The downside of carrying a firearm...

[OODA_Loop]

Sigh.
How many school shootings and other violant acts agians others over the last 10 years involved the drugs you're talking about?
How many people. over the last 10 years, have taken the drugs under dioscussion?

Sigh. Hundreds have direct correlation. See previous exhaustive lists posted.

I can post more.

Why are you so hell bent on protecting the rights of a mental cases at the jeopardy of yours ?

If that were true they would ban those drugs. The mere fact that they haven't done so is absolute proof that the science proves you wrong.

Didn't you mock an organization earlier that wants to do just that ?

Well yes you did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There have certainly been more but you forced very narrow search parameters. I just did "school" shooters.

Look at all the murder/suicides of late. Just in Florida last week depressed mom under treatment kills herself and two kids.

Do you take these drugs ?

What is your vested interest to keep those who do armed ?

Under treatment does not mean taking drugs. Even if it did, she was going through a bitter divorce and filed court documents that claimed her ex was not assisting in providing for the children, and that he was going as far as to hoard supplies so that the kids did not even have toilet paper. Unless you want to argue that the drugs caused the divorce you are going to have a hard time blaming this on drugs.

Or guns.

So what to attribute killing her children in their beds and herself to the humidity ?

LEt me think.

She was awarded the house because she managed to prove that her husband emotionally abused her, and her children, for years. She filed numerous complaints that he wasn't paying child support, or anything else, so she had financial problems on top of the emotional ones that come about after years of torture. The government, despite the beliefs of idiots that it can fix everything, was powerless to enforce even the most basic orders that they handed down.

You are right, it has to be the gun, nothing else could possibly be at fault.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Because crazy people have no rights.

Certainly they have rights, I am arguing for their right to not own a gun.

Thus far, you have not presented a sound reason that they should be denied.

In your eyes.

 

[Darkwind]

yes, we are. Safe from the government. And thats the exact reason for the 2nd amendment.

Very true.....

Our society is suffering from the Gubmint gunning down 13,000 Americans a year

The 2nd amendment was about protecting Americans from redcoats and indians. Since neither is now a threat, the 2nd amendment is now obsolete.

NO it isn't. But you knew that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly its a mental health problem.

One's with the mental health problems should = no guns.

Because crazy people have no rights.

Certainly they have rights, I am arguing for their right to not own a gun.

No you are not, you are arguing for your privilege to decide who is, and is not, crazy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because everyone’s rights are inalienable, and cannot be preempted absent due process.

If one believes someone is mentally ill and shouldn’t be in possession of firearms, fine; but that must first be proven at hearing before a judge.

You can do things which forfeit your rights.

You can use controlled substances = no gun per GCA.

Add these drugs to controlled substances.

Done,

All of those things require a judge to rule that the state made its case. You want to take that away from the judges and reserve it for yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sigh. Hundreds have direct correlation. See previous exhaustive lists posted.

I can post more.

Why are you so hell bent on protecting the rights of a mental cases at the jeopardy of yours ?

If that were true they would ban those drugs. The mere fact that they haven't done so is absolute proof that the science proves you wrong.

Didn't you mock an organization earlier that wants to do just that ?

Well yes you did.

No, I mocked you for citing that organization. Learn the difference.

For the record, I mostly support that organization, and am half tempted to turn them loose on you. They would be right here arguing that anyone who takes those drugs has the same right to won a firearm as anyone who doesn't, a fact they make perfectly clear on their website.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Under treatment does not mean taking drugs. Even if it did, she was going through a bitter divorce and filed court documents that claimed her ex was not assisting in providing for the children, and that he was going as far as to hoard supplies so that the kids did not even have toilet paper. Unless you want to argue that the drugs caused the divorce you are going to have a hard time blaming this on drugs.

Or guns.

So what to attribute killing her children in their beds and herself to the humidity ?

LEt me think.

She was awarded the house because she managed to prove that her husband emotionally abused her, and her children, for years. She filed numerous complaints that he wasn't paying child support, or anything else, so she had financial problems on top of the emotional ones that come about after years of torture. The government, despite the beliefs of idiots that it can fix everything, was powerless to enforce even the most basic orders that they handed down.

You are right, it has to be the gun, nothing else could possibly be at fault.

1000's of nasty divorces don't end with killing children.

The change of brain chemistry make thoughts and rationale to do so seem justified.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Certainly they have rights, I am arguing for their right to not own a gun.

Thus far, you have not presented a sound reason that they should be denied.

In your eyes.

