Missouri Takes Lead Reducing Gun and Domestic Violence

The problem with your statement is that gun control is ALWAYS ineffective. Can you provide one example where there was a gun violence problem, a gun control law or set of laws was passed to address the specific gun violence problem, and after the law had been in effect for some reasonable amount of time to allow it to work, the gun violence problem began to go down? I would like for you to provide just one example of where that situation has happened in real life.

Not one shred of evidence supports what you say, in fact every mass shooter in recent times has been on something like Luvox, Ritilin or some other similar drug. States like Utah have the least gun laws and the most heavily armed citizens, yet have none of these problems. Gun control will not solve these issues, like it or not.

Pharmaceuticals ARE mood altering substances and qualify under this legislation. There are many pharmas that are associated with violent tendencies. Folks think it is fine to dope themselves because a doctor gave it to them. Most of these drugs are crutches so folks do not have to deal with life issues and move ahead. These individuals get more depressed and angry as time goes on because they know they are not cutting the mustard and getting farther behind. Note: Women are more likely to abuse pharma, men more likely to abuse alcohol.

Pharmaceuticals ARE mood altering substances and qualify under this legislation. There are many pharmas that are associated with violent tendencies. Folks think it is fine to dope themselves because a doctor gave it to them. Most of these drugs are crutches so folks do not have to deal with life issues and move ahead. These individuals get more depressed and angry as time goes on because they know they are not cutting the mustard and getting farther behind. Note: Women are more likely to abuse pharma, men more likely to abuse alcohol.

Note: the demographics in Utah are far different than Chicago. Utah is sparsely populated and its cities do not have large areas of dead smokestack businesses and uneducated poor.

Let's look at the logic of the bill, folks. Mr. Usher wants to circumvent the standard due process and its protections of the individual as "innocent until proven guilty." That is what the bill does. Get someone branded as a "substance abuser" by the elite DECIDERS of the "abuse panel" and the newly branded "substance abuser" IN THEIR WORDS "loses it all."

Not for any actual crimes or threats committed by that individual, but for the mere statistical "association" between substance abuse generally, and crime.

Think about that for a moment. The decision by an "abuse panel" to pin a GROUP LABEL on you means you "LOSE IT ALL" if you don't "seek recovery" as defined by them. And your crime? Membership in the group by which they've labeled you. Not for what you've ACTUALLY DONE, but for some statistical RISK.

Blacks are 12.5% of the population but they commit 45% of the violent crimes. By this bill's logic, we should be able to force blacks to "seek recovery" for their blackness or "LOSE IT ALL."

Men are slightly less than half the population but nearly 10 times as likely to commit murder as women. Should men be forced to "seek recovery" for their sex or risk "LOSING IT ALL?"

Almost nothing in history is more dangerous than the concept of using force of government against individuals, not for their own actions, but for a group label that has been pinned upon them.

At best this bill is the naive stuff of fools. More likely it is despicable and totalitarian, undermining the best protections of the individual before the law earned and accorded only through many years of toil, bloodshed and sacrifice.