Teachers and Proffesors should be allowed to bring guns to schools

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should. Guns are a potentially dangerous tool and need to be treated with respect and care. Taking a weapon into a school is just asking for trouble with accidents due to improper use, and teachers getting annoyed as hell with students.

That's right!

Guns don't kill people, gun control kills people!

...

Seriously now.

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

Ever notice how those places are more populated than police stations and gun stores, so there's a greater abundance of targets?

TheLycanKing144:

No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Care to provide some solid citations for that, or is this another entry from "The gospel of LycanKing" that needs to be taken at face value, without question?

I've noted it to you several times by now. You do not just walk in here, toss about some rhetoric and expect everyone is going to be willing to even consider what you're saying, unless you actually give us more to go on than your own word.

TheLycanKing144:
These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Because putting a firearm within an area of impulsive children and teenagers is a recipe for thefts and accidental shootings. If the idea is to have them as protection, then they couldn't be properly locked up as you would a weapon at home, which means easier access for kids.

Additionally, there is credible research stating that carrying firearms increases the likelihood that they will perceive a firearm on another person. Additionally, they found that the carrier is more likely to interpret non-firearm objects as firearms.

Finally, there's ample evidence that ownership increases the likelihood of violent death within the household. Most notable is that those who carry are 450% more likely to shot themselves in an aggravated assault or homicide than non-carriers.

So, the evidence suggests that your proposal would be counter-productive to school and faculty safety, achieving the very opposite of what you intended.

Ever noticed how the people who go on a killing spree tend to have mental problems? I bet if you improved mental healthcare in the US, maybe socialised it a little so there's not a vested interest in having a lot of crazy people out there, the amount of shootings would decrease.

... There, both pro-gun and pro-gun control advocates, are you appeased?!

Perhaps it's just too late for the USA? Perhaps they are doomed to high numbers of deaths through firearms? Not just through spree killers, but through day-to-day murder and homicide? And controlling guns really just wouldn't work because they're way past a point of no return, with hundreds of millions of weapons already in circulation?
The problem is, I care about human life. And I can't help but think that there must be something we can do to stop the senseless killing. I don't want innocents to suffer for the selfish desires of the few. And no, I don't mean gun owners, I mean gun manufacturers who spread misinformation and propaganda and don't mind seeing people die because it drives up gun sales further.
But it's not like I can do more than argue for some sort of control from over here. It's not my country, I can't properly affect it. Are the USA really such a battlefield by now that civilians need to have guns everywhere to have a tiny measure of safety, perceived or real? Are the USA that awful? Perhaps. A lot of pro-gun advocates keep telling us that they are at least.
I used to think this was just the product of fear-mongering meant to further the goals of monied interests. But perhaps the USA have really moved beyond that point. I dunno.
Perhaps at some point I can just stop giving a shit and let people keep doing this to themselves and theirs without speaking up. But I don't think I really want to become such a person.

image

Vegosiux:
I've noted it to you several times by now. You do not just walk in here, toss about some rhetoric and expect everyone is going to be willing to even consider what you're saying, unless you actually give us more to go on than your own word.

I'm starting to think he might be the anti-Blab...

And I would never take the right to bear arms from teachers. After all, having ursine strength and claws that can rip apart a deer are basic human rights.
Also, ever notice that we had this exact same discussion right after the last school schooting wave?

I think the real question is would we cause more deaths by having more people carrying weapons than having a couple mass shootings per year.

There are roughly 35,000 schools in the US. Say 2 teachers per school carried guns (70,000 guns). Say 5% of those teachers accidentally discharge their weapons. Seeing as they are civilians and not fully trained like police or military, this seems generous. That's 3500 gun discharges in a school per year. Any percentage of 3500 results in considerably more deaths than what we have right now.

Other than the school numbers these are just ballpark estimates to frame the discussion because I dont know the real numbers. But for the most part anyway you slice it increasing the guns in schools creates more chances for accidents which statiscally result in more deaths than our annual murder sprees.

edit: there might actually be closer to 100,000 schools

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

Odgical:
Ever noticed how the people who go on a killing spree tend to have mental problems? I bet if you improved mental healthcare in the US, maybe socialised it a little so there's not a vested interest in having a lot of crazy people out there, the amount of shootings would decrease.

... There, both pro-gun and pro-gun control advocates, are you appeased?!

Three problems:

1) Reforming the US mental health system in a manner that would reduce gun violence would require complete databases for gun ownership and anyone registered with a mental disorder (as well as their family and close relations), both of which are heavily opposed by the gun and privacy lobbies, respectively.

2) The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

3) The vast majority of violence is not related to those with mental illness (96%, according to one study).

