The civilian disarmament movement wants Americans to believe they’re safer without a gun. It’s a preposterous idea. Americans without any great skill or strength can use a firearm to prevent, stop or eliminate a potentially lethal threat. An estimated 55k law-abiding gun owners do so each and every year – at the very, very least. And yet gun control advocates must perpetuate this logical fallacy if they are to have any hope of curtailing and then eliminating Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. So they bang on about suicides, domestic abuse and accidents mostly, and seize on incidents where an owner was overpowered and killed with his or her own gun. Psychology Today adds its voice to the antis’ chorus with this astounding bit of non-logic . . .
In Rome a criminal might assume that his victim won’t be carrying a gun. He may also assume that if he runs fast he’ll get away, or at worst be tackled by a bystander. Whereas in America he might imagine that guys packing heat are “everywhere.” Worse, they may all want to be heroes.
And it’s true that, in Italy as a whole, petty street crime is fairly common, whereas getting your head blown off isn’t.
Unfortunately, of course, as Felson points out, with guns everywhere, Americans are far more likely than people in countries with low rates of gun violence to get their heads blown off. Perhaps, as he suggests, having guns everywhere escalates petty crimes into murders through what Felson calls the “adversary effect.”
Which is to say that criminals arm themselves in a manner equal to that of their imagined adversary. As a rule, unarmed criminals avoid violence with adversaries who are physically stronger or who have powerful allies. But when they can’t avoid violence with heavily armed adversaries, some take steps to arm up.
Now, keeping Felson’s proposed adversary effect in mind and getting back to his look at homicide statistics, it could be that when a formerly unarmed criminal arms up, what might have been intended as a simple assault becomes much more consequential.
So … to those who would say that America is safer when good guys carry guns, I would say “Safer from what?” From non-lethal assaults? Yeah, looks like it. But we’re at higher risk of losing our lives.
Translation: by allowing citizens to carry guns we expose them to greater risk of getting shot by a gun. So . . . ban guns! Only the parts of America where citizens are most likely to have their heads blown off are the places where legal civilian gun ownership is at its lowest – thanks to restrictive gun control laws.
Even in parts of the U.S. where legal concealed carry rates are at their highest as a percentage of the adult population, they’re not all that high. Nassau County is home to Florida’s highest percentage of concealed carry license holders. Just 13 percent of adults are packing heat.
So the odds of a violent criminal encountering a citizen carrying a gun in the U.S. are, at best (worst?), one in ten. Given that most concealed carry permit holders (and those living in Constitutional carry states) don’t carry on an everyday basis, the odds that a perp will get his head blown off by Joe Q. Public are significantly less.
But if we’re talking about entire countries, those that have severely restricted civilian gun ownership have even higher firearms-related homicide rates than the U.S. Here’s a snapshot of Brazil via wikipedia. . .
Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths; other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States. In 2013 there were 27.4 homicides for each 100,000 people in Brazil. With the total number of 54,445 death puts Brazil the 12th most dangerous country for homicide.
In case you were wondering, equally restrictive El Salvador’s homicide rate is 46.85 per 100k people. Which makes South Africa’s reported 21.5 homicides per 100k people seem positively peaceful.
What’s that you say? Why are you comparing the U.S. to Brazil, El Salvador and South Africa when Psychology Today’s pet researchers were looking at Italy’s firearms sitch? Well, why were those researchers comparing the U.S. to Italy when they could have used Brazil, El Salvador or South Africa for comparison?
Perhaps the aforementioned Richard B. Felson of Pennsylvania State University (and his colleagues at the University of Iowa and at Indiana University) was trying to compare like-to-like Western democracies. Or maybe he was cherry-picking a country to suit his bias. Or maybe he just doesn’t get it.
Regardless of how foreign countries regard civilian firearms ownership, you cannot, will not, disarm law-abiding Americans – unless you’re a politician in, say, Chicago. And then what? Then the criminals will still have access to guns – as they do in Brazil, El Salvador and South Africa – and it’ll be even easier for the bad guys to prey on disarmed victims. As they do now. Not to mention what has happened, is happening and will happen to a disarmed populace: extra-judicial assassinations, terrorist attacks and genocide.
At the risk of sounding obtuse, where’s the sense in that?
But Robert, we are safer without those scary looking insta- death dealing guns.
Plus, WTH is this tripe doing in a psychology journal? But, alas, I repeat myself.
As an antidote to the tripe from Psychology Today, may I present:
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
From the introduction…
* “You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”
* “If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games.”
