Does mental illness exist? Thomas Szasz

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture

Nice talk by the late Thomas Szasz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Riet8REzsQ

Comments

Redwing
Redwing's picture
It certainly existed in these

It certainly existed in these people. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

 

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Redwing, You're one of the

Redwing,

You're one of the good guys on this board, i.e. a non-totalitarian.

Here's a short video by Szasz about the absurdity of the concept of mental illness and of Psychiatry.

Here's another great talk given to the Future of Freedom Foundation opposing socialized medicine.

This is not to say that human suffering doesn't exist.  Of course it does. 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Redwing wrote: It certainly

Redwing wrote:

It certainly existed in these people. http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/

 

I confess I have not read any Szasz since the some undergrad classes in the 70's.

But leaping to blame antidepressants can easily become a chicken and egg argument. If a person has a preexisting mental illness and is prescribed SSRIs, yes there CAN be side effects in some. But another argument can be made that the dosage wasn't high enough. 

What's happening here is the killings are  being presented as the "evidence" the shooters WERE having these side effects as opposed to other possible explanations: inadequate or inept psychiatric care... prescribed the wrong med... or the best med at insufficient dosages.

So when the Right leaps at this theory, it's just another way to get the topic of guns, themselves, off the hook.

 

leighmf
leighmf's picture
If you really want to know,

If you really want to know, check yourself into a psych ward. You will see for yourself. I also recommend getting a copy of the old movie "The Snake Pit"

This very moving film shows institutional life for the mentally ill BEFORE medications were used.

Treatments consisted of ice baths and many horrible drugless therapies.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
That is not it at all. 

That is not it at all.  Responsible gun owners want any type of firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people.  Damage they cause on others hurts the responsible people in the long run.  Check, and you will find, gangs and mental health issues (including sucide) cause the vast majority of gun related deaths.  I think the gun owners concern is, what actually is classified as "mental illness"  Doctors are supposed to ask, "do you have any firearms in your home" at the time of your physical. It is illegal in most states to possess a firearm if you have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Gun owners are afraid that any prescribed medication, which is frequently given all to freely, may put them on a list preventing them from gun ownership. Therein lies the conundrum. Trying to eliminate 300 million guns is foolish, as is a magazine ban. The real question is, how to predict, and keep people away from objects that can be used to kill others. Or, are doctors and drug company's pushing too hard, and contributing to the factors that cause these types of behavior?

Don't get me started on the violent video games, and Hollywood hipocrites.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Leigh, Don't call them

Leigh,

Don't call them institutions.  They are and were prisons.  The people in them were there against their will.  While you are correct that the so-called treatments were brutal, forcibly drugging someone is no less brutal.  Treatment is voluntary.  Involuntary treatment is assault.

If you don't commit a crime, you should not be imprisoned.  If you do, you should go through the criminal justice system, get due process,etc.  Victimless crime laws should be repealed.  If you want to help someone with personal problems, do it voluntarily.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
There is no such entity as

There is no such entity as the mind.  It, therefore, cannot be sick.  Mental illness is a metaphor.  It is not a real disease like cancer or diabetes.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
A former acquaintence was a

A former acquaintence was a Vietnam vet, and psych ward nurse. His career spanned the 1970 -2005 or so period. Ice baths, electroshock therapy, group counseling. All were tried as cures, when what needs to be done is keeping these people safe, and in so doing keeping the rest of us safe too.

The thing to consider is what does society do with people who are mentally ill? Some monumentally stupid people think that mental health services are a prison, punishment, and that institutionalizing people should be voluntary. My bet is I can find 20 families in and around Newtown, CT who disagree. We need to do a better job at getting people who have issues the medical help they need, so they can live better lives, and they are not a danger to others. 

 

 

norske
norske's picture
Facinating how many people

Facinating how many people continue to buy into the "myth of mental illness" meme every time it shows up on this board.....

