Spokeswoman: 7 found dead at Ga. mobile home

[undeterred]

Source: Associated Press

BRUNSWICK, Ga. — Seven people were killed and two critically injured at a mobile home located on a historic plantation in southeastern Georgia, a county spokeswoman said Saturday.

Glynn County spokeswoman Candice Temple wouldn't say how the seven died. The county's police chief, Matt Doering, said authorities discovered the victims when responding to a 911 call shortly after 8 a.m. Saturday.

Doering said the injured were taken to an area hospital. A police department news release said some of the victims had been tentatively identified, but it didn't release any names or ages. The release also didn't say whether police were looking for any suspect.

The mobile home park consists of about 100 spaces and is nestled among centuries-old live oak trees near the center of New Hope Plantation, according to the plantation's Web site.



Read more: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/spokeswoman-7-foun...

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. Horrible.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I can't even imagine the horror. Those poor people

[depakid]

3. Looks like another mass shooting

Crime scene at New Hope Plantatiom, where seven people were found dead this morning. Two others, reportedly juveniles, were critically wounded and were transported to out-of-town hospitals. An official close to the investigation said the victims had been shot.
-------------

Police found the bodies after receiving a 911 call at 8 a.m. today. The coroner’s office pronounced the seven dead at 10:30 a.m. Glynn County police called it the deadliest crime scene in recent county history. The two persons critically injured, both reportedly juveniles, were transported to hospitals out of town. Police declined to say how the victims were killed or injured, but a county official close to investigation said today that they had been shot.

Glynn County Police Chief Matt Doering, who held several news conferences throughout the day, said police were not looking for a suspect and that no manhunt was planned. He did not elaborate.

More: http://www.thebrunswicknews.com/open_access/local_news/...

[Ex Lurker]

5. last sentence makes it sound like murder-suicide.

[Th1onein]

9. How much you want to bet SSRIs were involved?

Those drugs are the source of these mass killings. Make no mistake about it.

[bertman]

10. Pardon my ignorance. What's an SSRI?

[Th1onein]

11. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor --class of anti-depressive drugs

They are dangerous as hell, and should be used only while hospitalized, if at all. The kids at Columbine were on them. The guy who shot up Virginia Tech was on them. God only knows how many of these mass murderers were on them. The pharmas sure ain't telling.

[bertman]

13. Thanks, Thlonein. Scary stuff. Are they commonly prescribed for anxiety or for serious

depression?

[Th1onein]

14. Nowadays? They are given out like candy.

Depressed? Take some Celexa. Anxious? How about some Zoloft? Grieving? Here's some Paxil. They are prescribed for a smorgasbord of conditions. They are dangerous as hell, and they are HIGHLY addictive.

[barbiegeek]

19. The Virginia Tech guy WASN'T on Medication

He needed to be

[RedSock]

28. this is highly offensive

as someone who has been on anti-depression medication for close to 14 years, i find your blanket statement about SSRIs to be jaw-droppingly ignorant and highly offensive.

[crim son]

46. Seconded.

There has been a question about their use in juveniles, but they are still useful and effective in most cases where denying medication could be deadly. I've been clinically depressed since childhood and would be dead without SSRIs. It hardly needs mentioning that I have killed nobody while on these medications - just about twenty years now.

[Odin2005]

85. You are an ignorant ass who is insulting every poster with Depression on this site!

I could not function without Paxil. Go to Hell.

[Hansel]

101. So you don't suspect that his mental illness might have played a role...

in the Virginia Tech slayings. The shooter was mentally ill and off his meds. That's been pretty widely established.

Also, I've never heard anything about the Columbine shooters doing what they did because of SSRIs and it makes no sense whatsoever that they could be blamed. They calmly and methodically planned their assault and it's just a little difficult to conceive how medications would play a role in such drawn out deviant behavior. I think it's been pretty well established that they were sociopaths and medications had nothing to do with what they did.

There is no indication anywhere in any article that this shooting had to do with taking SSRIs. You're agenda is showing. SSRIs have adverse impacts on a small minority of people who take them. The side effects are acute and cause sudden outbursts of violence either toward others or turned inward manifested as suicide. Hardly surprising when you introduce chemicals into something as complex as the human brain. A vast majority of people taking SSRIs get great relief from them with no or very minimal and temporary side effects. The good far outweighs the bad. It is likely that a hell of a lot more people would be dead if everyone who is currently taking SSRIs stopped.

There are people who also die from eating peanuts. The vast majority of people who enjoy them would be rightly put off if someone tried to convince everyone else they will die from eating people and should stop doing so.

[QC]

36. They are, along with pit bulls, assault rifles, Olive Garden, and breast feeding,

one of the topics that brings out every DUer with an agenda whenever they are mentioned here.