* “I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns.”
* “I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”
“How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.”
“A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality”, agree, excellent article!
How refreashing to read an article who became a psychiatrist to help people sort out their issues and solve them. As opposed to the ones who are screwed up and go into the profession so they can continue to try to figure themselves out while making a very good income. Hint, first visit, ask what theiri s view on private ownership of guns. That will tell you all you need to know about what kind of PHD,
M.D you are dealing with. Thank you John, for the link!
Over three month’s ago in a two month time frame there were 7 separete teen ages shotting’s So thinking it seem’ed strange i look’ed it up .And test were done e.m.f. signal’s effect’ed teen age thinking patten’s, now called toxin’s by the c.d.c. and the f.d.a..These are signals sent down for dish tpye receaver’s,think from a omni dirrectional anttena, which mean.s it go’s any where.Look it up your self and verify
Psychology Today has been publishing tripe for a long time. I quit reading it decades ago for precisely that reason.
I always laugh when the anti’s say “But you can’t compare the USA to (those) other countries… the society is completely different…” and then they go on to compare the USA to other countries.
It is cultural norms, not guns that determine murder rates. Cultures where there is no faith in the rule of law have high murder rates. The US has significant numbers of people in subcultures where there is no faith in the rule of law:
Remove those populations (which do not exist in European countries) and the U.S. murder rates fall into the center of European murder rates.
I read a study once a while ago that compared the demographic groups in the US to their native countries and across the board they are less violent in the US than in their native countries. IE Japanese Americans have lower crime rates than Japanese still living in Japan etc etc… the crime and violence was predictably driven by one particular group but we arent allowed to talk about those.
I sort of figured that American Germans were not killing each off anymore than Continental Germans. Guns usually are just not a big problem in the Midwest in rural and small to medium towns
Actually, I see the left try to compare America to countries like Norway. America, with a population of over 300 million people across 50 (57 if you are the president) states with multiple different cultures of all types. With Norway, who has a population of over 5 million with mostly one or two generally distinct cultures.
People who own Jeeps are 500% more likely to die off roading. Pedestrians are 200% more likely to die from car related injuries. Dioxide exposure is 100% terminally fatal. Skiers hit trees harder than hikers. Just stupid.
I like Nick’s (I think it was his) comment in a previous article stating that 100% of people who have ever eaten mashed potatoes has died or will die.
My father has a saying, “The leading cause of death is birth.”
+1 on the Dioxide comment, science humor
You forgot to mention all the thousands of people who die every year, particularly in summer time, of di-hydrogen monoxide inhalation. Where is EPA when we really need them?!!!!
In all cases of violent death dihydrogen monoxide is found in both the victim and the killer’s systems. Coincidence?
Yet it might seem very important sounding to those without the brainpower to figure out what has two Hydrogen and one Oxygen atoms…
Plus, it’s a well known industrial solvent. And only a few ounces of it can kill you. Plus it sounds scary……
Safer staying at home than driving a car.
Safer taking a walk than contact sports.
Safer on the beach than in the water.
Safer on the ground than on a horse.
Safer on the deck than in the pool.
Safer in an SUV than in a Prius.
Safer in a home without stairs.
Safer walking than biking.
Safer not shaking hands.
Safer not taking a bath.
Safer not to be born?
These arguments can only make a little sense when you are looking at the big numbers, populations as a whole. But that doesn’t help you if you’re the one guy that gets his head bashed in.
They like to look at this from an attitudinal point of view (the attitude of the assailant is ‘generally’ less violent in countries like Italy) all the while ignoring the attitude of the potential future criminal in an armed society (I’m not gonna be a criminal, I’ll get my head blown off!) How many children will be saved from a life of crime in the future if we arm up now? Do it for the children!
So we’re better off hoping the criminals don’t hurt us and our loved ones rather than having the criminals afraid we might hurt them. Pathetic.
Sounds a good argument for getting rid of all the MRAPS and the heavily armed EPA and IRS assault teams. The police and the feds are just forcing American criminals to tool up.
I’d love to see that used against these nitwits.
It ain’t just the criminals. How am I going to keep a rogue government in check now without a fiddy cal? Escalation!
Pull out the stops and grab a three shot 20mm from Anzio Ironworks.
OK, let’s pretend that the there hasn’t been a coordinated, calculated dismantling of the Bill of Rights since at least 9/11, and that all this demonization of the 2A is really for our safety and the remainder of the Bill of Rights is also intact….ah…it’s nice to live in the land of unicorns and rainbows.
