In response to:

Missouri Takes Lead Reducing Gun and Domestic Violence

mmelnicoff Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 7:30 PM
While this may address some domestic situations, it has nothing to do with street violence and/or mass shootings. It will take effective gun control measures to do something about this, like it or not.
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 12:08 AM
Most mass shootings involve angry children of divorce, who are often substance abusers themselves. When divorces are prevented by substance abuse recovery, you will see fewer angry children of divorce. Note: Adam Lanza was a very angry child of divorce. He went downhill quickly after the divorce. I suspect that his mother abused pharmaceuticals or alcohol based on her odd behavior. Adam was likely on mood-altering substances himself. This has not yet been talked about publicly. I would like to know -- for the record.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 2:23 PM
How much more suspicious, more angry and more violent will the average person in a bitterly-troubled marriage become when a collection of "reformed substance abusers" gets to make him guilty until proven innocent and he "LOSES IT ALL?" Not for any threats he made or violence he committed, but because of loose statistical correlations between behavior OF OTHERS and ingestion of certain substances? How many more murders does one expect of spouses, children, attorneys, and "abuse panel" (LOL, what an inadvertently-apt euphemism) members, as a result of revocation of long-established legal protections of the accused individual?
Luscious Lars Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:22 PM
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.
Sid14 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:02 PM
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.
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 12:11 AM
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.
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 12:13 AM
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.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:38 AM
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.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:43 AM
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?"
JustMC Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 9:47 AM
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.

Missouri House Bill 402 is a major step forward reducing gun violence, domestic violence, and other forms of serious violence. For decades, federal and state policy attempting to impact these growing problems failed because the policies were pointed in the wrong direction.

Substance abuse in the family is the leading factor and primary driver of many kinds of gun-related crimes, domestic violence, and other offenses.

Substance abuse is tightly bound to domestic violence. Three-quarters of serious domestic violence is associated with substance abuse at the time of violence (Fig 3). This statistic does not include substance abusers who...