15% of girls in the US take antidepressant meds

[Boilermaker]

General confusion about the assault rifle.... dear, oh dear ..

I really don't want to believe that guys like you, who are probably very well-educated about guns are claiming with a straight face that an

M4A1 Colt is no different than a .45 handgun ... , If you are, we should stop the clock, and shake hands, immediately.

The dubious theoretical claim that you can kill as many people with a handgun as you would with an AK-47 in the same amount of time, is missing the point, because, let me say this again, even if this laughable argument was true:

1) These shootouts are NOT done by Navy seals. If they were, the death count would be very large IRRESPECTIVE of what gun they use. They could probably kill quite a few even with their bare hands or ad-hoc weapons they create on the scene. But they are not, they are carried out by amateurs, sic, Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech, with no actual training. And if they do have gun training, they will STILL be more effective with an assault rifle, anyway. But wait, maybe US Marines should use semi-automatic handguns in Wars, since they are just as deadly, right? And light-weight comes as a bonus!

2) It is FAR EASIER to shoot and kill with a LONGER BARREL rifle than it is with a handgun. Anyone who has tried to aim and shoot something with a pistol from 30 feet knows this. Do you need me to point out a Wiki article on how a longer barrel helps or maybe this is obvious, yeah?

Unlike what you see in Hollywood, my well-educated colleagues, it is really hard to aim and shoot someone who stands a mere 10-feet from you with a pistol,
unless of course you are trained to be a good shot.

But then again, I don't own a gun, so you can resort to that as an answer.

Here's an article about Adam Lanza's weapon of choice:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/1...-in-violent-video-game-former-classmate-says/
----
About psychiatric prescription drugs causing violence: Even if that single study was telling the absolute truth, you have to compare the side effects with its true benefits to make a fair comparison. Do you have an idea how many schizophrenics are using these drugs to function properly? People with severe ADHD are functioning productively thanks to these drugs. Paxil and Prozac, although can be abused, have probably helped as much as penicillin.

I mean, if there was ONE single day, where pro-gun people should shut up and be stoic, it would be the wake of a Newtown massacre where 30 innocent kids were slain, but here we are clutching at straws, discussing how Paxil causes violence ...

Get a grip, gents. This is beyond nonsensical.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I was in ROTC in college and saw firsthand what happens when you give an M16 to idiots who can't shoot - they're still idiots who can't shoot. It took most of an afternoon to get everyone to just get the gun ready to fire. Then we had kids miss an entire 2'x3' target, lying prone.

We shot M16s which is almost exactly the same gun as the M4A1. It's not really that impressive if you shoot one yourself. It feels like a small caliber pistol with a long barrel. They taught us that the gun was designed to wound more than it was to kill. That's what bigger bullets are for. I'd rather have a Kimber .45 pistol and a handful of clips than that crappy M16 anyway.

If you're shooting a pistol of any quality whatsoever, 10 feet is ridiculously close. Cheap snub-noses and ghetto handguns will miss at that range. But the last snub nose I shot was a very high quality gun in nearly pristine condition and would have easily hit a person from 30 feet. There's a reason cops carried them for most of the 1900's. It doesn't take long to get halfway decent.

 

[Nutz]

i was looking at the data released by the CDC and am kind of shocked.

its even worse as women get older (23% percent of women aged 40–59 take antidepressants) thats almost 1 in 4! holy cow!

so if you take into account girls that wont take them because maybe they have no insurance or are afraid of the stigma or just dont go to the doctor, it seems to be that a lot more females think they are 'depressed' than the data shows.

So what i'm getting at is, maybe guys that are always ranting about how crazy chicks are and they just dont get why the act so weird are in fact vindicated because the numbers say guys aren't making this sh!t up.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm

I'm surprised it's only 15% on the whole. I was led to believe it was about 25% already on average and it was closer to 40% for the older demographic.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

From what I've been reading, it's easier than ever to get drugs from your doc these days. If I recall, there's three reasons:

1) pharm is pushing for more drugs

2) docs are short on time, long on patients, and giving out meds is an easy way to spin patients through the turnstile

3) patients come looking for drugs and get pissed if they don't get 'em

As far as assault rifles, I don't know how effective they are at treating depression. I do think that the whatever citizens rose against the government would be put down in a hurry. It wouldn't even be a contest.

As far as what's more responsible for massive shootings? Complicated issue. Here's one guy's take:

As We Debate Mass Shootings, Consider Everything

(2) The Killer
Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free.
As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others.
I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.
Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution?
Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.
A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous.
But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated. Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker.
Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.


Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ult-weapons-control-killing.htm#ixzz2FrXtxTN7

 

[betheman]

wasnt Lanzas weapon of choce, the same one that killed all those people, taken from the trunk of his car? he was remarkably efficient for a 20 year old geek

 

[st_99]

Life didn't turn out exactly how they imagined it would for these women.

Could it be that simple? Maybe it is.