My wife used to have a subscription to Psychology Today. It was stuffed to the brim with pharmaceutical advertisements for every single behavior-modifying drug under the sun. Frankly they’re part of the problem.
So, basically, they’re the Rolling Stone of medicine. Interesting.
There is an ancient saying, “Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
Nowadays that could read, “Those whom the gods would make mad, they first give a free subscription to Psychology Today”.
Once again, please note the ownership of the old media. 99.9 percent of media, including this magazine, other magazines, newspapers, TV stations, radio and movie producers are owned fully by one of four international corporations, namely; GE, GM, Westinghouse, and Disney.
Once you become aware of that, just how much diversity in viewpoint do you think might be possible? My answer is: EXTREMELY little….
Never trust someone with a vested interest any more than you would trust the opinion of a used car salesman when discussing how good the car he’s trying to sell you is….
The biggest error in logic that I see with the anti’s is their belief that you can legislate evil out of existance. “Well, no, but if you ban guns and stuff the supply will dry up.” Again, negative. Ban standard capacity magazines for Modern Sporting Rifles? Impossible. After Iraq and Afghanistan, these mags are all over. Hell, use a 3D printer and you’ll get one. Homemade guns etc. are popping up in all of these countries with Draconian gun laws.
Bottom line: defend what you can from what you cannot control.
Even if you follow the logic of the so called adversarial effect, the criminals will still be armed even if we are not. They face the threat of armed police. The logic is flawed at its core.
Exactly. And they face the threat of other armed criminals…which is a frequent event during drug deals and gang turf disputes.
Additionally, I don’t put a lot of faith in the logical capacity of a gang banger hopped up on meth or bath salts as he contemplates the game theory involved in the “adversary effect.” I do put more faith in my .40 cal. GLOCK-brand GLOCK. 😉
The Adversarial affect assumes that BGs arm up because (i.e., causation, not correlation) citizens are armed. Really? Most people who are the victims of armed robberies are NOT armed. Where do they get such silly theories? The theory would predict that armed robberies increase along with gun ownership–yet the opposite is true. Violent crime is dropping and gun ownership is increasing. IU would think this undermines the theory. Moreover, good old “common sense” tells us that any criminal wants, not to be equal, but to have an advantage, whether it is size, surprise, or weaponry–or a combination of all of these–over the intended victims.
Actually, I would say the adversary effect does not take into account “bad guys” versus “good guys”. From the research published on victimization, it is often known that the “bad guys” typically victimize other “bad guys” when it comes to serious violence.
Straight out of the NY Times playbook of “passive cooperation”, and if the armed bad guy puts a bag over your head and beats your brains out or puts a cap in your skull, well that’s just bad luck…
Psychologists are highly trained professionals. They understand the human psyche and the inner workings of the human mind that those of us, the great unwashed, will never fully comprehend without their level of training.
So when these consummate professionals tell us that we are safer without guns; we should accept at face value their proclamation.
Ow! That hurt writing that.
And so many of the gun grabbing “elite” propose that people should get a Psych eval. before being able to buy a gun. Yyyeeah.
Oh, as a side note; instead of going to Italy to compare a gunless “utopia” to the US; why not compare Chicago and Washington D.C. and it’s complete ban on gun ownership for over forty years. The “adversary effect” should be in prominent display there thus proving their theory as correct.
Wait! What? But, but, I don’t understand; you mean it’s two of the some of the most violent and lethal places on planet earth? Nah! The theory can’t be wrong! So I’ll just ignore it.
Most people working in mental health have a mental health diagnosis themselves.
You can add in there somewhere that every pysc major I ever knew at college was nuts with a capitol “N”! I think that’s what draws them in, they want to analyze themselves and come up with some reason why they’re so crazy. But since they are crazy to start with, it just leads to bunch of (so called) “professional” crazy loons. At least this explains why no logic or reason can ever penetrate their wooden noggins.
No batten down the hatches for the flood of hatred from the loons who simply cannot help themselves…
Here’s the brutal, actual, truth as I directly observed in California: Most pshrinks got into the ‘profession’ to get a discount on their own head shrinkage. Many of the people packing around a license to peddle “analysis” and such aren’t all that stable or normal in their own right. They’re often barely in a position to dispense advice about much of anything quotidian, never mind the use of lethal force.
George Washington died after “doctors” drained more than 3 liters of his blood.