It's been that way for years. Every time something like this story happens, someone rushes to DU to declare that the pills made 'em do it and that anyone on medication is just a timebomb waiting to go off.

On cue, those who have taken SSRIs respond, and we are off to the races.

It's been going on for years.

[subcomhd]

88. pit bulls, assault rifles, Olive Garden, and breast feeding

that's funny.

[QC]

97. It's true! n/t

[subcomhd]

99. which makes it so funny

it also sounds like a 'date night' in East Texas.

[Roland99]

12. The drugs? Or the problems with the people who are on them already have?

Perhaps they don't take their meds properly.

Perhaps they need to be on a different med.

Perhaps they need intensive psychotherapy along w/meds but skip or avoid sessions..

[Th1onein]

17. Sorry, Roland. Not the case here.

These drugs are DANGEROUS. They are HIGHLY addictive and they cause psychosis. It's not about taking their meds "properly." It's not about being on a different med--they're are now almost a dozen of these SSRIs on the pharmacy shelves and doctors are handing them out like candy. And as far as having an underlying condition, these people start out with maybe mild depression, or anxiety, and they get on these drugs and go psychotic. Homicidally psychotic.

[Roland99]

18. What is the hard evidence out there? Sounds anecdotal.

And more anecdotal evidence:

I was on Paxil (an SSRI) for several months. Never once did I want to shoot up a school. In fact, I felt GREAT which is odd as it was a period in my life when my wife left, I lost my job, and I was losing my house.

I've a good friend who's been on Paxil for years...close to a decade.

I know several others who've been on SSRIs with no bad effects.


I think one needs to look at the deeper reasons people go off like this.

[bertman]

23. Roland, I think you covered it with this statement "In fact, I felt GREAT

which is odd as it was a period in my life when my wife left, I lost my job, and I was losing my house.

It is disturbing to me that during such a time of personal upheaval you would describe yourself as feeling great. That is a mental disconnect with reality. A BIG disconnect.

I'm only speculating, but it seems that a drug that would cause someone to feel great when his/her life is in a dreadful place could have some very negative effects on others whose body chemistry might be different from "normal".

Another point to consider: many drugs are just fine for a large percentage of the population, but for a small percentage they can be debilitating or deadly. If the clinical trials were not thorough enough or if the drug causes serious negative interactions in a tiny fraction of users, its ill effects might not be discovered until later when many "subjects" were using the drug.

One more possibility: when someone takes a drug that alters his/her perception of reality as massively as it did yours, is it possible that when one stopped taking that drug and the massive impact of reality struck them hard, especially if they were already prone to mental problems, there might be dire consequences when the person could not cope with the real world?

[Roland99]

25. I meant that I didn't feel depressed. I was able to move on in my life

get ready for the next phase of my life after divorce.

Was able to perform well on job interviews.

Was able to care for my daughters instead of wallowing in despair.

[bertman]

29. Thank you for the clarification. Do you feel that you could not have done those things

without the drug?

[Roland99]

31. Considering I was starting to have anxiety attacks where I felt detached from my body?

Probably not at that point in time.

[Th1onein]

24. It's great that YOU did not suffer any deleterious effects.

But that is not the case with many, many people who take these drugs. I don't think that you can put a bunch of people on these drugs and then watch them to find which ones turn into homicidal maniacs. That wouldn't be ethical. The fact that you ask for more than anecdotal evidence shows me that you do not know much about the subject.

But there's a lot of evidence out there. And just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't relevant. There's even a video where parents of dead children testified before Congress about the dangers of these drugs. And, let me ask you this: do you really think that these drugs, having the effect that they do on teenagers (enough of an effect, in terms of suicide, that the manufacturers have now agreed to put warnings in their literature on the drugs), that they wouldn't have the same effect on others, who are older? Is that even logical? I don't think so.

Eli Lilly refused to do a correlational study on how many of the original group of patients who took Prozac were ALIVE a year later. Why do you think that they refused to do such an easy study? Hmmm?

The question is NOT if we should wait until there is more than "anecdotal" evidence. The question is rather WHY should we wait when the danger is so grave? Do you really think that these drug companies are going to do these kinds of studies? Why should they? They stand to lose a lot of money by doing so. And our governmental research entities aren't about to rock that boat, either. The FDA is in the pocket of the pharmas. In the end, YOU are the only person who will pay for your decision about which drugs are safe and which ones are not.


Here are some citations for you:

Liebert R, Gavey N. Soc Sci Med. 2009 May;68(10):1882-91. Epub 2009 Apr 1.
"There are always two sides to these things": managing the dilemma of serious adverse effects from SSRIs."

Murphy GM Jr, Kremer C, Rodrigues HE, Schatzberg AF. Pharmacogenetics of antidepressant medication intolerance. Am J Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;160(10):1830-5.

