Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I support the opinion of the NRA regarding the need for info from mental professionals to allow us to not sell guns to the crazies. Most of the mass shootings by the way were done by ones on psycho-trophic drugs, or they had just came off them!
If the criteria is that they are taking such drugs, sure, but not based on the mere opinion of some shrink who could be just another gun grabbing fascist looking for any excuse to disarm even one more American.
I support the opinion of the NRA regarding the need for info from mental professionals to allow us to not sell guns to the crazies. Most of the mass shootings by the way were done by ones on psycho-trophic drugs, or they had just came off them!
If the criteria is that they are taking such drugs, sure, but not based on the mere opinion of some shrink who could be just another gun grabbing fascist looking for any excuse to disarm even one more American.
I think it should be based on the history of the person. If a shrink says he's been counseling a patient with mental problems for a number of years and that person could potentially harm himself or others then his testimony should be considered.
I think it's something worth debating.
Any taking of a drug for which suicidal or homicidal ideation is a known side-effect should be NO-GO on NICS.
Any taking of a drug for which suicidal or homicidal ideation is a known side-effect should be NO-GO on NICS.
So by doing so you will discourage anyone from taking drugs that could be very helpful and thus make bad situations MORE likely.
Let people get the help they need, but only ban if they show the symptoms, not for potentially having the symptoms.
Taking away someone's constitutional rights for displayed irresponsible behavior is something I can agree to, but not on the mere statistical probability that they might soon have irresponsible behavior. That's like conviction for probable crime.
Any taking of a drug for which suicidal or homicidal ideation is a known side-effect should be NO-GO on NICS.
So by doing so you will discourage anyone from taking drugs that could be very helpful and thus make bad situations MORE likely.
Let people get the help they need, but only ban if they show the symptoms, not for potentially having the symptoms.
Taking away someone's constitutional rights for displayed irresponsible behavior is something I can agree to, but not on the mere statistical probability that they might soon have irresponsible behavior. That's like conviction for probable crime.
My core convictions tend and wants to agree.
But I have come to the point where I realize my rights are being jeopardized by the heinous actions of those who can't function mentally or otherwise without drugs.
Thus the realization..fuck them.
You can't live without the meds you don't need a gun.
So by doing so you will discourage anyone from taking drugs that could be very helpful and thus make bad situations MORE likely.
Let people get the help they need, but only ban if they show the symptoms, not for potentially having the symptoms.
Taking away someone's constitutional rights for displayed irresponsible behavior is something I can agree to, but not on the mere statistical probability that they might soon have irresponsible behavior. That's like conviction for probable crime.
My core convictions tend and wants to agree.
But I have come to the point where I realize my rights are being jeopardized by the heinous actions of those who can't function mentally or otherwise without drugs.
Thus the realization..fuck them.
You can't live without the meds you don't need a gun.
As long as you realize that all this will result in is more people not getting the help they need, and thus being less responsible, and in more people carrying illegally. And by justifying an unfair removal of someone's constitutional rights, you make it MORE likely that similar reasoning will be used to eventually remove all of our rights.
There is no upside to what you propose.
My core convictions tend and wants to agree.
But I have come to the point where I realize my rights are being jeopardized by the heinous actions of those who can't function mentally or otherwise without drugs.
Thus the realization..fuck them.
You can't live without the meds you don't need a gun.
As long as you realize that all this will result in is more people not getting the help they need, and thus being less responsible, and in more people carrying illegally. And by justifying an unfair removal of someone's constitutional rights, you make it MORE likely that similar reasoning will be used to eventually remove all of our rights.
There is no upside to what you propose.
If someone isn't going take needed pysch meds to keep owning a gun....I am not certain they need a gun.
As long as you realize that all this will result in is more people not getting the help they need, and thus being less responsible, and in more people carrying illegally. And by justifying an unfair removal of someone's constitutional rights, you make it MORE likely that similar reasoning will be used to eventually remove all of our rights.
There is no upside to what you propose.
If someone isn't going take needed pysch meds to keep owning a gun....I am not certain they need a gun.
Maybe true, maybe not, but YOU WILL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE YOUHAVE DRIVEN THEM INTO THE SHADOWS.
How's that help anything?
If someone isn't going take needed pysch meds to keep owning a gun....I am not certain they need a gun.
Maybe true, maybe not, but YOU WILL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE YOUHAVE DRIVEN THEM INTO THE SHADOWS.
How's that help anything?
So your argument is let them keep their guns so they will get psych meds that have suicidal and homicidal ideation as a demonstrated side effect.
Maybe true, maybe not, but YOU WILL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE YOUHAVE DRIVEN THEM INTO THE SHADOWS.
How's that help anything?
So your argument is let them keep their guns so they will get psych meds that have suicidal and homicidal ideation as a demonstrated side effect.
Yes, a POSSIBLE side effect.
If that side effect is displayed THEN put them on the banned list.
I.E. do not punish for possible future crimes and do not ban for future possible irresponsible behavior.
Is that such a hard thing to grasp?
So your argument is let them keep their guns so they will get psych meds that have suicidal and homicidal ideation as a demonstrated side effect.
Yes, a POSSIBLE side effect.
If that side effect is displayed THEN put them on the banned list.
I.E. do not punish for possible future crimes and do not ban for future possible irresponsible behavior.
Is that such a hard thing to grasp?
Not hard to grasp.
Is it hard to grasp suicidal and homicidal ideation displayed = suicide or murder ?
The act of taking such a drug indicates mental deficiency determined by a doctor.
According to our board fruitloops, everbody should be packing iron. Then the won't be any more violence. Sure, fellas, sure thing.