Makes you wonder what people will think of today’s shrinks and their methods 200 years from now…
So criminals are afraid of an armed victim so they themselves tool up so they can be more criminal. So if we de-escalate by giving up our firearms the criminals will do likewise and we will be left with nothing but petty crime and the occasional murder.
Why are we being asked to make the criminals safer instead of the citizens?
And in other startling statistics, people who swim are more likely to drown while swimming.
Yup. I love when phycologists think they’re never wrong, know us better than we do, and think phycology has never been used for evil. There’s so much wrong with this bogus theory that I’m not even going to start.
This kind of asinine, naive thinking makes about as much sense as proclaiming “If we didn’t have police officers, we wouldn’t have crime!”
So I assume they intend to imply that this process works in reverse. If Americans tool-down, criminals will no longer use guns because it won’t be necessary? You’d think something called Psychology Today would know a bit more about criminal psychology than that. We’d make Brasil look like Disney Land.
This study, like all similar studies that claim guns make you less safe, all assume that crime is uniformly distributed, i.e. a person living on the far Northwest side of Chicago has the same probability of being shot as a resident of the gang infested neighborhood or a married woman is as likely to be murdered by her husband as a woman who has an “intimate partner.” Both are demonstrably false statements.
There is also a subtle equalitarian assumption in the article. Everybody should have the same exposure to crime. It is unfair that an armed citizen stands a better chance against a rapist than the disarmed. It also assumes that criminals are stupid and deliberate seek out dangerous targets who may shoot back at them.
Psychology today it is not an academic journal, not that I wouldn’t expect to see the same nonsense in one of those, that publishes the latest pop-psyche BS. We can’t ignore garbage like this but we certainly should deconstruct it whenever we find it.
Italy is not exactly gun free either. There are lots of guns legal and illegal in circulations. They also have violent criminals — the Mafia execpt they generally only kill each other.
Italy is a much nicer place to spend one’s stipend.
The Italian government isn’t so similar to the United States government. That can’t be the rational reason Italy was the example. I bet it’s because street crime is commonplace but murders are less frequent.
Better to have and not need than need and not have.
I’ve been all over Italy. I have no recollection of seeing guys hanging around street corners with their shorts down to their ankles menacing normal people or gangs of teenagers running around beating people up for fun. Just an observation.
You can see the same ideology in their world view. If country X will just lay down their arms and stop trying to defend themselves, country Y will also put their arms down and make peace. All people in earth just want peace, right?
And here is Madeline Albright validating this observation:
Does anyone else find it intellectually bizarre that they suggest that citizens owning firearms causes criminals to go get guns and increase the lethality of their assaults? Further, they state that if we would just get rid of these mean guns, criminals would merely assault their victims in a non-lethal way, which they think is ok.
So, we’re supposed to to not be armed, on the off chance it might make criminals nervous and want to get guns themselves, and submit to simple assaults, because being assaulted is common in other countries and therefore acceptable? What?
Hmmm let’s see… Psychology today vs our Founding Fathers…
I am sick of Obeyme shit. It is your line from hell. You are only talking stupid and don’t have the guts or backbone to take it on. It’s funny how evenyour own thinks you’re a fool.
OK, so here’a a riddle for the pshrinks:
Here in Wyoming, 60% (or over) of households have at least one gun in them. I’d say that probably 50% of households have way more than one gun in them.
And yet, we have crime rates lower than most Canadian cities – in the entire state of 550K people, we usually have so few homicides by gun in a year that you can count them on one hand with most of your fingers left over.
Clearly, it isn’t the abundance of guns causing our homicides – if it were, we’d be knee-deep in blood.
It is actually the lack of something else that is responsible for our low crime. Anyone want to guess what is the single biggest predictor of criminal homicide in your city or state? Hmmm?
Hmmm, got me curious, DG.
On that same theme, the one paradigm I have noticed over my lifetime of firearm ownership, is that the people who’s parent’s and communities created a stigma that ‘guns are bad’ are usually almost always the ones that commit crimes with them (or do something stupid with them). It’s the same phenomenon with alcohol in Europe. That’s why teaching our youth responsible firearm ownership is so important. And the Anti’s want to do the exact opposite, teach them to fear guns and that guns are bad and they should only know what the TV tells them about guns. That’s how you end up with wacko’s like we’re seeing.
So it’s OK to be a victim of a non-lethal attack? Got it. Real men beat up people( but try not to kill them.) It’s fine with me that the author doesn’t want a gun. I’ll cling bitterly. BTW I just watched “A girl and a gun” on Streampix. I highly recommend it. Even when there are anti
gun points of view it still manages to be pro 2A.