 

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Redwing wrote: That is not it

Redwing wrote:

That is not it at all.  Responsible gun owners want any type of firearms out of the hands of irresponsible people.  Damage they cause on others hurts the responsible people in the long run. 

Which brings us to the question about whether the NRA is a responsible outfit. I'd contend that aside from the culture of paranoia it's fostered with gun owners poisoning any hope of a rational dialogue, it's irresponsible because it's demanded too many loopholes in reasonable gun control laws.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
norske wrote: Facinating how

norske wrote:

Facinating how many people continue to buy into the "myth of mental illness" meme every time it shows up on this board.....

 

It's actually not a meme.  It's a title of a book written over 50 years ago by the late Thomas Szasz.

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Phaedrus76 wrote: A former

Phaedrus76 wrote:

A former acquaintence was a Vietnam vet, and psych ward nurse. His career spanned the 1970 -2005 or so period. Ice baths, electroshock therapy, group counseling. All were tried as cures, when what needs to be done is keeping these people safe, and in so doing keeping the rest of us safe too.

The thing to consider is what does society do with people who are mentally ill? Some monumentally stupid people think that mental health services are a prison, punishment, and that institutionalizing people should be voluntary. My bet is I can find 20 families in and around Newtown, CT who disagree. We need to do a better job at getting people who have issues the medical help they need, so they can live better lives, and they are not a danger to others. 

 

 

Are you saying that people should be locked up before they commit a crime and treated against their will for a disease that has no objective tests to confirm its existence?

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Yes.

Yes.

norske
norske's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote:It's

LysanderSpooner wrote:
It's actually not a meme.  It's a title of a book written over 50 years ago by the late Thomas Szasz.

I have a 1st edition of the book on my book shelf... My sense is that Szasz, Laing et al were to psychiatry/psychology what Rand was to "philosophy"/political science. Which, with all due respect, is why those with a libertarian bent are attracted to them...

Szasz took a noble cause and became a caricature of himself. Been working in mental health for close to 35 years along with several family members who have suffered from severe fromes of mental illness. I blame myself... I knew better than to respond to such a loaded topic....

drc2
No blame.  Thanks from our

No blame.  Thanks from our family.

Natural Lefty
Natural Lefty's picture
No, there is no such thing as

No, there is no such thing as "mental illness" unless one accepts the clearly flawed biomedical model of psychopathology; otherwise there are people with psychological disorders, but not "mentally ill" people. This may seem like nitpicking to the uninitiated, but it really is not.

drc2
Yes, there are "people with."

Yes, there are "people with."  In the end, it is their job to figure out what it is and to deal with it, and I agree that the 'need to name' gets in the way of offering useful feedback to the person in need of some help to deal with their "psychological disorders."  Darn, even that term can be seen as stigmatizing and insensitive.

Mental illness was intended to be a benign and kind reference to 'insanity' or 'madness.'  If it was an illness, it was not the moral character of the ill, it was something the person "had."  A step up from demon possessed, I guess.

It still does not help us become useful to the person with 'it' to insist that we define or name the disorder.  The disorder has consequences.  We are baffled.  We cannot just "live with" constant disruptions and threats.  It does little to appreciate that the person with the disorder does not know what he/she is doing.  The law hardly applies.

I am not against nitpicking about the stigma of mental illness.  The patronizing and managerial approach to helping or curing the mentally ill has to give way to helping people afflicted get a grip on what is going on with themselves.  Respect them.  Work with them.  Treating them as "inmates" in custodial confinement does not communicate any of this.  People who think they are sane need to check their own 'normality.'

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
So why can there be chemical

So why can there be chemical imbalances in the brain that lead to dysfunction, perhaps caused by a simple nutritional deficiency. Maybe it's poor cognitive skills.... and either might suggest that the term "mental illness" is not warranted. Who knows.

I know someone close who was always prone towards depression and it got to the point that without SSRIs... and one was not enough, it took two, she'd be totally withdrawn in the pit of her own despair.