The scientists like to talk about brain chemistry and what not but perhaps these older women the 40+ crowd simply are unable to cope or reconcile their actual life from their desired life.

 

[Boilermaker]

Here we had

• An unwed mother
• Mentally ill son
• Ininvolved Father
• No male role model
• Guns not locked up or protected

.....and yet people focus on the guns??? Yes, I agree, that is extremely nonsensical. But hey, why don't I leave my .45 out by my 2 year old. And when something bad happens, I'll blame the gun.

I have tons of respect for you Boiler and I consider you one of the best posters on this site. However, since you don't have guns and have little experience firing them, I highly suggest you try it out and learn some more about them. You would be surprised how much the media has led you and other astray. Not unlike the whole feminism thing.

Fair enough. I am not as knowledgeable about guns as you, Bible_Belt, and Warrior are. I have shot handguns but I don't own one, but as a guy who has spent his early teens playing Counter-Strike,

It's just hard to imagine a D-Eagle being the same as a, say, M3 ... They are not, right? And I presume (after your final response) that wasn't your main

point.

But, fair enough, you and Bible have made good points and I won't continue to argue against that.

• An unwed mother
• Mentally ill son
• Ininvolved Father
• No male role model
• Guns not locked up or protected

This list is the real point ... Perhaps guns are only one side of the issue... Taiyuu posted an article and it was very informative also. I agree that this is strongly correlated to an absence of father... Perhaps even more so than guns ... ?

If you had put your case early on like this, I wouldn't have anything to argue with it ... My problem was your strong underestimation of the rifle he chose ( I could similarly ask , why does an unwed single mother need a Hummer Hunting Rifle? ) and your major focus on prescription drugs.

Now I get the better picture and I stand corrected. I have much respect to you, too, I apologize if I was haughty. I am a younger guy and I sometimes can't manage the debates as suavely as you do ... I keep learning from you guys.

 

[Down Low]

Pretty nonsensical to worry about how easily a nut job could kill children if he had to use his bare hands or kitchen knives.

Also it's dumb blonde stuff to dispute the holistic quality of the Bill of Rights.

Carbine? Piss-poor weapon for anything other than spraying bullets indiscriminantly. Used to inflict many minor wounds and tie up soldiers as litter carriers. A carbine without its full-auto mechanism is worse than useless.

Guns come in 3 varieties: single action, semi-automatic, and fully automatic. There is no "assault" variety. For that matter, you can "verbally assault" someone -- which is a felony in some states. That makes a woman's mouth an "assault" weapon.

 

[Boilermaker]

I see.

They were probably mistaken here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle.

It wasn't around when you were a kid, but these days there's something called as wikipedia,

it takes shorter time to quickly check something than post some "knowledge" here.

Just doing that every time one makes a factual statement, would recycle millions and millions of garbage posts, but people won't do it.

Because they already know everything. Once they feel entitled.

 

[Down Low]

Machine Carbine Promoted
M. P. 43 Is Now "Assault Rifle 44"

To bolster troop and civilian morale, the German High Command is now widely advertising the general issue of an automatic small arm which Adolph Hitler has personally designated the "Assault Rifle 44" (Sturmgewehr 44). The much-touted "new" weapon is actually the familiar German machine carbine with a more chest-thumping title.

As reported in the February 1945 TACTICAL AND TECHNICAL TRENDS, recently manufactured M. P. 43's previously had been re-designated M. P. 44, although only slight changes had been made in order to accommodate the standard rifle grenade launcher. M. P. 43's of earlier manufacture incorporating the same changes were merely designated M. P. 43/1. The completely new name of Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) may be intended to erase any recollection of the mediocre quality of the earlier M. P. 43's, at least so far as new troops and the public are concerned. In any event, the introduction of the title Sturmgewehr, together with the accompanying blast of propaganda concerning the weapon, is but another example of German efforts to exploit the propaganda value inherent in weapons with impressive-sounding titles, such as Panzer, Tiger, Panther, and Flak 88. Since the Sturmgewehr is more easily mass-produced than a rifle or machine gun because of its many stampings and low-power ammunition, and because a machine carbine is needed by desperately fighting German infantry in their efforts to stem the assault of American troops, it is natural that the Germans should make every effort to capitalize on its propaganda potentialities. By dubbing the M. P. 43 the Sturmgewehr, Hitler may also succeed in deceiving many Germans into thinking that this weapon is one of the many decisive "secret weapons" which they have been promised, and which they are told will bring final German victory.

The article goes on to say that its cheap metal stampings make it worthless for full-auto mode. Should you care to look up the history of the AK-47 carbine, you'll find that it, too, is made of varied proportions of cheap metal stampings, has an extremely short service life, and has a throwaway low cost.

Here's what Wikipedia says about this "assault rifle":

Both the AK-47 and the M16 will overheat fairly quickly under normal combat conditions and have a sustained rate of fire as low as 12 to 15 rounds per minute (about the same as a bolt-action rifle).