Whaa?! Criminals will only tool up equal to their intended victims? What the hell kind of logic is that? Crooks take the path oh least resistance, so: old person/child=fists, healthy adult=weapon. Generally, I guess. They aren’t interested in a damn fair fight and they’ll arm themselves to gain the advantage, notto equal your percieved prowess/armament. Geez, reading this made my head hurt.
Here is the author’s response when a reader pointed out the FACTS that proves her all wrong:
“The statistics in this article are international statistics, not state-by-state comparisons. But you are right. In Vermont there are lots of guns, and there is very little fear of gun violence.
Thanks for writing.”
Notice how she acknowledges the fact and IGNORES it.
Liberalism is a mental disease characterized by extreme cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization.
“Human cognition is characterized by extreme cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization.”
There, I just fixed it for you. You hate liberals, I get it. It seems like that hatred leads you to see things that aren’t there. Perhaps confirmation bias? She acknowledges the poster has presented statistical evidence that contradicts her conclusions. I don’t see how that’s ignoring it. What do you expect? A detailed rebuttal in the comments section? I don’t read dismissal or refusal to acknowledge anything in that.
Great comment Pseudo, now off to your Elizabeth Warren 2016 meeting!!
The article in Psychology today is basically an Editorial. Disappointingly it doesn’t reference any studies or factual information. That would require some work by the author, and degrade the poorly argued contentions.
It isn’t hard to see the logical fallacies strewn throughout. Begging the question, and False equivalence immediately come to mind.
If the article does anything, it makes me wonder even more if Psychology is a quack science.
As for Psychology Today, it ain’t exactly the pinnacle when getting your papers published.
When I taught Criminology at PSU, my new department head came in and presented the paper that helped land her the gig. I was shocked at the JV quality of her research, lack of any statistical significance and the poor overall presentation.
Apparently PSU doesn’t have the same standards my Alma Mater and my advisers had.
My father has a saying, “The leading cause of death is birth.” I am stealing this. Laughed out loud!
“This kind of asinine, naive thinking makes about as much sense as proclaiming “If we didn’t have police officers, we wouldn’t have crime!” “…and our dogs would live longer.”
Maybe we could all just load our guns with “Blanks” then nobody gets hurt!…………………………….Except the folks using blanks!
You’re safer without a gun? If that’s true, then we need to disarm police so they can go home safe at night.
Absolutely, because, as we all know, that’s what is most important in public service: going home at night.
The real stupidity of that article is its erroneous assumption that criminals tool up because they fear armed victims. Criminals AVOID armed victims. They don’t want to risk a fight with someone who might pose a danger to them. They seek out victims who will be VICTIMS.
Criminals similarly seldom arm themselves for a firefight against police. Nearly every criminal (98%+) knows that a shootout with John Q. Law will bring more heat than they want to handle.
Criminals arm themselves because they fear the actions of OTHER CRIMINALS. They often do all their financial interactions in cash, and they don’t dare report crimes to the police, so they are themselves a lucrative target for other criminal groups.
Those who are armed are seldom the victims. This is the only thing that the antis just can’t figure out.
Ohhh Yes!! Italy is a paradise……COMMENT MODERATED He does not understand nothing about Italy…We have homicide perpetrate whit fist, axe and also gun….. Italian criminals were not so violent, but We had comunist an fascit terrorist, and now we have a lot of immigrants from africa and from east Europe and they are more violent and kill you few cents….
Ermes from Italy
Ps. We have a may issue and we pass from 60.0000 CCW in 2002 to 20.000 in 2012, most of them private guards ……
If you need a shrink to tell you how to live your life, then you might be safer without a gun. And, more to the point, those around you even more so. Those of us not so encumbered should feel perfectly justified in telling those saying that to evaluate themselves after a long walk on a short pier.
Academic psychology and psychotherapy aren’t the same thing.
Did I say they were?
Today in pseudo science r’us an opinion was presented as fact.
I don’t think we read the same thing. They clearly state that this MIGHT be an explanation for what they observe. They never conclude that their posited explanation is correct. It’s an attempt to explain an observed difference. I don’t agree with it, but they’re not saying “this is why,” they’re saying “this might be why.” They never stated their opinion as fact.
Not really on our side are you Pseudo old boy?