 

I know someone else who I suspected something was going wrong for several years... just from their email behavior. S/he had a manic episode in school and lost their job. With a med change s/he's back. I'm not willing to buy into the idea these drugs are not helpful. But perhaps they are merely masking some deeper nutritional or cognitive problem.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote: There

LysanderSpooner wrote:

There is no such entity as the mind.  It, therefore, cannot be sick.  Mental illness is a metaphor.  It is not a real disease like cancer or diabetes.

If nutritional imbalances or environmental exposures to toxins can cause cancer and diabetes... which you classify as true diseases, why can they also both affect the way the brain works? I'm well aware that there's a tendency to turn every psychological problem into a "disease"... and perhaps many can be traced back to the above and poor cognitive skills, but that doesn't mean there is NO such thing as mental illness. Or are you just having problems with the the loaded term "illness"? So what if a more neutral term were use like mental or cognitive dysfunction?

Zenzoe
Viktor Frankl: "An abnormal

Viktor Frankl: "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal."

John-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ;-)

Sometimes we put the onus on the individual, when it might be wiser to view the individual within a web of disordered individuals, or a disordered community, or a disordered society.  To label a person "mentally ill" represents a way of letting others, or society, off the hook in many instances. To label a person as "disordered" does the same. For example, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder really isn't a disorder; rather it's a condition caused by disorder, caused by realities no human being should ever have to endure.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Zenzoe wrote: Viktor Frankl:

Zenzoe wrote:

Viktor Frankl: "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal."

John-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ;-)

Sometimes we put the onus on the individual, when it might be wiser to view the individual within a web of disordered individuals, or a disordered community, or a disordered society.  To label a person "mentally ill" represents a way of letting others, or society, off the hook in many instances. To label a person as "disordered" does the same. For example, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder really isn't a disorder; rather it's a condition caused by disorder, caused by realities no human being should ever have to endure.

And much that is diagnosed as ADHD is probably trying to force energetic kids to comply to an environment not designed for them. Or it can be additives in food. Who knows. But if other organs can malfunction why not the brain?

And what of choices made early in life metastasize as one grows older... say one conditions themselves to fantasize about sex with children to the point they begin to rewire their pleasure circuits of the brain. On some level its choice.. to tie in Viktor Frankl. But it's choice that leads to  physical changes in the brain. That then is what? Is illness too loaded a term? Is it a "disorder"?

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is.  

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
norske wrote: LysanderSpooner

norske wrote:

LysanderSpooner wrote:
It's actually not a meme.  It's a title of a book written over 50 years ago by the late Thomas Szasz.

I have a 1st edition of the book on my book shelf... My sense is that Szasz, Laing et al were to psychiatry/psychology what Rand was to "philosophy"/political science. Which, with all due respect, is why those with a libertarian bent are attracted to them...

Szasz took a noble cause and became a caricature of himself. Been working in mental health for close to 35 years along with several family members who have suffered from severe fromes of mental illness. I blame myself... I knew better than to respond to such a loaded topic....

Szasz is not in the same category as Laing.  Laing was an anti-psychiatrist.  Szasz wasn't against anyone seeking help provided it was voluntary.

Here's a summary statement from his website:

Thomas Szasz's Summary Statement and Manifesto

  1. "Myth of mental illness."Mental illness is a metaphor (metaphorical disease). The word "disease" denotes a demonstrable biological process that affects the bodies of living organisms (plants, animals, and humans). The term "mental illness" refers to the undesirable thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of persons. Classifying thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as diseases is a logical and semantic error, like classifying the whale as a fish. As the whale is not a fish, mental illness is not a disease. Individuals with brain diseases (bad brains) or kidney diseases (bad kidneys) are literally sick. Individuals with mental diseases (bad behaviors), like societies with economic diseases (bad fiscal policies), are metaphorically sick. The classification of (mis)behavior as illness provides an ideological justification for state-sponsored social control as medical treatment.