AOL.com Article - Man fatally shot at movie theater after texting his daughter
Cummings said the man in the back row - later identified as Reeves - got up and left the auditorium, presumably to get a manager. But he came back after a few minutes, without a manager and appearing upset. Moments later, the argument between the two men resumed, and the man in the front row stood up.
Officials said Oulson asked Reeves if he reported him to management for using his phone.
Cummings said the men started raising their voices and popcorn was thrown. Authorities said Reeves took out a gun, and Oulson's wife put her hand over her husband, and that's when Reeves fired his weapon, striking Nichole Oulson in the hand and her husband in the chest.
"I can't believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie," Cummings said. "I can't believe they would argue and fight and shoot one another over popcorn. Over a cellphone."
Or just an extension of the police state. Remember the shooter was a retired police officer.According to our board fruitloops, everbody should be packing iron. Then the won't be any more violence. Sure, fellas, sure thing.
AOL.com Article - Man fatally shot at movie theater after texting his daughter
Cummings said the man in the back row - later identified as Reeves - got up and left the auditorium, presumably to get a manager. But he came back after a few minutes, without a manager and appearing upset. Moments later, the argument between the two men resumed, and the man in the front row stood up.
Officials said Oulson asked Reeves if he reported him to management for using his phone.
Cummings said the men started raising their voices and popcorn was thrown. Authorities said Reeves took out a gun, and Oulson's wife put her hand over her husband, and that's when Reeves fired his weapon, striking Nichole Oulson in the hand and her husband in the chest.
"I can't believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie," Cummings said. "I can't believe they would argue and fight and shoot one another over popcorn. Over a cellphone."
Is some annecdotal evidence societies well-armed are also more polite. An American visiting Israel remarked that after bumping into someone how he apologised, and the other man did but profusely. He remarked later, "When everyone's armed, everyone's much more polite."
Politeness and manners are sorely lacking in the US and we're starting to see what happens. As with bullying in public schools, at some point your rudeness is gonna get ya shot.
To bad no one had a gun in Co. Would of saved lives.
-Geaux
Actually, it may have cost even more lives. Have you ever had to shoot at a moving target that was only 8 inches square (about what the area would have been for the Aurora shooter who was wearing body armor and a gas mask), while it was moving around and shooting back at you?
I'm guessing not, because even when I was a member of the Security Force in Newport RI, we had a larger target to shoot at (around 18 inches square), and it wasn't shooting back at us and moving around.
It's even harder to do if you have to shoot in the dark.
I'm amazed at those of you who claim that they could have taken this person out, when many of you have never even had firearms training, much less had to take out a target under the conditions that would have been required in the movie theater.
Me? I had to shoot off several hundred rounds per month, and many of those were in combat and tactical drills, and even the best of us (including the Gunny who trained us) couldn't make those kind of shots.
I'm guessing you never served in the military, because if you had, you'd understand how stupid your post was.
To bad no one had a gun in Co. Would of saved lives.
-Geaux
Actually, it may have cost even more lives. Have you ever had to shoot at a moving target that was only 8 inches square (about what the area would have been for the Aurora shooter who was wearing body armor and a gas mask), while it was moving around and shooting back at you?
I'm guessing not, because even when I was a member of the Security Force in Newport RI, we had a larger target to shoot at (around 18 inches square), and it wasn't shooting back at us and moving around.
It's even harder to do if you have to shoot in the dark.
I'm amazed at those of you who claim that they could have taken this person out, when many of you have never even had firearms training, much less had to take out a target under the conditions that would have been required in the movie theater.
Me? I had to shoot off several hundred rounds per month, and many of those were in combat and tactical drills, and even the best of us (including the Gunny who trained us) couldn't make those kind of shots.
I'm guessing you never served in the military, because if you had, you'd understand how stupid your post was.
Exactly.
One should carry a concealed firearm for his personal protection only.
Those of us who conceal carry are not LE; personal self defense is the sole reason why we carry.
Personal paranoia more-like. If you feel so threatened, as a civilian you wanna carry a weapon you need to learn how to avoid risky scenarios first instead of leaping to "I wanna carry a firearm." Take any martial arts course first to learn about situational awareness. They wont teach you that at a a pistol range. But it's the most cirtically important component of self-defense. 'Avoidance' is always preferable to having to deal with a self-defense situation.
A firearm wont make you safer if you're so oblivious you walk into gang-controlled territory for instance. Staying clear of such enviroments however will keep you safe. Extreme example, but it's what situational awareness is all about.
Personal paranoia more-like. If you feel so threatened, as a civilian you wanna carry a weapon you need to learn how to avoid risky scenarios first instead of leaping to "I wanna carry a firearm." Take any martial arts course first to learn about situational awareness. They wont teach you that at a a pistol range. But it's the most cirtically important component of self-defense. 'Avoidance' is always preferable to having to deal with a self-defense situation.
A firearm wont make you safer if you're so oblivious you walk into gang-controlled territory for instance. Staying clear of such enviroments however will keep you safe. Extreme example, but it's what situational awareness is all about.
If the criteria is that they are taking such drugs, sure, but not based on the mere opinion of some shrink who could be just another gun grabbing fascist looking for any excuse to disarm even one more American.
I think it should be based on the history of the person. If a shrink says he's been counseling a patient with mental problems for a number of years and that person could potentially harm himself or others then his testimony should be considered.
I think it's something worth debating.
I think that is a reasonable position, though I disagree.
What I don't think are reasonable positions are: 1) any diagnosis like PTSD justifying a ban on buying, or 2) common diagnosis like ADD which often has the patient taking drugs that are not causes of violent behavior. Some of the mass shooters were ADD under drug treatment and that is merely coincidental. How many were wearing black apparel as well? Should we ban black clothing similarly?