Comocat:
I think the real question is would we cause more deaths by having more people carrying weapons than having a couple mass shootings per year.

There are roughly 35,000 schools in the US. Say 2 teachers per school carried guns (70,000 guns). Say 5% of those teachers accidentally discharge their weapons. Seeing as they are civilians and not fully trained like police or military, this seems generous. That's 3500 gun discharges in a school per year. Any percentage of 3500 results in considerably more deaths than what we have right now.

Other than the school numbers these are just ballpark estimates to frame the discussion because I dont know the real numbers. But for the most part anyway you slice it increasing the guns in schools creates more chances for accidents which statiscally result in more deaths than our annual murder sprees.

edit: there might actually be closer to 100,000 schools

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

You know, you could just require them to be extremely well trained. Have them take a few courses over the summer on gun use and safety. Maybe on how to deal with a school shooting even. That would lower your 5% there.
Also, after doing a couple google searches and some quick division, the number of deaths would probably be closer to 2, if there were two to each school and your number of 100,000 is correct. This also assumes that teachers will be no more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than the average gun owner.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The Gentleman:

Odgical:
Ever noticed how the people who go on a killing spree tend to have mental problems? I bet if you improved mental healthcare in the US, maybe socialised it a little so there's not a vested interest in having a lot of crazy people out there, the amount of shootings would decrease.

... There, both pro-gun and pro-gun control advocates, are you appeased?!

Three problems:

1) Reforming the US mental health system in a manner that would reduce gun violence would require complete databases for gun ownership and anyone registered with a mental disorder (as well as their family and close relations), both of which are heavily opposed by the gun and privacy lobbies, respectively.

2) The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

3) The vast majority of violence is not related to those with mental illness (96%, according to one study).

We aren't talking about violence in general, or crime in general. We are talking about one specific type of crime. And I am totally okay with the ideas in your first post coming to pass. From what I've seen, gun rights guys are against such ideas because they think it will be useless, not out of some burning hatred of lists.

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Let's be honest here: school shootings are extremely rare, even in the United States. School shootings with more than two fatalities are even rarer. I think the odds of an American school ever having a shooting, at all, is around 1%.

So no, teachers are not putting their student's lives at risk by not carrying firearms. For the vast, vast, vast majority of students and teachers there is no risk of being shot at school. You may as well be asking why we don't make all teachers EMTs to avoid putting students at risk of suffering in medical emergencies. It's frankly not a normal thing for them to be concerned with.

No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

If the person was suicidal (which seems to be a common trend with mass shootings) then they may very well go ahead and try it. It's possible that they would be stopped before doing much damage, but again most school shootings have 2 or fewer fatalities, so there wouldn't necessarily be much change.

A far better way to approach this is to fix the issues that lead to school shootings in the first place. Improve mental healthcare. Educate parents and teachers on the signs that their kids/students may be having serious trouble. Educate the kids on what they can do when they're struggling. Best part is, these would have benefits beyond simply reducing shootings--and they wouldn't carry the downsides that armed teachers would (such as scaring students into thinking they should be worried about a shooter coming into the school, which is a completely unnecessary stress to be placing on students).

Revnak:
From what I've seen, gun rights guys are against such ideas because they think it will be useless, not out of some burning hatred of lists.

You might want to tell that to this guy...

Revnak:

You know, you could just require them to be extremely well trained. Have them take a few courses over the summer on gun use and safety. Maybe on how to deal with a school shooting even. That would lower your 5% there.

You could, but there's something to be said about a society that would require teachers to be well-trained in firearms use.

Also, after doing a couple google searches and some quick division, the number of deaths would probably be closer to 2, if there were two to each school and your number of 100,000 is correct. This also assumes that teachers will be no more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than the average gun owner.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

That is a good point. But how do we make sure the teacher's gun doesn't fall into the wrong hands?

would you send your kid to a school where the teacher (one of the most highly stressed professions in existence) had a loaded handgun sitting in the same desk drawer as the rest of his "punishment" paraphernalia ?...

i sure as hell wouldn't.

kids can be utter assholes (even unintentionally) and human beings momentarily "snap" in response to such "stimuli".

the fact that "snap" can be combined with the ease of push button death is perhaps the single biggest problem with guns.

most murders are due to "momentary lapses of reason" between people who know each other.

so if you expect people to just not do the "snap"...well imo you're ignoring the nature of reality.

i don't like policy discussion that ignores reality.

it makes for bad decisions.

(i seriously have to stop posting on topics i "don't do"...)