     

  2. Separation of Psychiatry and the State.If we recognize that "mental illness" is a metaphor for disapproved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, we are compelled to recognize as well that the primary function of Psychiatry is to control thought, mood, and behavior. Hence, like Church and State, Psychiatry and the State ought to be separated by a "wall." At the same time, the State ought not to interfere with mental health practices between consenting adults. The role of psychiatrists and mental health experts with regard to law, the school system, and other organizations ought to be similar to the role of clergymen in those situations.

     

  3. Presumption of competence.Because being accused of mental illness is similar to being accused of crime, we ought to presume that psychiatric "defendants" are mentally competent, just as we presume that criminal defendants are legally innocent. Individuals charged with criminal, civil, or interpersonal offenses ought never to be treated as incompetent solely on the basis of the opinion of mental health experts. Incompetence ought to be a judicial determination and the "accused" ought to have access to legal representation and a right to trial by jury.

     

  4. Abolition of involuntary mental hospitalization.Involuntary mental hospitalization is imprisonment under the guise of treatment; it is a covert form of social control that subverts the rule of law. No one ought to be deprived of liberty except for a criminal offense, after a trial by jury guided by legal rules of evidence. No one ought to be detained against his will in a building called "hospital," or in any other medical institution, or on the basis of expert opinion. Medicine ought to be clearly distinguished and separated from penology, treatment from punishment, the hospital from the prison. No person ought to be detained involuntarily for a purpose other than punishment or in an institution other than one formally defined as a part of the state's criminal justice system.

     

  5. Abolition of the insanity defense.Insanity is a legal concept involving the courtroom determination that a person is not capable of forming conscious intent and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for an otherwise criminal act. The opinions of experts about the "mental state" of defendants ought to be inadmissible in court, exactly as the opinions of experts about the "religious state" of defendants are inadmissible. No one ought to be excused of lawbreaking or any other offense on the basis of so-called expert opinion rendered by psychiatric or mental health experts. Excusing a person of responsibility for an otherwise criminal act on the basis of inability to form conscious intent is an act of legal mercy masquerading as an act of medical science. Being merciful or merciless toward lawbreakers is a moral and legal matter, unrelated to the actual or alleged expertise of medical and mental health professionals.

     

  6. In 1798, Americans were confronted with the task of abolishing slavery, peacefully and without violating the rights of others. They refused to face that daunting task and we are still paying the price of their refusal. In 1998, we Americans are faced with the task of abolishing psychiatric slavery, peacefully and without violating the rights of others. We accept that task and are committed to working for its successful resolution. As Americans before us have eventually replaced involuntary servitude (chattel slavery) with contractual relations between employers and employees, we seek to replace involuntary psychiatry (psychiatric slavery) with contractual relations between care givers and clients.

Thomas Szasz March 1998

LysanderSpooner
LysanderSpooner's picture
Pierpont wrote: Zenzoe

Pierpont wrote:

Zenzoe wrote:

Viktor Frankl: "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal."

John-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ;-)

Sometimes we put the onus on the individual, when it might be wiser to view the individual within a web of disordered individuals, or a disordered community, or a disordered society.  To label a person "mentally ill" represents a way of letting others, or society, off the hook in many instances. To label a person as "disordered" does the same. For example, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder really isn't a disorder; rather it's a condition caused by disorder, caused by realities no human being should ever have to endure.

And much that is diagnosed as ADHD is probably trying to force energetic kids to comply to an environment not designed for them. Or it can be additives in food. Who knows. But if other organs can malfunction why not the brain?

And what of choices made early in life metastasize as one grows older... say one conditions themselves to fantasize about sex with children to the point they begin to rewire their pleasure circuits of the brain. On some level its choice.. to tie in Viktor Frankl. But it's choice that leads to  physical changes in the brain. That then is what? Is illness too loaded a term? Is it a "disorder"?

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is.  

Brain diseases are real diseases.  The mind is not the brain.  Brain diseases are treated by neurologists.  The patients are treated with their consent.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
LysanderSpooner

LysanderSpooner wrote:

Pierpont wrote:

And much that is diagnosed as ADHD is probably trying to force energetic kids to comply to an environment not designed for them. Or it can be additives in food. Who knows. But if other organs can malfunction why not the brain?