Fava GA, Bernardi M, Tomba E, Rafanelli C (December 2007). "Effects of gradual discontinuation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in panic disorder with agoraphobia". Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 10 (6): 835–8.

[Roland99]

26. I have to wonder as to the reasons these parents felt as they did.

Where they off-loading the blame onto something else due to their grief? Looking for something to solve the answer of "Why?" instead of looking to other reasons (their possible failures as parents to be involved in their kids' lives? Not using counseling in conjunction with the medications? Not monitoring the proper intake of the medications? Not questioning effectiveness of the meds w/the doctor and looking to something else?)

I went through YEARS of various meds/counseling options with my oldest daughter and her anxiety attacks and hallucinations and pseudo-seizures. She's doing great now. She's held the same job for over 18 months whereas before no job lasted hardly over a month.

I'll check into the research you noted. Thanks.

[Th1onein]

39. What you SHOULD be wondering is this:

WHY would the drug company capitulate and put black box warnings on the drugs' labels? These warnings are for anyone 24 and under. If their drugs were NOT to blame in these kids' deaths, then why did they knuckle under and put the warnings on their product? These pharma giants do these things because they are FORCED to do them, not because they want to.

Your arguments are silly. It's not about "off-loading" the blame due to their grief. It's not about their "possible failures" as parents to be "involved in" their kids' lives. It's not about the use or non-use of counseling.

You ask for evidence and then you discount what the pharmas did themselves; what our own bought-and-paid-for FDA FORCED them to do, because THEY had enough evidence.

I'm very happy for you that your child didn't experience these dangerous side effects. Very happy. But ask the families of those who have lost children to suicide if that matters to them. Ask the families of the children killed during Columbine. Ask the families of the students killed during the Virginia Tech massacre.

Open your mind to more than just your limited experience with the world and ask yourself why there is an explosion of mass murders in this country at a time when these drugs are being given out like candy to people?

[Roland99]

44. An explosion of mass murders? Let's dial down the hyperbole, eh?

There are many reasons behind crime, incl. violent crime. Economic conditions are right up there. Just look at the trends of recessions and crime rates. I did that a couple years ago and while it's likely not a one-to-one correlation, there is a very discernible trend between the two.

As for these drugs and people under age 24, yeah, they are too often given to teenagers and young adults as a quick-fix to try and fix something that should be handled through other means. I do not disagree with you that there are kids whose conditions have worsened under these drugs but the % must be very small (but enough to warrant the FDA intervention). If it wasn't a small %, the drugs would not be on the market anymore.

[Th1onein]

70. Unfortunately, it's not hyperbole

I'm telling you, something is wrong. And it isn't the economy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7288...


Mark Kopta, chairman and professor in the department of psychology at the University of Evansville in Indiana, has researched extensively the country's mass killings, which he defines as attacks leading to the deaths of at least five people, including the killer's suicide.
"This is not a savory subject," Kopta said.

But, he added, it may be one that is becoming increasingly relevant to the U.S. public. In a paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association in Chicago this month, he found three incidents in the United States fitting this profile between 1930 and 1970. Three more followed over the course of the 1970s.
In the 1980s, however, there were 10 such incidents of mass murder. The 1990s had 17; and, since the new millennium began, there have been 25 such mass murders.
Six of them occurred last year. And 2009 has already topped that with eight such killings.

[Roland99]

81. On that second page, two were job-loss related, one was a wife leaving the husband

big surprises there.

[Th1onein]

82. I guess what they say is true. None are so blind as those who will not see.

I give up. Stupid is as stupid does.

[Roland99]

83. *plonk*

[Akoto]

51. Sorry, but this is generalized BS.

For starters, as a scientist, you should know better than to sling "addictive" around so casually. There's addiction, where you crave the drug and prescribe increasing amounts to yourself, and then there's dependence. The latter simply means that your body has become accustomed to having a certain amount in its system, and lacking it causes an imbalance and the ensuing symptoms. You're not craving more of the drug, nor are you raising your dose. Dependence happens with all sorts of drugs, from blood pressure medication to narcotics (and yes, anti-depressants of all classes). Just something I can't help but notice as a lifetime pain management patient, where the ignorant often label me an addict.

Secondly, SSRIs and other types of anti-depressant medication are prescribed to millions of people. We do not, however, have millions of shootouts going on. In fact, in recent history, I believe most of the prominent incidents involved people who probably needed this sort of treatment. Can anti-depressants cause suicidal or otherwise bad behavior in people? Yes, that's a listed side-effect, but that doesn't mean it happens in most (or even many) people who take it. If it does, they may simply need to be switched to another drug. They're not evil, and as others have attested to in this very post, they can be saviors for people in very desperate straits due to natural chemical imbalances.