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

These tragedies could be prevented if they had an armed prescence on their grounds, I have the right to bear arms and I conceal carry, it is within my right to do so and protect myself if need be. Why are teachers and professors not given the same rights? Why are they being forced to put their student's lives at risk by not having the ability to protect them?

Bottom line is that it's simply wrong to deny teachers their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their kids. No one would shoot up another school again if their were armed teachers on the campus.

Here's the thing: murderers will always try to stack the odds in their favor. By arming people in certain places they'll just take the next best thing. You won't prevent mass shootings just move them.

The Gentleman:

Revnak:
From what I've seen, gun rights guys are against such ideas because they think it will be useless, not out of some burning hatred of lists.

You might want to tell that to this guy...

I... I'm sorry. I really am.

Vegosiux:

Revnak:

You know, you could just require them to be extremely well trained. Have them take a few courses over the summer on gun use and safety. Maybe on how to deal with a school shooting even. That would lower your 5% there.

You could, but there's something to be said about a society that would require teachers to be well-trained in firearms use.

And I really could not care less about that. I find most of the things that must be done by the governments and the people for the sake of a functioning society distasteful (abortion for example). I would in fact argue that it is somewhat sad that we must control the legality of any weapon to in the end be somewhat sad. That doesn't make it less necessary.

Also, after doing a couple google searches and some quick division, the number of deaths would probably be closer to 2, if there were two to each school and your number of 100,000 is correct. This also assumes that teachers will be no more likely to accidentally kill someone with a gun than the average gun owner.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

That is a good point. But how do we make sure the teacher's gun doesn't fall into the wrong hands?

I assume they would be taught that. I have no clue. I don't own guns. I also have no statistics to go grab for this one either.

Psychologically screened teachers and professors with training in proper gun safety practices should be able to take a weapon to their classroom for the protection of themselves and their students. People who disagree with that statement generally have a victim mentality.

It is not noble to be a victim. It is not noble to attempt peaceful conflict resolution tactics when the conflict is people being gunned down. It is noble to protect yourself and others from becoming victims, and it is perfectly acceptable to take someone's life when they are threatening yours.

The Gentleman:
Three problems:

1) Reforming the US mental health system in a manner that would reduce gun violence would require complete databases for gun ownership and anyone registered with a mental disorder (as well as their family and close relations), both of which are heavily opposed by the gun and privacy lobbies, respectively.

2) The mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

3) The vast majority of violence is not related to those with mental illness (96%, according to one study).

No idea why you think improving the US mental health system requires databases for gun ownership. Nor do I find it particularly relevant that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators. The link in your third point doesn't surprise me as it's basically defending the vast majority of the mentally ill and saying that only a teeny tiny percent are violent. I'm cool with that.

What I was suggesting, just to repeat myself in a different way, was that you can reduce mass killings, which are already rare events, by improving mental health. Fairly undeniable, even if improving mental health only stops one person from shooting up the place then it's still a reduction. If you want to reduce gun violence in general, you should reduce crime in general. Which involves social reform. The US hates social reform.

So, be ye in agreement ye scurvy dog or must I make ye walk the plank, YARRR?

Sleekit:
would you send your kid to a school where the teacher (one of the most highly stressed professions in existence) had a loaded handgun sitting in the same desk drawer as the rest of his "punishment" paraphernalia ?...

i sure as hell wouldn't.

kids can be utter assholes (even unintentionally) and human beings momentarily "snap" in response to such "stimuli".

the fact that "snap" can be combined with the ease of push button death is perhaps the single biggest problem with guns.

most murders are due to "momentary lapses of reason" between people who know each other.

so if you expect people to just not do the "snap"...well imo you're ignoring the nature of reality.

i don't like policy discussion that ignores reality.

it makes for bad decisions.

(i seriously have to stop posting on topics i "don't do"...)

And that's why cops shooting people dead in response to minor annoyances is a widespread epidemic which accounts for a significant amount of death rather than an unheard of fluke.

Oh wait, that's wrong though. Huh, guess people in positions of authority who are trained with weapons don't have the self control of a fucking gnat.

how much self control does a fucking gnat have exactly ?

edit - as i said the vast huge majority of murders are due to momentary lapses of reason between people who know each other.

i mean the rates are way and above even "professional criminals" and doesn't it even need to involve guns.

and yet there you are implying that's just an unforgivable lack of self control because you want to believe that human beings are completely 100% rational and logical creatures when virtually every piece of life experience you will go through will actually largely prove the opposite.

the very fact you felt the need to swear was indicative of the "red mist" of anger rising and yet there you sit willing to claim no such thing exists...

teacher and student have an interpersonal relationship.

possibly daily & possibly years in length.

cops and random people on the street do not.

they are not even remotely comparable professions and the only way you managed to make them comparable is to hypothetically arm them both with guns and call them both "authority figures".