And what of choices made early in life metastasize as one grows older... say one conditions themselves to fantasize about sex with children to the point they begin to rewire their pleasure circuits of the brain. On some level its choice.. to tie in Viktor Frankl. But it's choice that leads to  physical changes in the brain. That then is what? Is illness too loaded a term? Is it a "disorder"?

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is.  

Brain diseases are real diseases.  The mind is not the brain.  Brain diseases are treated by neurologists.  The patients are treated with their consent.

But the mind is a product of the brain just as insulin is a product of the pancreas. And the mind can affect the physical characteristics of the brain. Anyone involved in playing an instrument is rewiring their brain. And we know electrical stimulation of the brain can affect what the mind perceives as can drugs. So how can it be said they are totally separate? Because there are different specialties that treat each?

Yours seems to be an artificial if not arbitrary construct and once it's made... then it can lead to the conclusion the mind is not the brain and vice versa... when obviously there's a great deal of interdependence. Now if you want to say consciousness... the experiencing of the mind, is separate from the brain... then perhaps you might have a point.

Zenzoe
Pierpont wrote: Zenzoe

Pierpont wrote:

Zenzoe wrote:

Viktor Frankl: "An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal."

John-Paul Sartre: "Hell is other people." ;-)

Sometimes we put the onus on the individual, when it might be wiser to view the individual within a web of disordered individuals, or a disordered community, or a disordered society.  To label a person "mentally ill" represents a way of letting others, or society, off the hook in many instances. To label a person as "disordered" does the same. For example, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder really isn't a disorder; rather it's a condition caused by disorder, caused by realities no human being should ever have to endure.

And much that is diagnosed as ADHD is probably trying to force energetic kids to comply to an environment not designed for them. Or it can be additives in food. Who knows. But if other organs can malfunction why not the brain?

And what of choices made early in life metastasize as one grows older... say one conditions themselves to fantasize about sex with children to the point they begin to rewire their pleasure circuits of the brain. On some level its choice.. to tie in Viktor Frankl. But it's choice that leads to  physical changes in the brain. That then is what? Is illness too loaded a term? Is it a "disorder"?

I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is.  

I agree with much of what you've written there, Pierpont.  Perhaps you would also agree with me that people can and do have mental problems, whatever you want to call those conditions, but it's important to consider the entire complex of environmental and social factors that might contribute to the development of any particular condition.

Attention Deficit Disorder is a good example, and Dr. Gabor Maté explains my point way better than I can.

 

Redwing
Redwing's picture
lysanderspooner wrote: Are

lysanderspooner wrote:

Are you saying that people should be locked up before they commit a crime and treated against their will for a disease that has no objective tests to confirm its existence?

Phaedrus responded:

Yes.

 

Wrong, Iguana breath.  You do not lock people up, and treat them against their will, because they are suspected of, or being treated for, some version of what our constantly changing society, calls mentally ill, before they commit a crime.  If you did , you would not have an afternoon radio show to listen to. Hartmann's rants on Reagan border in instability. Schultz, Beck, Press, Malloy, Jones, and a host of others can also fall into that catagory.

You, yourself  may  have a routine visit to the doctor and have a pill prescribed that someday may become one of the medications that fall into the mental illness catagory. Any preference to your lockup location, or can the government pick that for you also?

Life is dangerous, get used to it.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
LysanderSpooner wrote:Are you

LysanderSpooner wrote:
Are you saying that people should be locked up before they commit a crime and treated against their will for a disease that has no objective tests to confirm its existence?

Who says there are no objective tests? If someone is having fantasies about mass murder... that is an objective red flag. If one tries to commit suicide, that is an objective warning sign... though it may have several meanings... including just a desperate a cry for help. Once determined, why isn't that also an objective red flag?

In all our discussions you seem to take extreme purist views then try to force reality to conform... rather than modifying theories to conform to the evidence.