[Th1onein]

72. I don't think that people who take these compounds are evil!

Where would you ever derive such a thing in the posts that I've made about this class of drugs.

And, as far as the distinction between dependence and addiction is concerned, it is a trivial one when you're having withdrawal from one on the SSRI drugs.

I don't expect that a million people are going to go on shootouts across the country, but there is an explosion in the number of mass murders, in recent years. I posted a link about this, upthread.

[Odin2005]

86. You are a LIAR

I have taken Paxil for 8 years no with no ill effects. I would be a depressed, anxious mess without them. You are a goddamn liar.

[Hansel]

102. Hyperbole much?

A very small percentage of people have adverse reactions to them. They should stop taking them. Most people benefit from them to varying degrees.

I've taken them off and on for over 30 years and have done quite well on them. My daughter also takes them with good results. Depression runs in our family and the potential for suicide without the medication is far far more real than the scenario you have put forward. Stop being so hysterical. It's a little creepy.

[barbiegeek]

21. Insurance pays 4 Meds NOT Counseling which you need 2 recover

and get off of the them.

[Roland99]

27. The insurance I had at the time covered both. Depends on your coverage.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

[Odin2005]

84. BULLSHIT!

[Recursion]

93. Nope. Mass bludgeoning. See the other thread on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[proteus_lives]

4. What a horror-show.

Meth lab? Drug deal gone bad?

[depakid]

6. Sounds more like domestic violence...

Lisa Vizcaino, who has lived at New Hope for three years, said the management works hard to keep troublemakers out of the mobile home park and that it tends to be quiet. "New Hope isn't rundown or trashy at all," Vizcaino said. "It's the kind of place where you can actually leave your keys in the car and not worry about anything."

Vizcaino said she didn't know the victims and heard nothing unusual when she woke up at 7 a.m. Saturday morning. After word of the slayings spread, she said, the park was quieter than usual. "Everybody had pretty much stayed in their houses," Vizcaino said. "Normally you would see kids outside, but everybody's been pretty much on lockdown."

[JonQ]

15. My first thought

although perhaps not altogether fair, was that this has something to do with meth. Someone didn't get the drugs/money they wanted and started shooting.

[onehandle]

7. Guns don't kill people. Gun owners kill people. nt

[mudplanet]

8. Thanks for this. The perfect response.

[JonQ]

16. Correction:

irresponsible gun owners (whom I think we'll find were not able to legally own guns) kill people.

Responsible gun owners are only a threat to those who threaten them.

[depakid]

20. errr... at least six mass shooters in the past 2 years have been had conceled carry permits

Pittsburgh Attack: Sixth Mass Shooting by a Concealed Handgun Licensee in Just Over Two Years:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/pittsburgh...

No doubt there are many, many more (not counting tragic, preventable accidents).

[pipoman]

38. Ah, Josh Sugarmann and that paragon of truthfulness

the Violence Policy Center...nice...you won't mind then if I cite this counter report huh?

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-E...

Flaw #1: How did they identify permit holders?

The report makes it clear that they have no idea whether or not they are accurately identifying these parties as permit holders. In the study, they admit as much, “Because of the secretive nature of concealed handgun permit laws, the VPC relied primarily on news accounts.”

-snip-

Flaw #2: Charged with a crime does not equal conviction

Many of the alleged permit holders noted in this report are described as having been charged with a crime but no further information is provided as to the disposition of the charge. This is an important and glaring attempt to cloud the issue.

In many states and jurisdictions, a citizen who properly and legally defends themselves from an attack may well expect to be initially charged with a crime. The charges may later be dropped or may be no-true-billed at the grand jury level. A charge does NOT equal a conviction and yet the VPC, an organization that promotes itself as a public policy think-tank on legal and constitutional issues, treats them as synonymous.

-snip-

Flaw #3: Does my permit allow me to carry a strangling cord?

Another blatant attempt to pad the data was brought to my attention by Mr. Deeds. It comes in the form of several data points involving non-handgun related killings by “permit holders” (see Flaw #1).

-snip-

Flaw #4: Who is more dangerous?

The VPC concludes their report by stating that these examples illustrate clearly that concealed carry laws are not good public policy because permit holders are dangerous. Furthermore, there is a clear implication that they are more dangerous than the general public.

Let’s take a closer look at the statistics to refute this wild inaccuracy. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, across the general public in the United States, there are an average of .042802 murders per 1,000 citizens per year.

Now … even if we concede all 51 deaths detailed in the VPC report as wrongful deaths, averaging them across the over 6 MILLION permit holders in the United States and taking into account the two year timeframe, we get an average of .00425 per 1,000 per year.

In other words, even if they are 100% correct in their wildly flawed report, they have simply proven that permit holders commit murders at a rate that is 1/10th of the general public.

