Maybe we should list the tea party as terrorists. - Page 10

If a drone can be used annomously for this, it certainly isn't a stretch to assume they can be used in deadly manner.

"Drone drops drugs in Ohio prison yard, spurring inmate fight
1 HOUR AGO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MANSFIELD, Ohio (AP) — A drone dropped a package of drugs into a prison yard while inmates were outside, sparking a fight,...."

http://start.lenovo.com/news/read/article/the_associated_press-drone_drops_drugs_in_ohio_prison_yard_spurring_inm-ap

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals 4 & 5 (DSM-IV, DSM-IV-TR, and DSM-5) were written by psychiatrists with HUGE interests in drug companies that manufacture psychotropic drugs.  Many of the disorders are made up to fulfill a need to sell certain drugs.  This fact is known by APA (American Psychological Association) but psychologists do not have the clout that psychiatrists do (our own fault but we are working on that).  Did you know that Big Pharma along with some psychiatrists advocate diagnosis someone as young as 6 months old with Bipolar Disorder and placing them on strong medication to stabilize moods?  Did you know that some psychiatrists advocate ECT (Electro-Convulsive Therapy) for pediatric depression and conduct disorder refractory to medication?  A child with night terrors or long periods of nightmares can now be diagnosed and medicated.  A couple who as individuals does not have a diagnosable disorder can be diagnosed as a COUPLE and medicated.  So yes, Big Pharma does not want it know how dangerous their medications are.  Yes the German pilot was on psychotropics when he crashed his plane. 

I worked as a paramedic in a pretty dangerous part of Detroit, I used to talk to the young gang members as we transported them to the juvenile forensic psychiatric facility.  One of the tests to join a gang back then was to rob a house with the people still inside.  They were told to watch for bumper stickers like "stop handgun violence", "handgun control incorp", and anything that advocates stricter gun laws.  Those people would not have guns in the home and would not be a threat.  The soon to be members were supposed to avoid homes that had NRA stickers, hunting stickers, military stickers, etc. because those people most likely had guns and knew how to use them.  Gang members were for laws that restricted handguns because it made it easier to commit crimes against people, as more than one said, they would have no problems obtaining handguns after all they didn't go through legal channels and many times the guns came into the US along with drugs. 

Working in a psychology practice that was a forensic setting, where I assessed incarcerated individuals and those soon to stand trial for crimes, I learned many of them were for stricter hand gun laws because they too felt it made it safer for them to commit crimes.  Especially men who perpetrated violence against women, be it former or current romantic partners or strangers, they hated the idea a woman may be armed and trained in handgun use. 

So if criminals are for stricter handgun laws or better yet banning them altogether, I am against any such laws and feel safer with a handgun, hopefully I will never have to use it.

GSD Admin, you talk about people with handguns losing control and shooting someone.  I hate to say the majority of legal gun owners are some of the calmest individuals and prefer walking away from a confrontation.  And as a side note.  My son and his step-father were members of a dojo that practiced the ancient art of the Samurai Sword.  Any one of the members could cross a room and cut off your hand before you finished drawing your handgun.  The joke was, never bring a handgun to a sword fight.  The point is, anything can be used as a weapon.  More than one mass murderer has used vehicles, bombs, poison, etc.  If someone wants to kill a large number of people, that person does not need a gun. 

No, but they so often choose that easy option. Less hard graft to kill a number of worshippers or children with a spray of bullets than to go in and chop them all individually with a sword or machete. I'm not denying that the things you say about numbers / mental illness / big Pharma are correct, Mindhunt, I am sure they are true. But none of that statistical reassurance is any good to some innocent facing an out of control young man with one or more guns and a supply of ammo.  Question is:  if you leave the gun laws alone, what DO you (the States) do about the all-too-frequent examples of such shootings ?

HM, the answer to your question is; stop the gross use of psych drugs, they are passed out like lifesaver candies...because once the drug company has a person started on those drugs it potentially is deadly for the person to go off them.

Mindhunt, reading your post gave me the willies....the big pharma and drs have become reincarnation of Hitler's cronies with their 'medical experiments'.

Hund, did you see the news story about the two kids who hacked and stabbed their family to death? I believe it was five members of the family...that happened close to the time when the latest theatre shooting took place. That guy had a gun but only managed to kill two people. That's knives - 5. Gun-2. The pilot killed over 200 people, without a gun.

Hundmutter, mass killings happen without guns more often than you may think. Here are a few I found that occurred in the US......

2014, California, Elliot Rodger used multiple weapons, killed 3 men with a knife and 3 girls with a gun, wounded 7 people with the SUV he was driving and 7 with a gun.

2008 Alaska, the perpetrator used a 5-inch knife to kill multiple people,

2004 Florida, 6 people killed when 4 men used baseball bats to bludgeon the victims

2001 New York, 3,000+ people killed with airplanes in the twin towers and pentagon

1995 Oklahoma City where 168 people were killed and 680 injured with a bomb

1955 United Flight 629 where Jack Gilbert killed 44 people with a bomb

1927 (the first recorded school mass murder) in Bath Michigan, 44 people killed (38 of them children) and 58 injured when Andrew Kehoe used a homemade bomb

wow, what a list. LMFAO.

Glad you find it amusing GSD Admin. 

I really do not find 9/11 comparable.
The first item on your list, there WAS a gun involved, he just
did not use it on all victims.
In a further case, sure a gang of 4 can do a lot of damage ...
whatever weapons are used. Not the same as yer individual nut-job.
As with the psychotropic drugs etc, I am not denying that you are right
about the 'other' weapons used in attacks, or that these can be fairly
frequent, but you are still not providing any alternative answers to stopping
those events which ARE dependent on guns being involved, unless the
USA legislates for less access & availability. Do you have any suggestions
which would allow you and Joan to retain your positions on personal safety
(not that I - coming from the UK - am entirely convinced about those options !)
but which could also tackle those events like Sandy Hook and Charleston etc
when there clearly is a distinct problem, no matter how many other killings
and maimings using alternative weaponry do or do not take place ?
I really don't believe there is any solid evidence that the individuals who
perpetrated such crimes would automatically have done the same deeds
with alternatives to guns & ammo if they had been denied the use of them.
Maybe they would; maybe they'd have done something else; maybe they
wouldn't - who knows ?

I find it amusing because you are mostly comparing apples and oranges and calling it kool aide. Sorry, I am not drinking it but feel free go ahead and drink up.