Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/grumpypu/public_html/wp-config.php on line 33
The Grumpy Pundit | Pursuing Happiness And Cursing The Darkness. | Page 5

But Who’s Counting

Here are some causes of death of children under 12 years old, from 1999-2010.

Firearms: 3,505
Fire: 5,671
Drowning: 9,047
Vehicle accidents: 19,838

If the goal is really saving lives, what would you focus on?

Say What, Joe?

Joe Biden, on gun control:

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. “As the president said, if you’re [sic] actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.

Really, Joe? Really? Saving one life is worth any price? Here are a few things off the top of my head that will not only save more than one life, but save many, many more lives than a silly ban on ‘assault weapons.’

  • Pull our troops out of the Middle East.
  • Ban swimming pools.
  • Implement some common sense car safety legislation (more on this later).
  • Order a serious study of the side effects of psychoactive drugs, and implement stricter controls on them.
  • Ban alcoholic beverages.
  • Ban hamburgers.
  • Free health care for all households with an income under $50,000/year. Subsidized low cost care for every household making under $75,000/year.

Some of these measures may sound pretty extreme to you (it’s silly to think that the government would risk angering the pharmaceutical industry), but it’s not me saying that they’re worthwhile; it’s the President and Vice President of the United States of America. Anything that might save even one life.

Artificial Additives

The more I think about it and the more research that I do, the more it seems like the problem we have recently with crazy people wanting to kill us is one that we’ve created. We’re manufacturing crazy people.

A few numbers:

Twelve of 15 studies of SSRI’s, a family of anti-depressants that includes Prozac and Paxil, showed no short-term benefit for young people over placebo, he says. But they can cause a host of physical and mental health problems; 25 percent of youth treated with anti-depressants convert to bipolar disorder.

One survey says 20 to 40 percent of people who use anti-depressants long-term become bipolar. Another survey, by the Depression and Bipolar Support Assn.(DBSA), says 60 percent.

About 11% of all Americans ages 12 and up are now on anti-depressants.

ALL drugs have side effects. All psychoactive drugs have side effects. Using them not only can, but does fuck people up in strange ways. Even when talking about very rare side effects, experienced by maybe one person in ten thousand, that’s still thousands of people when there are millions taking the drug. Almost all of our recent horrible murders have been committed by people on, or just coming off of, some kind of psychoactive drug. And yes, those side effects can include things like ‘homicidal ideation.’ That is, thinking about killing people. Even most of the people who experience those severe side effects won’t actually follow through and kill anyone…but a few do. This isn’t speculation; we know that psychoactive drug side effects have lead to suicidal and homicidal acts. Drug companies have been gradually–and quietly–adding warnings to that effect to their side effect sheets.

I’ve said before that we don’t have a gun problem in the United States; we have a crazy people problem. It’s just beginning to sink in, though, how serious a crazy people problem we have, and how much it’s of our own doing. The boom in prescription psychoactives took off in the late 1980s (Prozac hit the market in 1987). I thought that the increase in crazy people killing other people starting in the ’80s was due to the Reagan Administration’s gutting of the mental health system, and that’s probably a factor, but it also coincides nicely with the exploding market for prescription psychiatric drugs.

If we really want to stop these massacres, this really needs to be looked into and gotten under control. We’re altering the brain chemistry of huge numbers of people, with very little understanding of what the long term effects of that are going to be, and it’s a problem that’s only going to get worse if we don’t do something.

We won’t, though. We’ll brush aside the drugs that all of our mass killers were taking, and focus instead on the brand and appearance and capacity of the guns they used. (And even the guns they didn’t.) Want to know why? It’s simple arithmetic.

The gun industry in the US has about $11.7 billion in revenue. Government sales make up a large part of that, with the civilian market amounting to about $7 billion ($5 billion in ammunition and accessories, $2 billion in actual firearms). Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it?

Novartis International, the company that makes Ritalin, had US revenues of $58.5 billion in 2011. That’s one drug company that’s five times the size of the whole US firearms industry. Worldwide, big pharma pulls in about $500 billion. That’s a golden goose that our politicians don’t dare touch, no matter how many people die.

What We Don’t Know

Dave Kupelian asks some interesting questions. I think he’s stretching a few things here and there, but the basic argument is valid.

Most of our mass killers have been on psychiatric medications, and we know very little about the side effects of those drugs. It is very possible–in fact, almost certain, given the way drugs work–that while they make many people better, they make some much worse. It is quite possible that we’re creating the homicidal outbursts that we fear so much.

Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years[….] In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.”

That’s not even getting into the millions of children prescribed Ritalin and similar drugs, with almost no understanding of what effect those drugs have on developing minds. If lead in the environment can cause spikes in violent crime, what could actual mind-altering drugs do?

Changing Stripes

Mark Lynas, long time campaigner against genetically modified foods, discovers science and changes his mind.

A few stand-out points:

Our food technology is largely stuck in the 1950’s.

The Amish are ahead of the rest of us here. Being technologically lapped by the Amish is embarrassing.

No one has ever died or been made sick by eating genetically modified food, but lots of people have been made sick, and died, eating organic food.

Heavy Metal

There is some compelling evidence coming out that America’s crime wave of the 20th century was caused by leaded paint and gasoline. Interesting.