Of coarse to the VPC, Sugarmann, and their apologists lying and deception is a perfectly acceptable way to sway public policy and to bring those who believe everything they read on the internets to their side of this issue.

[depakid]

52. Despite the counterfactual propaganda in actual FACT more of these occur than can be documented

Moreover- gun proliferaters are responsible for the epidemic levels of gun violence in America- even though they'll never have the guts nor the integrity to admit that they find this to be an acceptable cost to society for their obsession.

[pipoman]

66. Really?

Despite the counterfactual propaganda in actual FACT more of these occur than can be documented

What does that even mean? Does it mean that even though you can't find any evidence of concealed carry permit holders actually being convicted of crimes they happen in secret? I will wait for these FACTS you speak of as I have seen NONE. I can think of one firearm crime committed by a person holding a valid CCW permit...out of several million permit holders...show me the crimes.

[depakid]

75. No sense in arguing with an NRA type

Much like a Republican- you're not interested in facts (which the previous post provided) nor are you interested in honest analysis. All you care about is your pathological obsession- and rationalizing it any way you cam.

[pipoman]

78. Oh contrare, mon frere,

I thrive on facts. The fact is that you linked to an opinion piece designed to look like news, penned by Josh Sugarmann who is and has been proven to be a completely unscrupulous liar, quoting a complete sham of a 'study' 'conducted' by Violence Policy Center which is well known as indefensible liars even among academics who agree with their gun control agenda (their sole agenda). I cited the problems with this sham of a study, designed only to influence the ignorant and the stupid, to nary refute by you. Why no refute to my post #38? Because the FACTS in post #38 are irrefutable, that's why.

So let's discuss the facts, shall we?

You stated in post #20, "at least six mass shooters in the past 2 years have been had conceled carry permits" citing http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/pittsburgh... as your source. This opinion piece cited this VPC "study" as it's source, http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf .

Isn't it a FACT that this "study" acknowledges in the vast body that

1. They identified concealed carry permit holders only by initial news reports?

2. Some of those reports were later proven to be incorrect but were used anyway?

3. That of the actual CCW holders left after the non ccw holders were weeded out, the VPC only used cases where the ccw holder was charged, NONE were convicted?

4. That of the actual CCW holders, at least one didn't even use a gun for the crime which they were charged (but NEVER convicted of)?

5. That, in fact, even if...if these cites were accurate (and I believe you will have to admit that they most certainly are not) that the resulting crime rate associated with ccw holders is some 10% that of the public in general?

Tell me again about your beloved facts..?

Explain to all who read this why they should believe anything you are saying?

[depakid]

89. You are one gun obsessed individual

For some reason, you seem to believe that the magic piece of paper insulates one from committing crimes. LOL.

Fact is that tons of crimes involving gun carrying people just go down as crimes- that the connection hasn't been made- and is hard to track, doesn't imply that they haven't occurred.

But like I said, no sense in arguing about it- or dealing with endless counterfactuals. Sensible folks can think about the matter for themselves.

[pipoman]

90. Sensible folks know

you have written nothing but insults here. Just mindless drivel implying absolute facts with no supporting evidence what so ever...none.

[Pavulon]

69. Explain zurich, southern germany, Finland, and canada

where the population is armed and there is a tiny fraction of the % of crime in the US.

[pipoman]

79. The US has ALWAYS

had higher crime rates than the countries you site even when gun laws were identical. Guns have little to do with crime rates. This can be demonstrated by a 20 year decline in violent crime in the US even though gun sales have continued, there are millions more guns in the US today than 20 years ago.

The countries you list here are largely single race societies. Poverty, and lack of health care are less of a problem in those countries. And again, they have always had less crime than the US.

[JonQ]

53. I think anyone who resorts to using so called facts

must be a shill for the gun industry. What have facts ever proven?

Everyone knows that emotions are all that matter, and emotions should tell you that guns are scary, and possibly evil.

[barbiegeek]

22. That's Hilarious!! I'm using that

[proteus_lives]

30. Actually one of the worst.

"Gun owners kill people." Hyperbole and ignorance at it's worst.

[bitchkitty]

32. Hyperbolic truth? It's very effective and to the point..n/t

[proteus_lives]

34. "It's very effective and to the point"

Sure, if you're ignorant and buy into brady-style fear propaganda.

[bitchkitty]

35. Nice personal attack.

If that's all you've got, go away.

I repeat, the phrase is far more effective than "guns don't kill people. People kill people." Sorry if you can't grasp that simple fact without throwing insults. What are you so defensive about?

[proteus_lives]

61. Sorry but don't endorse hyperbole.

You're wrong about the phrase. Because millions of gun-owners don't kill people. It's more complex than that. If you can't see that, you're in trouble.

[slackmaster]

47. The problem is, it's not accurate

It's a broad-brush, bigoted statement. It's defamatory.

