental issues increased, so has violence. There have also been those who've said that hormones in livestock have also attributed to increased aggressive behaviour.

So why attack an inanimate object? Im sorry but logically it makes no sense. People are to blame for their actions and we need to address the causes that lead people to want to kill rather than ban a rifle. Because if the rifle is banned the person WILL find other ways of committing their acts of violence.

The taliban have rifles and yet they prefer suicide bombers. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:08 AM

9. I thought it was mainly estrogens in livestock

and dairy products--which would tend to decrease aggressive behavior.

A gun made for mass killings and romanticized in movies and games is not like ye olde "rifle" -- Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:33 AM

12. can you define

 

What would make a rifle " made for mass killings "?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #12)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:38 AM

13. eh?

I think that's obvious.

We've been down this whole "what is a rifle" debate over and over. Let's not get lost in technicalities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:00 PM

16. no i dont think so.

 

Id like your definition. Because to my knowledge there are no small arms designed for mass killings. That would be a term and a stigma placed upon certain weapons decades ago because of how they looked and not how they functioned or were designed.

Nuclear weapons are designed for mass killings. Chemical and biological weapons also are designed for that purpose.

And we are not debating " what is a rifle " though id like your definition so we are on the same page.

As for nitpicking technicalities, im not. A duck is a duck. A sheep is a sheep. They are both animals but thats where the similarities end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ezekialrage (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 02:05 PM

19. Whatever...

I consider the Bushmaster AR 15. and the AK 47 etc to be military weapons, designed to kill people, the more the better.

But obviously you just want to talk about various guns and whatnot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 11:52 AM

15. Big K&R!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Original post)

Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:46 PM

17. A psychologist studies minds, like why did this killer do this, what went wrong with their brain?

 

A real psychologist group would talk about depression, isolation, what psychiatric treatment that the perpetrator was receiving and possible antidepressant or antipsychotic prescriptions that were involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread