Hi,
Never did I imagine that my professional list will be the medium of
airing views on gun control!
First of all spare a thought on dr. Siff's original message. He is,
in his usuall informed and non-inflammatory way, posing a question
and a suggestion together. He points out that evey body starts
shouting Wolf, every time such a horrendous crime occurs and
starts a knee jerk reaction legislation, lobbying and frenzy
against anybody owning a gun, without checking to see the deeper
roots of the problem. Now, nobody dealt with this and the argument
went in a completely different direction.
Second, and as a gun-owner and member of the NSRA, I would like to
add my two-pence. Gun related crime is by far one of the most cruel
and intimidating types of crime, not only for the victim but also for
the society that has to deal with it. However, everybody goes out of
their way to class everyone who owns a gun in the same category as
the criminals themselves. If statistics are anything to go by, then
so we should for everyone who owns a car or a pair of skis or even
prescribes drugs or drinks alcohol. Because, when one looks at the
statistics about death and injury related to any of these activities,
will realise that guns are no more dangerous than going down the
stairs each morning for one's breakfast.
The majority of guns are owned by law-abiding citizens who are
sensitive to society's feelings and are used for pure sporting
reasons: target shooting and hunting. Also by some people that make
their living using them: farmers and pest controlers. Safety is
paramount in amongst any of these gun users, hence the low rate of
accidents with guns.
Now, to me at least, anybody who argues that all guns should be
banned, who argues that anybody who uses a gun for sporting reasons
should be classed as a dangerous individual, should look at the way
they drive, or their favourite sporting activity and think how they
would react if it was banned!!
And a last comment to Kevin's argument: yes gun related death is low
in the UK and that is part of the strict legislations regulating gun
ownership. However, gun related death was higher for the year
following Dunblane and the ban of all handguns and it did not stop G.
Dando being gunned down in broad day light in the middle of london
with a banned handgun. So, a lesson is somewhere to be learned about
legislation and the origins of gun-related crime and death.
Now, what is the suggestions on what is going to be done about food
additives and McDonalds?!
Kind regards,
Panos
>
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:30:45 -0400
> From: "Joe Amedure" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
> Message-Id: <000001beb030$3e561420$2401a8c0@amedure>
>
> The times are now. look around the world. If we start amending the
> consititution for someons forgone morales where does it stop. How about the
> 1st amendement, lets see, lets dictate what religion is allowed, how about
> what books you can read--get the picture have a nice day Joe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Goossens <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Saturday, June 05, 1999 1:34 AM
> Subject: Re: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
>
>
> Joe,
>
> remember that Laws should be adapted to the time IS not WAS...Yes, the
> Constitution WAS written ... YEARS AGO... you FOUGHT a war... Stop living in
> the
> past and think about those YOUNG people died in your country because some
> other
> youngsters had no problem laying their fingers on deadly weapon... They
> probably
> didn't care about the meaning of the Constitution and WHY IT WAS WRITTEN ?
>
> Just a personnal opinion, straight from the heart....
>
>
>
> Joe Amedure schrieb:
>
> > Dear Kevin, The constitution of the US was written to protect its people
> > against aggression from without and aggression from WITHIN. The 2nd
> > amendment was not number 2 by accident. We fought a war against your govt
> to
> > protect our rights: the constitution was written to protect these rights,
> > rights for the people, not the government. Short of changing the
> amendments
> > which I hope you are not advocating, gun control laws have not worked, all
> > 22,000 of them. I could go on and on. The problems are not guns, when
> > someone picks up a gun and shoots some one the problem did not start at
> that
> > time. It began years eariler, the problem is mulitfacited as Mel
> describes.
> > By the way there is a lot of statistical chicanery floating
> > round, ----Original Message-----
> > From: kevin reese <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Friday, June 04, 1999 7:51 PM
> > Subject: Re: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
> >
> > Dear Mel
> >
> > I have been for an exceptional night out, so please excuse the standard of
> > my typing and response.
> >
> > Several years ago I saw the statistic that hand gun deaths in the US were
> > 10450 per annum in the UK 20. Our population is only 1/5 that of the US so
> > the above statistic is way out of proportion. Before looking at nutrition
> > could I suggest that the accessibility of fire arms in your country is the
> > main problem not nutrition.