A large majority of gun owners never kill anyone. Many of your fellow DUers are gun owners.

[caseymoz]

56. If guns don't kill people, hammers don't drive nails.

Either that, or guns are the only tools we use for no discernible reason. It's effectiveness at propaganda is in that it really evades the point.

You are right that it is very effective, as misdirection and misinformation. Very good propaganda.

[Pavulon]

60. Your teenage kid with its cell is more dangerous

than every weapon in the us. They kill at an alarming rate. That and sleepy doctors kill many more. The real question is how do you fix motive for shootings. That is root cause.

[caseymoz]

92. I'm pro-2A, I just hate the bullshit on both sides. And you just launched a shovel full there.

Where did you hear that cellphones are kill more people than every weapon in the US? That's a whopper that even Burger King wouldn't sell you. I said from both sides, and I meant it, but I have to note that the Pro-2A side is really shoveling fast and hard these days.

You cannot get to any meaningful discussion about "fixing" the motives for shootings when mis-directions and misinformation, especially of its own, seem to be part of the strategy of the RW leadership, including the Pro-2A.

I will note this, however. Guns are very good tools. Because of them, more assaults, that would have otherwise ended with minor injury end in death. A wound from an assault with a handgun is five times deadlier than a wound from a knife, and a wound to a vital organ it is order of magnitudes more fatal than with a knife.

The same effect is evident with gun accidents and suicides.

If you are Pro-2A, however, you should at least reconcile yourself to this fact, and be honest about it and not totally misdirect the argument with statements like "guns don't kill people, people kill people." A higher mortality rate is the price we pay for taking the right to keep and bear arms seriously.

[saigon68]

33. ANOTHER FLAME WAR BREWING

[QC]

37. Two, actually. The anti-medication crowd has already thrown a punch. n/t

[Th1onein]

40. I'm not anti-medication. I am a scientist.

I believe that we have some very good medications. However, I know that the situation between pharma and the FDA is such that the FDA is no longer protecting the American public. And I know enough about biochemistry to know that there are some drugs out there that are dangerous as hell. The SSRIs are one class of them.

[QC]

41. I would probably be dead without them. n/t

[Th1onein]

42. Well, I'm glad that you're not.

But that doesn't mean that ALL medications are good medications. Vioxx wasn't even as efficacious as over the counter treatments, and look at the damage it did. I'm astounded when some of these medications hit the market. When you look at their pathways, you KNOW, before the reports even come out, that they're going to kill people. Vioxx blocked certain fatty acids from being processed into inflammatory compounds. These fatty acids are cycled out of the cellular membrane. Do ya THINK that maybe that might damage the membranes of some cells, and thus damage the cells themselves? Do ya THINK?

Unfortunately, the FDA is not protecting us anymore. We are on our own when it comes to the safety of the drugs that we take.

[QC]

45. All of the regulators are now captives of the industries they supposedly regulate.

It's why we need publicly funded campaigns now, before any other reform can take place.

Believe me, I agree that the FDA is more interested in doing the bidding of the pill companies than protecting the public. I also agree that doctors hand these pills out too readily and that people who are taking them should be monitored but aren't. Unfortunately, the insurance mafia wants things that way.

[Th1onein]

49. I don't think it's the insurance companies or the necessity for monitoring so much....

as it is the big pharmas just don't give a shit about who their drugs hurt. They are so driven by the profit motive that they've lost all sense of decency. Doctors are not much better--they don't do their homework before prescribing these medications, and they read, of all things, just the pharma literature on these drugs. (Jesus, is it too much to ask to at least understand the mechanism of action of a compound and apply a little common sense and some basic biochem, before you hand these drugs out like candy?) As to efficacy of the drugs, the pharmas have got marketing campaigns to take care of that.

[Odin2005]

87. I'm a Biochemsitry major that thinks you are a crank.

The "Vaccines cause Autism" idiots that think my Asperger's is caused by MMR vaccines are "scientists" too, that doesn't make them right.

[saigon68]

63. LOL I ain't getting involved in that one

But, I was waiting, for the ADD and ADHD crowd to WEIGH IN

[saigon68]

64. And we haven't touched patterns of criminal thinking or schizophrenia yet

[Pavulon]

43. But not that often in Greenwich, CT , Telluride CO.. wonder why?

the lazy gun control advocates are unwilling to address this and correct it.

[Paladin]

48. I Hate To Encourage You, But Just What The Hell Are You Talking About? (n/t)

[Pavulon]

50. Aside from the 50% of gun deaths that are suicide, poverty and drug law

tends to drive gun violence. I listed the two most affluent neighborhoods in the US . They have very little murder. If you see water or a golf course from your house you probably dont need to worry about being a victim of gun crime.