As a teacher, I'm not comfortable with this idea. I just don't see bringing guns into a school improving any situation.

I also can't help but think of a particular teacher in my building. She's an excellent teacher and highly respected, but she's a petite woman at just over five feet tall. Many of our seniors tower over her. She's not intimidated and maintains control by the strength of her personality. However, put her in a room with a gun and thirty kids, can we really assume no one will ever be able to take it from her? Are schools going to have to start making hiring decisions based on who they trust with a weapon? This is a road I don't want to go down.

Sleekit:
how much self control does a fucking gnat have ?

Not much--but then, how much self control do any of us have during sex?

You know what would stop school shootings? Helping the kids who feel they need to go into a school and shoot up their peers before they either shoot themselves or purposely get taken down by the police. There's a reason kids do this and labeling them nutcases or bat shit insane while perhaps true isn't going to help, no it'd be better if they felt like they could talk about it with someone, but when there's no help, or you feel you'll be persecuted for getting help then they don't have any other options.

So yeah when I hear about a school shooting I obviously feel for the victims, but I also think about what brought the kid to do it, there's no winners in those types of circumstances, and no putting more guns into the equation surely can't help; next we'll be hearing about some teacher who went off the deep end and shot little Timmy because he couldn't take the kid's cheek anymore.

ellers07:
As a teacher, I'm not comfortable with this idea. I just don't see bringing guns into a school improving any situation.

I also can't help but think of a particular teacher in my building. She's an excellent teacher and highly respected, but she's a petite woman at just over five feet tall. Many of our seniors tower over her. She's not intimidated and maintains control by the strength of her personality. However, put her in a room with a gun and thirty kids, can we really assume no one will ever be able to take it from her? Are schools going to have to start making hiring decisions based on who they trust with a weapon? This is a road I don't want to go down.

Easy. She doesn't bring a gun, or she is trained in how to secure it. Nobody is saying that she would have to bring a gun.

TheLycanKing144:
Ever notice how all these shootings happen at places where the populace is disarmed? Schools, College campuses, theaters,....they never happen at police stations, gun stores, or any other place that has a strong fire arm presence.

No, because they don't all happen in schools, college campuses (and theatres?!)

That guy who shot the Congresswoman did it in the middle of a crowd (some of whom were armed). There was that army psychiatrist who rampaged around near an army base. And that's just two from the last five years that come immediately to mind.

If they can mow through people in areas where any random passer-by might have a gun, they can still as easily murder their way through a school where a teacher or three might have a gun.

Odgical:
No idea why you think improving the US mental health system requires databases for gun ownership.

It is not simply the ability to purchase weapons that's the problem, but, rather, access to the weapons themselves. One can be diagnosed after the purchase of a firearm by themselves or by a member of the household. Case on point would be the Sandy Hook shooter, who obtained his weapons by stealing them from his mother before killing her in her sleep.

The two databases (firearms and mental health) would provide the cross-referencing material necessary to send up the red flag to deny a purchase, alert owners, or, if necessary, confiscation of a firearm.

Nor do I find it particularly relevant that the mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators. The link in your third point doesn't surprise me as it's basically defending the vast majority of the mentally ill and saying that only a teeny tiny percent are violent. I'm cool with that.

What I was suggesting, just to repeat myself in a different way, was that you can reduce mass killings, which are already rare events, by improving mental health. Fairly undeniable, even if improving mental health only stops one person from shooting up the place then it's still a reduction. If you want to reduce gun violence in general, you should reduce crime in general. Which involves social reform. The US hates social reform.

So, be ye in agreement ye scurvy dog or must I make ye walk the plank, YARRR?

The problem is that you're trying to trying to reduce the number of mass shootings with a net full of holes (mental health screening) rather than the real common tie between the events (the guns). Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography, spree events that are disturbingly common in the US (with a much higher rate of mortality) are practically unheard of outside of active warzones (the exceptions being few and far between). Even if every spree event was linked to mental illness, why are there far higher instances of it in the US rather than the rest of the world? Detection of mental illness can only go so far while more restrictive gun ownership has a much greater effect on preventing these incidents.

I've noticed Lycan likes to post controversial opinions, then abandon the thread when annoying things like facts and studies get in the way. I see this will likely end up the same way.

Guns in schools is a terrible idea. Expensive for all parties. Educators should not have to learn gun control to teach in the US. That would only discourage people from becoming teachers (As if low pay, overcrowded classrooms, and pants-on-head screwed up "No Child Left Behind" didn't do enough). They're also a MASSIVE problem waiting to happen. One teacher leaves their keys out, including the keys to the safe where the gun is, and...