> >
> > This right to bare arms business is silly in the 1990's and if
> dysfunctional
> > adults/adolesents have easy access to fire arms only the worst can be
> > contemplated. Lobby your government against this foolishness.
> >
> > Regards Kevin.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: 04 June 1999 10:34
> > Subject: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
> >
> > It has been about two months since the tragic murders at Columbine High
> > School in our suburb and we have heard psychologists, teachers,
> politicians,
> > crime experts, children and many others presenting their opinions of why a
> > dreadful crime could have been perpetrated by school children.
> >
> > Obviously I could not have heard all the contributors to these
> discussions,
> > but I was wondering if anyone had raised the issue of nutritional factors
> as
> > one of the possible contributory factors in this crime. Certainly in
> trying
> > to decipher the nature of complex and complicated human behaviour, it
> would
> > be overly simplistic to blame any single factor, just as it is overly
> > simplistic to blame a single cardiac risk factor for causing coronary
> heart
> > disease.
> >
> > Initially it might sound a bit far-fetched to suggest that faulty
> > nutritional
> > habits could be one of the factors involved in leading to that horrendous
> > event, but before we dismiss such a notion at the outset, let us examine
> > some
> > research which may have a bearing on the issue:
> >
> > 1. In the 1980s, hardened juvenile delinquents at a detention facility
> in
> > Virginia were fed a balanced diet low in sugar and chemical additives for
> > two
> > years instead of the typical fast food, low nutrient diet characteristic
> of
> > those age groups. Over the duration of that study, theft decreased by
> 77%,
> > hyperactivity by 65% and insubordination by 55% (Schoenthaler S "Diet and
> > Crime: An empirical examination of the value of nutrition in the control
> and
> > treatment of incarcerated juvenile offenders' Intern J of Biosocial
> > Research 1983, 4(1): 25-39). The same researcher elaborated on this study
> > in
> > the next issue of that journal: `Types of Offenses which can be reduced in
> > an
> > Institutional Setting using Nutritional Intervention - A Preliminary
> > Empirical Evaluation. 1983, 4(2): 74-84.
> >
> > 2. Several other studies using diets with low sugar and no chemical
> > additives for a total of over 8000 youths in 12 juvenile correctional
> > facilities reduced deviant behaviour by 47% (Schoenthaler S "Institutional
> > Nutritional Policies and Criminal Behavior' Nutrition Today 1985, 20(3)
> :
> > 16)
> >
> > 3. In Los Angeles juvenile detention facilities, similar diets
> administered
> > to nearly 1500 adolescents reduced problem behaviour and suicide attempts
> by
> > 44% (Schoenthaler S ` The Los Angeles Probation Department Diet Behavior
> > Program: An Empirical Evaluation of Six Institutions' Intern J of
> Biosocial
> > Research 1983, 5(2): 88-98
> >
> > 4. The Lancet reported that 79% of children diagnosed as being
> hyperactive
> > improved when dubious foods were removed from their diets, but
> deteriorated
> > as soon as these additives and suspect foods were reintroduced. The worst
> > offenders were identified as artificial colourants and flavourings, with
> > sugar also having a significant effect (Egger J et al `Controlled Trial
> of
> > Oligoantigenic Treatment in the Hyperkinetic Syndrome' Lancet 1985: 540)
> >
> > 5. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the 1979 Journal of
> > Biological Psychiatry showed that large doses of vitamin B6 was more
> > effective than Ritalin in reducing hyperactivity in children (cited by
> > Autism
> > Research Institute, San Diego, June 1992 - see their website:
> > http://www.autism.com/ari/ which also reports on the possible role for
> > magnesium, vit C and DMG in treating autism).