You live in public housing, are a minority, you are shorted by our system. You are more likely to be a victim. This is not acceptable, but is not easy to fix.

So people yap for additional law that only the law abiding follow. That is lazy and insulting. The solution to reducing gun crime is availability of mental health, and the decriminalization of drugs. This gets to the core of the issue.

[Paladin]

58. Be Sure To Let Us All Know.......

....when you've determined where we can lay our hands on the trillions of dollars, the public support, and the courageous politicians needed to address those core issues you gun militants pretend to give a shit about.

And what's "lazy and insulting" is whining about laws that only the law abiding follow. I guess you're against laws prohibiting rape and bank robbery, seeing as how the non-law abiding still engage in such crimes....

[Pavulon]

59. What law do you propose as a magic solution. Yep real solutions take effort

unlike banning pistol grips, or 15 round mags which make lazy people feel like they accomplished something. I mean look at DC that gun ban is just a fucking miracle. No murder there, not one, I mean that ban is great. Just like the weed ban and the defunct booze ban, see a pattern?
So the morons that push "control" should be looking at plan b, or they can just watch the bodies stack up and pass some new law that I have to buy my way around and criminals ignore.

Universal health care should cover mental health, and as far as the social issues they are progressive. What kind of person is against programs that reduce poverty and give your guys something to do other than die in drug skirmishes?

How is decriminalization bad, the revenue from drug sales are an excellent resource to help impoverished communities.

Unlike a law banning a folding stock the laws that cover robbery and rape are long standing and serve a purpose.

I dont pretend to care, it is pretty simple to see how fixing problems in society positively impact us all.

Gun control is done as an issue, it died in 1995, firearms are already well regulated. Murder is illegal.

[Paladin]

65. Get Back To Me When You're Coherent..... (n/t)

[Pavulon]

68. = I got nothing and quit? What I got

is weekly reader simple. comfortable happy sane dont go and kill people as a rule. Setting up options for people other than suicide (mental health care is a 72 hour hold and the boot, unless you have money) or crime would make places I can choose not to live in a bit better.

I can afford not to live in a crime ridden shitty place, many can not.

Really simple, gun control is a failed shuck and jive bamboozle pushed on morons by people who want to appear to be "stopping crime". Smoke and mirrors.

[JonQ]

54. Ooh, next time some gangbanger kills someone

can I say: blacks/hispanics/poor people kill people?

I mean if you're ok to stereotype millions (most of whom are decent, law abiding citizens)based on the actions of a tiny minority why stop with gun owners?

[onehandle]

55. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and 100% of reality.

I'll stick with the word owner.

Who was it that said "from my cold dead hands?"

It's obvious what this spokesman for gun owners everywhere meant.

[JonQ]

71. Yeah, he meant don't take his guns away

not that he was going on an insane killing spree.

[Recursion]

94. I thought they were bludgeoned

Am I confusing to Georgia mass-murders?

[TorchTheWitch]

106. officially, they aren't saying

but it appears that they were beaten to death. I'm also inclined to think that guns weren't involved as no one reported hearing any gunshots. I'm really puzzled as to why they won't say if they were shot or beaten or both... or WHAT. I can't think of a reason why that little bit of info would need to remain secret.

[TorchTheWitch]

105. Apparently, they weren't shot

but beaten to death. Police are being so tight-lipped it's difficult to tell much of anything about this incident.

Also, one of the 9 victims that survived the incident died Sunday... so only one of the victims is still alive now and is in critical condition.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/31/georgia.killing...

[caseymoz]

57. I've never seen police so subdued about a major case.

Either it's really very bad, or that is one disciplined sheriff's office.

[Liberal_in_LA]

67. or doesn't involve a young, female, attractive blond model

[Dreamer Tatum]

74. I'd call 7 dead people pretty horrifically sad

Don't you?

[caseymoz]

91. When you have shootings where there are up to 33 people killed

and bad economic times when murder-suicides of families and office shootings are getting to be a bi-weekly event, it's still extremely sad, but is it shocking enough to say absolutely nothing about?

[undeterred]

76. They're all reading this post and saying

[Recursion]

95. Guns weren't used so there's no moral panic?

Mass bludgeonings don't seem to bother people

[caseymoz]

96. Actually, it would lack a political panic without the NRA rushing to deny guns made it possible.

If it were all done with blunt instruments, it might explain why police would be too appalled at the mess to say much.

[theHandpuppet]

62. Police hold 911 caller in Brunswick slayings

Looks more and more like drugs were involved.

http://www.wtoc.com/global/story.asp?s=11013277

[depakid]

73. Crikey- look at the string of gun violence in Glynn County mentioned below the article

Saturday's murders marks the end of a violent eight days in Glynn County.

On August 21, Javier Robledo was gunned down during an attempted armed robbery.