And Internet For All

Internet providers hate socialized Internet access. It’s cheaper, more reliable, and faster than what they offer. Of course they hate it.

Unrestrained capitalism isn’t always the best solution, and only promotes progress under a fairly narrow range of circumstances. It usually ends in monopoly and stagnation. Once you’ve cornered the market, progress becomes your enemy; you just want to maintain the status quo and keep raking in your profits.

Good Sense

As usual, Bruce Schneier talks good sense.

This essay from 2007 that he links to in that post is particularly apt.

If you want to do something that makes security sense, figure out what’s common among a bunch of rare events, and concentrate your countermeasures there. Focus on the general risk of terrorism, and not the specific threat of airplane bombings using liquid explosives. Focus on the general risk of troubled young adults, and not the specific threat of a lone gunman wandering around a college campus. Ignore the movie-plot threats, and concentrate on the real risks.

Attacks like the one in Newtown are ultimately not psychology problems, or gun problems, or school problems. They’re security problems, and may or may not have elements of those other things. The problem isn’t as narrow as how to ban guns, or how to help crazy people; it’s how we can increase our security. Don’t just make up your mind on a solution, regardless of the details of the problem; focus on the problem and come up with a real solution. Or find you may not need a new solution at all.

A Murmur From The People

This is an interesting poll. It would appear that, at least according to this Gallup survey, the common people think that increased school security, better mental health care, and changing the media’s depiction of violence would all be more effective than an ‘assault weapon’ ban. Even 33% of self-professed Democrats think that such a ban would not be very effective.

This is in sharp contrast to the political class, which is all about, and only about, gun laws. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as they get a better sense of how the voters are leaning.

Putting It All Together

Since everyone is running around right now asking, “What to do!?” about mass murder incidents (but not really wanting an answer; it’s a rhetorical question, since they already have an answer and usually don’t want to listen to any alternatives) I thought I’ll pull together what I’ve written in various places on the subject.

So, you say you want to stop school massacres? Okay, here’s what you do.

First, secure the schools. I’m not necessarily talking about really expensive systems here; even just locking the fucking doors would be a start. (One in three school administrators admits to leaving doors propped open. ) Right now it’s harder to get into a computer data center than into most schools. What does that say about our priorities?

Second, make sure that the various mental health facilities and organizations update the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check) database, like they’re supposed to. I mean like really make sure they do it. As in, if some head-shrinker doesn’t file the required reports, and the person goes on to kill someone, the negligent head-shrinker, or administrator faces criminal charges as an accomplice. That’ll perk ’em up.

Third, spend some money and fix our broken mental health care system. These mass killings started after Reagan butchered the system back in the ’80s. It’s time to fix it. Colorado, is at least, making a decent start.

Fourth, stop making celebrities out of mass murderers. When someone runs onto a baseball field, they cut the camera feed from the field so as to not give that person any publicity, and encourage others. But if someone kills a bunch of people, they become the most famous person in the world, at least for a few weeks. Let’s stop doing that; do not mention the criminal’s name, do not show their picture. Instead of becoming celebrities they disappear, unworthy of mention.

Fifth, create a smart database of firearms-related purchases. This one requires a little explanation. The idea is that, as I’ve said in relation to other security problems, there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. The most dangerous weapons you can imagine–an armor-piercing semi-automatic nuclear missile with a bayonet, hollow point, and a cyanide coating–isn’t going to do anyone any harm if the holder doesn’t want to do any harm. But practically anything is dangerous if someone does intend harm.

So, watch for people who intend to do harm.

So, put all those transactions into a database. Guns, ammunition, accessories, training classes, all of it. Let people buy what they want (within the limits of current laws, of course), but track it. Any unusual purchases–someone who’s never bought a gun before goes out and buys five in one week, for example–throws up a flag in the computer system and that person’s information gets routed to a special investigative division of Homeland Security, who would then check this person out. A flag would also be thrown in the NICS database, putting a freeze on any firearm purchases by that person. If their address comes up in the NICS system flagging another household member, they get flagged too.

Here’s the thing; this can’t be some ordinary beat cop, some TSA package-grabber, who does the investigating. The investigator has to be more psychologist than cop, because the idea isn’t to determine what the person has done, or what they’ve bought, or what they may be guilty of. We already know that what they bought, and they may not be guilty of anything, yet. The idea is to determine their mental state, to try and get an idea of what they might do.

In other words, if someone starts buying a bunch of guns out of the blue, send a smart person over to talk to them and try to find out if they’re a fucking nutcase who’s about to flip his shit and kill a bunch of people.

Why do this rather than simply ban dangerous guns? Because banning dangerous guns is not only hard, it’s ineffective. People right now are calling for a ban on ‘assault weapons’ to prevent another Newtown shooting, but Connecticut already has a ban on assault weapons. The shooting happened anyway. Gun control alone doesn’t work. Guns aren’t even the most dangerous thing an attacker can use, though you wouldn’t know that from the news coverage. We need to think harder, try harder, and come up with something more effective than one-note rote responses. We can do better.

These things aren’t perfect. Nothing we can implement is going to be perfect. People are inherently imperfect, and some bad people will always find a way to hurt other people. But this plan would, I think, work better than any other proposal I’ve heard. We can stop most of the bleeding, and I think we should.