> >
> > 6. In a 4 year study (1979-1983), considerable improvement in academic
> > performance of over 1 million children at 803 public schools in New York
> > city
> > took place when only the at-schoolmeals were altered to eliminate
> artificial
> > additives and reduce sugar, while adding fresh fruits, vegetables, whole
> > grains and more plant-based proteins (Schoenthaler S `The Impact of a low
> > food additive and sucrose diet on Academic Performance in New York Public
> > Schools' Intern J of Biosocial Research 1986 8(2): 182-195
> >
> > Besides the implications for the behaviour of children, these studies and
> > many others indicate that it is not simply narcotics, stimulants,
> hormones,
> > LSD and other obviously psychoactive drugs which may modify one's
> > psychological state, but even ones which are far more subtle and which are
> > associated with our normal modern eating habits. Extrapolating this
> > directly
> > to the world of sport, let us for a moment shift aside our current
> > preoccupation with the physiological effects of anabolic-androgenic
> steroids
> > (AAS), prohormones, ephedra, caffeine, energy replacement drinks and other
> > substances which are popularly researched in sponsored studies, and ask if
> > sufficient attention is being focused on the psychological effects of
> these
> > drugs, as well as other constituents of one's normal daily diet, insofar
> as
> > this may affect sporting performance.
> >
> > Dr Mel C Siff
> > Denver, USA
> > [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> --
> Erik Goossens
> Dipl. PT SRK - PT Educator Akad. TvdL Landquart
> Physiotherapie Erik Goossens GmbH
> MediFIT Medical Reconditioning
> CH-4102 Binningen - Switzerland
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:41:35 -0400
> From: "Joe Amedure" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
> Message-Id: <000101beb030$40fd1840$2401a8c0@amedure>
>
> No Im not a member of the NRA I don't own a gun. We look for the easy way
> out in the society and guns are a good scape goat. If you want to change the
> 2nd amendment than why not change the first, after all it has been said that
> what childern see on T.V. and all the computer violent games contribute to
> this type of violance, let the govt tell you what you can and can't watch or
> read or do. Be careful my friend
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt McEwan <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Saturday, June 05, 1999 12:37 AM
> Subject: Re: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
>
>
> Joe
>
> Although this has nothing to do with physio, I thought I'd add my 2c worth
>
> 1) I would without a doubt remove the second amendment immediately,
> protection from within probably includes being able to go to school without
> 10, 12, 14, 16 year old nutcases mowing you down with semi-automatic
> weapons.
> 2) The only old chestnut you left out was.."Guns don't kill people, people
> etc"
> 3) You wouldn't be a member of the NRA would you?
>
> Greetings from Downunder
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 23:07 4/06/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >Dear Kevin, The constitution of the US was written to protect its people
> >against aggression from without and aggression from WITHIN. The 2nd
> >amendment was not number 2 by accident. We fought a war against your govt
> to
> >protect our rights: the constitution was written to protect these rights,
> >rights for the people, not the government. Short of changing the
> amendments
> >which I hope you are not advocating, gun control laws have not worked, all
> >22,000 of them. I could go on and on. The problems are not guns, when
> >someone picks up a gun and shoots some one the problem did not start at
> that
> >time. It began years eariler, the problem is mulitfacited as Mel describes.
> > By the way there is a lot of statistical chicanery floating
> >round, ----Original Message-----
> >From: kevin reese <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> >Date: Friday, June 04, 1999 7:51 PM
> >Subject: Re: FOOD & BEHAVIOUR
> >
> >
> >Dear Mel
> >
> >I have been for an exceptional night out, so please excuse the standard of
> >my typing and response.
> >
> >Several years ago I saw the statistic that hand gun deaths in the US were
> >10450 per annum in the UK 20. Our population is only 1/5 that of the US so
> >the above statistic is way out of proportion. Before looking at nutrition
> >could I suggest that the accessibility of fire arms in your country is the
> >main problem not nutrition.
> >
> >This right to bare arms business is silly in the 1990's and if
> dysfunctional
> >adults/adolesents have easy access to fire arms only the worst can be
> >contemplated. Lobby your government against this foolishness.
> >
P. Barlas, BSc(Hons) PDD, DPhil, MCSP, SRP, Lic.Ac
Lecturer,
Physiotherapy Subject Group,
Coventry University,
Priory Street,
Coventry, CV1 5FB
Tel: 01203-838980
Fax: 01203-838020
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