Just an observation.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Redwing

Redwing wrote:

lysanderspooner wrote:

Are you saying that people should be locked up before they commit a crime and treated against their will for a disease that has no objective tests to confirm its existence?

Phaedrus responded:

Yes.

 

Wrong, Iguana breath.  You do not lock people up, and treat them against their will, because they are suspected of, or being treated for, some version of what our constantly changing society, calls mentally ill, before they commit a crime.  If you did , you would not have an afternoon radio show to listen to. Hartmann's rants on Reagan border in instability. Schultz, Beck, Press, Malloy, Jones, and a host of others can also fall into that catagory.

You, yourself  may  have a routine visit to the doctor and have a pill prescribed that someday may become one of the medications that fall into the mental illness catagory. Any preference to your lockup location, or can the government pick that for you also?

Life is dangerous, get used to it.

So, you are stating that we cannot have gun control and we cannot have mental health services that serve ill people to protect them and others? Wow, that is amazing. And then you say life is dangerous.

No, your prescription for society is dangerous. I am a parent. I do not allow my 9 yr old and his buddies to play with hatchets, hammers, or arrows. We live in the country, and our home has a an area that we do flint knapping, for arrows and javelins. We do not allow children to play with those things because it is a recipe for a trip to the ER. 

As a govt we have the right to not allow people who are a danger to be free until after they kill. If the NRA had their way, and we had armed guards at Sandy Hook, and young Mr. Lanza entered the school, carrying the Bushmaster and two handguns, at what point would it be ok to shoot him? After he has murdered a few?

Unless, if I am to believe conservatives, since we all have a right to self defense, then we must assume that we each have a right to arms, including arms like truck bombs, anthrax or dirty nuke bombs. Which then means that those who are looking to defend themselves fom gun enthusiasts would be wise to start by getting a pre emptive strike at the next gun show? 

See, your moronic theology of "Gun is Gawd and Freedum!" means that even dirty hippies and Negroes have self defense rights too. If you can stand your ground, Negroes can stand their ground too. If I were a gun enthusiast planning on attending a gun show, I think it might be smart to wear latex gloves, an air mask, and maybe a radiation suit. 

At this poinit, everyone reading is thinking what a infantile argument. No one in their right mind will make the logical leap to firebombing gun shows, or setting bombs hooked to the ignition of gun enthusiasts in self defense way, or believe that all Negroes in Floriduh will start gun toting and shooting every White guy on sight and then proclaim "stand your ground" defenses. They'd be right because rights have limits, and taking any position to an extreme is infantile. Which is what the conservative movement has been doing for 25 years. 

 

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Pierpont wrote: In all our

Pierpont wrote:

In all our discussions you seem to take extreme purist views then try to force reality to conform... rather than modifying theories to conform to the evidence.

Just an observation.

Jinx, buy me a coke. I had made the same connection, at the same time. The conservative mind is almost childlike, totally self centered, absolutist, and will take any approach to get what they want. Any costs that can be schluffed off to others, like pollution, gun deaths of children, Fukushima, are other peoples' problems.

Redwing
Redwing's picture
When I was 9 I was already

When I was 9 I was already pheasant hunting with my uncle, had won a city archery tournament, and could whittle a great spear with my Boy Scout knife to chase carp out of our local stream every spring.  As for the hammers and hatchets that have actually killed more people yearly than "assault rifles", if you used the back of the hatchet which was heavier than my hammer, you could decimate an entire roll of caps with one blow, and really make a loud noise.  I feel bad for your kids, it sounds like they have already missed a lot, and will continue to do so. If you are afraid to go out, please enroll them in scouting. They will thank you for it years from now.

Why you bring the words dirty hippies and negros  into this thread is beyond me, but it just points out the correctness of my posts many times on this board.  The real rascists come out in comments like you and Hartmann make.

Speaking of Hartmann, your line  "It might be smart to wear latex gloves, an air mask, and maybe a radiation suit" is right up his alley, have you been following him through the vegetable aisle lately?