What kind of "assault rifle" is no better than a M1 Garand? Yeah, that's right. An "assault" weapon in name only. Better to ignore the hype and call it what it is: a machine carbine. A fully-automatic, short-barreled rifle.

 

[Boilermaker]

The article goes on to say that its cheap metal stampings make it worthless for full-auto mode. Should you care to look up the history of the AK-47 carbine, you'll find that it, too, is made of varied proportions of cheap metal stampings, has an extremely short service life, and has a throwaway low cost.

Here's what Wikipedia says about this "assault rifle":



What kind of "assault rifle" is no better than a M1 Garand? Yeah, that's right. An "assault" weapon in name only. Better to ignore the hype and call it what it is: a machine carbine. A fully-automatic, short-barreled rifle.

I have given up on the discussion on which one is better, or deadlier or so on, we have done that enough above.

You said "assault" wasn't a weapon type, and I wiki'ed it. Whether gun connoisseurs like it or not, this is a weapon type. That is what we're discussing.
I don't care if AK-47 is worthless for full automatic mode or not. You are all over the place.

Let me remind you what you said:

Guns come in 3 varieties: single action, semi-automatic, and fully automatic. There is no "assault" variety

Now, you accept AK-47 is an assault rifle? So it IS actually a variety or a sub-type at least? I don't know what part of it makes you cringe, but here's the first line from the Wiki page you posted.

"The two most common assault rifles in the world are the Russian AK-47 and the American M16."


So when I see that in a news article (saying an assault rifle was used) I will have an idea what they are talking

about. And that's probably the whole point. Not everybody will understand a thing when you say "semi-automatic long barrel rifle" ...

Whatever else you said, I am not following. I know nothing about guns. Before you said it didn't exist, now you accept it exists, but it's a "hype"...

I waiting what you will call it next?

Who's following the blonde logic here?

 

[Boilermaker]

Wiki gives a definition of an "assault rifle", but Down Low as usual finds the reality of the situation for all to see.

Plus, don't forget, fully automatic weapons are already banned. This is just a semi-automatic rifle, exactly like a pistol but with a longer barrel and meant for slightly longer ranges.

Yes, and my point is, it's a useful definition for me. It helps me visualize something in my head when you say assault rifle. If I get interested beyond that point, I can research it and educate myself.

My point is this: Why does it bother you when the rest of the world (that wiki page was probably written by guys who know a thing or two about guns, I presume) calls this an assault rifle?

 

[Down Low]

My point is that there really is no such category as "assault rifle." The term is ill-advised. For many reasons (characteristics of the weapon, nature of the combat), machine carbines are really a lot better for defensive action temporarily holding a fixed position (whether defense or defense-within-the-offense).

If no one's expected to return fire, and you can just walk right up to the enemy, a pair of modern semiautomatic pistols is so much better suited to the task.

About rat poison, there's a well-known example of mass murder by poisoning -- it's the reason every ingestible consumer good in the US has a tamper-proof seal.

Everyone goes through that childish phase where he wishes that everyone else were dead. Some people don't grow mentally; they don't mature beyond the point of being a six year old. I've known a few men like that. For lack of a better term, I call it "Peter Pan syndrome." Men like that are always spreading hurtful gossip, always pulling practical jokes, and sit around looking for ways to ruin the efforts of their coworkers. It's a form of mental illness. If we didn't live in a society that kept trying to dummy down all adult discourse, such sickness would be obvious and its sufferers wouldn't go uncared for.

 

[Boilermaker]

That was an instructive video, and set of links.

Thanks,

(Yes, I have read Orwell 1984)

 

[rum]

What a surprise...look at America these days. We regularly work 45+ hr work weeks, get little vacation time, the economy is **** , people are being taxed to death, there are ethnic/cultural clashes everywhere. Prices of goods and services through the rood, quality of living going down.

Yea it's pretty depressing to live in this society

 

[5string]

The evolution of this thread is bewildering. Might as well derail it a bit further.

You all are talking about guns (of which most of you don't know jack), when you should be focusing on the real issue which is mental illness and how best to treat or prevent it. The second question would be how to keep firearms away from crazy folks. IMO, you might be able to reduce those chances but never eliminate it completely. Another discussion to be had.

Call me whatever you wish, but I happen to be a lifelong member of the NRA. My father enrolled me in the NRA youth program when I was a boy. I always looked forward to those nights after school when he would take me to the range. I won quite a few awards and am an avid shooter to this day. I am currently teaching my wife's grandsons.

Yup, have AR's, hunting rifles, handguns, etc. I do agree that an AR with a 30 round mag can do much more damage and quicker than a .45 pistol.

And for all you guys who say one should not be allowed to own an AR, AK, let alone a 30 round clip....STFU. It's always the law abiding people who pay the price for the left wing liberal ideology. Have your opinions and believe in them. Be vocal if you wish. The US constitution guarantees you these rights just as it does the right to keep and bear arms, even an "assault" rifle whatever the fvck that might be.