The Gentleman:

Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography,

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
It isn't. It just blatantly isn't. The mental health of Americans is radically worse than the majority of the developed world.

Revnak:

The Gentleman:

Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography,

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
It isn't. It just blatantly isn't. The mental health of Americans is radically worse than the majority of the developed world.

wouldn't you be inclined to suppose that probably has more to do with the pharmaceutical industry seeking to sell pills for poppin than real baseline rates for legitimate mental illness tho ?

that said there may be some societal factor behind such an apparent fact.
latent fear and/or stress and anxiety for example.
people aren't machines but "quality of life"...not a real big issue in US politics is it ?...

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Educators should not have to learn gun control to teach in the US. That would only discourage people from becoming teachers (As if low pay, overcrowded classrooms, and pants-on-head screwed up "No Child Left Behind" didn't do enough).

NOBODY IS SAYING THIS. PLEASE STOP. I remember the terrible thread where this was suggested, and I avoided it like the plague because I understood that it was crazy. That thread is not this thread.

They're also a MASSIVE problem waiting to happen. One teacher leaves their keys out, including the keys to the safe where the gun is, and...

I think we can trust teachers to generally be competent about this, especially if they are trained to avoid such hazards, and it would not simply take "one" instance. They mess up "once" and there is a slim chance that one of the kids in their class sees it, and a ridiculously slim chance that they'll use it in any significant manner.

Sleekit:

Revnak:

The Gentleman:

Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography,

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
It isn't. It just blatantly isn't. The mental health of Americans is radically worse than the majority of the developed world.

wouldn't you be inclined to suppose that probably has more to do with the pharmaceutical industry seeking to sell pills for poppin than real baseline rates for legitimate mental illness tho ?

that said there may be some societal factor behind such an apparent fact.
latent fear and/or stress and anxiety for example.
people aren't machines but "quality of life"...not a real big issue in US politics is it ?...

Those estimates were made by WHO, so that's just fucking irrelevant. Probably. The article isn't well sourced. No links.

The factor is probably largely societal, but that doesn't change that a better mental health system would help deal with these issues.

Revnak:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Educators should not have to learn gun control to teach in the US. That would only discourage people from becoming teachers (As if low pay, overcrowded classrooms, and pants-on-head screwed up "No Child Left Behind" didn't do enough).

NOBODY IS SAYING THIS. PLEASE STOP.

"Nobody is saying they have to bring a gun guize stopppppppp :*("

Next time there's a school shooting where a teacher didn't bring a gun to school the headlines would be: "TEACHER REFUSED TO BRING GUN TO SCHOOL DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE. DECISION GETS TWENTY STUDENTS KILLED. CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING FOR NEGLIGENCE AND RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT."

That's what I think of the whole "optional" thing.

Gold:

Revnak:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Educators should not have to learn gun control to teach in the US. That would only discourage people from becoming teachers (As if low pay, overcrowded classrooms, and pants-on-head screwed up "No Child Left Behind" didn't do enough).

NOBODY IS SAYING THIS. PLEASE STOP.

"Nobody is saying they have to bring a gun guize stopppppppp :*("

Next time there's a school shooting where a teacher didn't bring a gun to school.

"TEACHER REFUSED TO BRING GUN TO SCHOOL DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE. DECISION GETS TWENTY STUDENTS KILLED. CRIMINAL CHARGES PENDING FOR NEGLIGENCE."

That's what I see happening.

Those people would be morons. Stop assuming I'm some gun nut. I don't even own a gun. I don't want one, and I would perfectly understand why a teacher would not want to own one.

And I was just talking about in this thread. The only people who have even brought it up are people arguing against it as a strawman.

Revnak:

The Gentleman:

Working from the reasonable assumption that mental illness arises at the same rate regardless of geography,

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040601/rate-of-mental-illness-is-staggering
It isn't. It just blatantly isn't. The mental health of Americans is radically worse than the majority of the developed world.

Read further:

Page 3:
Kessler says that researchers still aren't sure whether mental illnesses are much more common in the U.S. or if people are simply more comfortable discussing them with questioners. Discussions of mental illness are far less common in many parts of the world than in the U.S., where drug companies frequently tout medications designed to treat disorders.

"These are the kinds of health problems people don't jump up and say they have," he tells reporters.

Kessler points to a 5.3% reported rate of anxiety disorders in Japan -- a figure he calls "implausibly low." Japan also consumes the most benzodiazepines -- drugs used to reduce anxiety. That is more than any other nation per person, he says.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here