As for locking up people without due cause, good luck with all that. Suggest that to the wrong people and you may be the one confined with mental illness stamped on your chart

Life is dangerous, live in a bubble and stay safe, or go out among the great unwashed and have fun. I choose the latter, as did my kids and their kids will do.

Phaedrus76
Phaedrus76's picture
Redwing wrote: When I was 9 I

Redwing wrote:

When I was 9 I was already pheasant hunting with my uncle, had won a city archery tournament, and could whittle a great spear with my Boy Scout knife to chase carp out of our local stream every spring.  As for the hammers and hatchets that have actually killed more people yearly than "assault rifles", if you used the back of the hatchet which was heavier than my hammer, you could decimate an entire roll of caps with one blow, and really make a loud noise.  I feel bad for your kids, it sounds like they have already missed a lot, and will continue to do so. If you are afraid to go out, please enroll them in scouting. They will thank you for it years from now.

My kids do that stuff, with supervision. They are not allowed to use weapons, or power tools without an adult. We refer to it as "parenting."

Redwing wrote:

Why you bring the words dirty hippies and negros  into this thread is beyond me, but it just points out the correctness of my posts many times on this board.  The real rascists come out in comments like you and Hartmann make.

Speaking of Hartmann, your line  "It might be smart to wear latex gloves, an air mask, and maybe a radiation suit" is right up his alley, have you been following him through the vegetable aisle lately?

As for locking up people without due cause, good luck with all that. Suggest that to the wrong people and you may be the one confined with mental illness stamped on your chart

Life is dangerous, live in a bubble and stay safe, or go out among the great unwashed and have fun. I choose the latter, as did my kids and their kids will do.

No comment on if others decide that people like young Mr. Lanza are a threat to them that they should have the right to stand their ground? Self defense always involves your fantasies of standing up against some group of urban youths ala Bernie Goetz, or being in the crowd when a Loughner goes off and rushing to our rescue. But what happens if people see a young white kid walking towards a school carrying a AR-15 and decide to defnd the school? Or see that young man and decide to "stand your ground"?  The fact is the people we need defending from are you and your kids. 

Good luck with trying to wrap your mind around the idea that maybe the next Hispanic or Negro you meet is afraid of you and decides to stand his ground. 

More guns equals more gun deaths. More guns in the hands of mentally unstable, poverty stricken people is a bad recipe. We do not allow children access to fully automatic weapons, power tools or heavy equipment. 

Your moronic extremism is destroying lives. 

Redwing
Redwing's picture
More with the negros and now

More with the negros and now hispanics. Did you forget to include women?  You really do have a problem don't you? Good parenting should also include not passing your paranoid ideas about people of color or sex to your children.  Rascisn is waining in this country, but it is people like you that will delay that progression.

As for the more guns, the gun shops in every state have reported record sales of firearms and new permits. The left has opened the door to a firestorm.  Be careful what you wish for. Another reason to stay in the house hunched over your keyboard.

I wonder if the assault rifle ban had anything to do with the Republicans taking over congress in the mid nineteen nineties?

 

Life is dangerous  Stay safe.

Pierpont
Pierpont's picture
Redwing wrote:As for the

Redwing wrote:
As for the hammers and hatchets that have actually killed more people yearly than "assault rifles",

Just focusing on "assault rifles" is a red herring since it's a tactic meant to divert attention from ALL gun deaths and sadly, those favoring assault rifle bans alone are falling into this trap. For instance I'm assuming that those who assault with a hammer or hatchet kill one person at a time. What's the average death toll for each incident of assaults with "assault rifles" or semiautomatic handguns? Is it 3? 4? 6? 10?

You love to claim assault is a behavior and a gun is merely an inanimate object and you are correct... to a point.

But are you suggesting that such weapons do NOT amplify the killing power of those who choose to kill others? Isn't that why we don't fight wars with bare hands because those inanimate objects DO amplify one person's ability to kill the enemy?