Three suspects have been charged in connection with Robledo's death.

Within five hours of that murder, another man, Jefferey Pennington, was shot to death inside a restaurant.

Police have also charged a man with that murder.

During the 5 p.m. press conference Saturday, Chief Doering referenced those incidents.

"As all of you probably know by now just last week we had two back to back homicides within probably five hours of each other," Doering said. "When it's one victim or more, it still goes to the heart of the issue and it goes back to what I said earlier. It's about you and your family. It doesn't matter if it's one; it doesn't matter what the age is."

[undeterred]

80. Police arrest man who reported 7 dead in Ga. home

BRUNSWICK, Ga. — The man who reported the gruesome slayings of seven people in a Georgia mobile home faces charges of lying to police and tampering with evidence, and authorities said Sunday they haven't ruled him out as a suspect in the killings.

The killer was not among the dead, whose bodies were found Saturday, or the two critically injured, said Glynn County Police Chief Matt Doering, who said police have not spoken to the two who are hospitalized.

Guy Heinze Jr., 22, was arrested late Saturday and also faces charges of illegal possession of prescription drugs and marijuana, said Doering.

"He was a family member who came home and discovered (the victims), at least that's what he told us," Doering said. Asked if Heinze was involved in the slayings, Doering said: "I'm not going to rule him out, but I'm not going to characterize him as a suspect."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gh6st...

[funkybutt]

98. Anyone else heard the call?

I thought it sounded pretty suspicious. The guy said that he came home from being "out lastnight" to find "my whole family" dead. He seemed to go out of his way to say that he was not there and was "out" when all this took place.

[closeupready]

100. I'd like to listen to it. Without hearing it, it's a big leap from

"I was out last night" to suspecting he was involved. Can you be more specific? I mean, did he say something weird or was his voice unemotional or what makes you find the call suspicious?

[LisaL]

104. I heard the call.

He said his whole family was dead. I believe the operator asked him how many people were there. He said "like six."
I thought it was a bit strange, he didn't know how many people were in his family? But then again, I don't think that points to guilt. Someone who is distraught or upset might not be able to think straight.

[funkybutt]

107. Just the way I heard it

The way he said it sounded odd to me. I'm not saying that he's guilty, I just found this odd. He said "I just got home a little while ago and my family is dead"..then the operator asked what had happened and he repeated "I just got home and I had been out lastnight and my whole family is dead". It seems like he thought the information about him not being home when it had happened was important. I agree with what was said that it is fair to assume that he was "out" and not home since he is alive. But the most pressing thing to communicate is the need for help immediately and the fact that everyone seems to be dead...and the pure terror of the situation, which I didn't really hear in his voice.

[closeupready]

108. Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah that does seem odd.

I worked on a crisis hotline as part of my studies when I was in college. One of the things you learn on-the-job is that when people go through traumatic experiences, they frequently do not respond in ways which culturally we think people are supposed to - for example, inappropriate laughter. So while I agree that his words (as you recount) are odd, I would be in a better position to interpret them were I to know more about, for example, how he felt about his family.

At any rate, I hope the investigators get whoever is responsible for this crime.

[funkybutt]

109. That's interesting and I can believe this is true

that what is said in a time of extreme trauma may not sound right when being interpreted under normal circumstances. Have you heard the call? I'd love to hear what someone who is trained in such a capacity thinks.

[closeupready]

110. No, but if you (or someone) has a link, it would be much appreciated.

On edit, never mind - here it is - I will have to listen later on, though

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=8454639

[closeupready]

112. Actually, this was not that call with him on it - it appears to be his neighbors

and also the maintenance people there. Those who are calling 911 do seem frantic.

[closeupready]

111. And I don't mean to belabor the point, but I found Bob Herbert's column

from yesterday interesting in that he makes a similar point, basically how a memory from an eyewitness about past behavior can be re-interpreted to fit a developing theory with regard to certain crimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01herbert.htm...

>>They noticed deep charring at the base of some of the walls and patterns of soot that made them suspicious. They noticed what they felt were ominous fracture patterns in pieces of broken window glass. They had no motive, but they were convinced the fire had been set. And if it had been set, who else but Willingham would have set it?

With no real motive in sight, the local district attorney, Pat Batchelor, was quoted as saying, “The children were interfering with his beer drinking and dart throwing.”

Willingham was arrested and charged with capital murder.

When official suspicion fell on Willingham, eyewitness testimony began to change. Whereas initially he was described by neighbors as screaming and hysterical — “My babies are burning up!” — and desperate to have the children saved, he now was described as behaving oddly, and not having made enough of an effort to get to the girls.<<

[LisaL]

103. I heard the call.

I didn't find it suspicious that he said he was out. If he is telling the truth, then presumably, if he wasn't out, he'd be dead with the rest of the family.