It IS more appropriate to compare the United States to Italy than, say, Brazil. I don’t agree with their conclusions but I don’t think they were cherry picking. I’d call the comparisons to Brazil or El Salvador much more egregious considering the major causes of the murder rates there. We may have bad inner city violence problems in Detroit or Chicago or whatever city, but the conditions don’t even begin to compare to some of the favelas in Brazil. They have whole communities that, aside from the recent brutal crackdown by police in the lead-up to the world cup, virtually never see police patrols, whose only police force are local gangs who act as law enforcement. The language of the article is also pretty cautious and inconclusive.
Since psychiatrists (and psychologists with the help of a MD) prescribe anti-depressant drugs that send mass murders over the edge, they’re right. With the drugs they feed some people, they’re safer without guns.
I think we would all be a lot safer without the psychiatrists and psychologists though.
Got any sources for that? You know, actual research that supports the idea of anti-depressants pushing people over the edge so they become mass murderers. Or are you just spouting nonsense like so many do when they speak about “shoulder things that go up” or any of the other obviously misguided beliefs people toss out about firearms?
The way to support your cause and protect your rights is by being informed, by being better. You do more harm than good when you spout obvious BS.
And before you bring up how many murderers or shooters have been given anti-depressants…how about you do a little bit of critical thinking on why that correlation might exist.
If he doesn’t have the stats I do. Quite beside the fact that virtually all of the “spree killers” are(or were) on psychoactive medicines at the time of their murders, lets just take a couple of SPECIFIC CASES, shall we?
“John Hinckley (1981) John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
Laurie Dann (1988) In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, IL, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the anti-depressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
Patrick Purdy (1989) Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, CA, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptvine, an anti-depressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.”
Since I could post examples for an hour, lets just cut to the chase and read the labels, shall we?
SUICIDAL THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIORS; AND NEUROPSYCHIATRIC REACTIONS
Suicidality And Antidepressant Drugs
Antidepressants increased the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term trials. These trials did not show an increase in the risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior with antidepressant use in subjects over age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressant use in subjects aged 65 and older [see WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS].” -http://www.rxlist.com/wellbutrin-drug.htm
Interestingly, this same warning appears in almost all psychotropic drugs. Isn’t that interesting? It is literally EVERYWHERE in the drug literature, and yet you are SO blissfully unaware of that as to call those with real info on the subject uninformed…
I guess ignorance IS bliss….
Comparisons to south american countries are spot on. You have segregated slums with massive populations, who are abused by an enormous and overbearing police state. Moreover, the south american countries tend to slide left in response to social ills, with predictable results very much like what we have experienced here. If it ticks people off to be compared to them, oh well. We also have more nonviolent criminals in our prisons than china or russia, so I guess they will have to deal with that, too.
…what Felson calls the “adversary effect.”
AHA! Another “answer” in search of grant money. I am SO surprised.
This psycho-babble pseudo-science bovine excrement is why no one respects real scientists anymore.
I am armed for the same reason I wear a seatbelt: The odds of me needing a gun or a seatbelt to save my life are low, but when needed, there really is no substitute for either one.
I am starting to get seriously pissed off at people saying that you are more likely to get shot if you own a gun!
First, Bloomy makes a bullshit statement about how during a home invasion “You will have to find your gun in the dark… then you will have to find your ammo…. then you will have to unlock it……blah, blah, woof woof… and by the time you’re ready, you will be shot!” BULLSHIT! Guess he didn’t drink his brain-juice that morning! My gun will be: right next to me. full mag. one in the chamber…. UNLOCKED!!!
I think it’s about time I weighed in on Bloomy’s little “Article of Truth, Unicorns, and Rainbows!”
“Americans are far more likely than people in countries with low rates of gun violence to get their heads blown off. ”
Soooo, you’re saying Criminals are far more likely to get their heads blown off…
…… Sounds fair to me!
It seems AFP has blocked their youtube channel from being displayed here. Great job on transparent journalism.
Using this data set from the FBI:
with a simple linear regression model shows there is almost no correlation (r-sqr of .088) between the percentage of gun ownership and the number of gun murders.
When you compare this to that Alzheimer’s story (which I had defended), this one makes me want to rip my hair out. There’s nothing in the way of evidence to back up any of her comments. There is no reference to the actual work she is editorializing upon (can’t call it reporting – it’s not even close). I wonder if her opinions/conclusions even relate to the observations of the paper. There’s no way to tell and that in itself is a red flag. Even in editorial proper referencing is an expectation in the medical field.