Or any other reasonable, rational person - and until you show the % of people on these drugs who have acted violently against others because of them, you never will.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Because everyone’s rights are inalienable, and cannot be preempted absent due process.

If one believes someone is mentally ill and shouldn’t be in possession of firearms, fine; but that must first be proven at hearing before a judge.

You can do things which forfeit your rights.

You can use controlled substances = no gun per GCA.

Add these drugs to controlled substances.

Done,

All of those things require a judge to rule that the state made its case. You want to take that away from the judges and reserve it for yourself.

It just requires a check mark on 4473 ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Thus far, you have not presented a sound reason that they should be denied.

In your eyes.

Or any other reasonable, rational person - and until you show the % of people on these drugs who have acted violently against others because of them, you never will.

That number doesn't exist.

Just list, after list, after list of violent crimes committed by some who do.

 

[OODA_Loop]

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) An antidepressant which affects both serotonin and noradrenaline, this drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) A drug related to Pristiq in the same class of antidepressants, both are also used to treat anxiety disorders. Effexor is 8.3 times more likely than other drugs to be related to violent behavior. (More on Time.com: Adderall May Not Make You Smarter, But It Makes You Think You Are)


8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) An antidepressant that affects serotonin (SSRI), Luvox is 8.4 times more likely than other medications to be linked with violence

7. Triazolam (Halcion) A benzodiazepine which can be addictive, used to treat insomnia. Halcion is 8.7 times more likely to be linked with violence than other drugs, according to the study.

6) Atomoxetine (Strattera) Used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Strattera affects the neurotransmitter noradrenaline and is 9 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to the average medication.

5) Mefoquine (Lariam) A treatment for malaria, Lariam has long been linked with reports of bizarre behavior. It is 9.5 times more likely to be linked with violence than other drugs.

4) Amphetamines: (Various) Amphetamines are used to treat ADHD and affect the brain’s dopamine and noradrenaline systems. They are 9.6 times more likely to be linked to violence, compared to other drugs.

3) Paroxetine (Paxil) An SSRI antidepressant, Paxil is also linked with more severe withdrawal symptoms and a greater risk of birth defects compared to other medications in that class. It is 10.3 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to other drugs. (More on Time.com: Healthland’s Guide to Life 2011)


2) Fluoxetine (Prozac) The first well-known SSRI antidepressant, Prozac is 10.9 times more likely to be linked with violence in comparison with other medications.

1) Varenicline (Chantix) The anti-smoking medication Chantix affects the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, which helps reduce craving for smoking. Unfortunately, it’s 18 times more likely to be linked with violence compared to other drugs — by comparison, that number for Xyban is 3.9 and just 1.9 for nicotine replacement. Because Chantix is slightly superior in terms of quit rates in comparison to other drugs, it shouldn’t necessarily be ruled out as an option for those trying to quit, however.


Read more: Top Ten Legal Drugs Linked to Violence | TIME.com Top Ten Legal Drugs Linked to Violence | TIME.com

 

[OODA_Loop]

Dr. Peter Breggin: Antidepressants Cause Suicide and Violence in Soldiers

 

[OODA_Loop]

Japan Revises SSRI Warnings--Hostility, Violence - Medical News Today

 

[OODA_Loop]

Teenager bludgeoned his father to death after GP prescribed him Prozac | Mail Online

A teenager bludgeoned his father to death with a hammer and crowbar weeks after a GP prescribed him the controversial anti-depressant Prozac.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...death-GP-prescribed-Prozac.html#ixzz2qsh3HyLr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[OODA_Loop]

The findings indicated a significant negative association between lethal violence (homicide and suicide) and prescription of antidepressants in the Netherlands, indicating that in a period in which the exposure of the Dutch population to antidepressants increased, rates of lethal violence decreased.

Antidepressants and lethal violence in the Netherlands 1994?2008

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I couldn't post the OP, because it had a link in it. But this post answers the original post.

As I see it, this is less a mental health issue and more an issue of morality.

The individual in question, set his desires over the very life of the person he murdered.

As I see it, the problem begins and ends with the cultural manipulation by the Ideological Left, which has done its best to rinse every since of morality from western culture.

I believe that one need look no farther than the foundation of the Left to see why, to the individual, the adherents of the Left reject soundly reasoned cultural mores and standards and why, as a result, the cultures infected by the Left quickly succumb to higher crime, deepseated poverty and malaise in general.

Socialism rests upon Relativism.

Relativism rejects objectivity.

Objectivity is essential to vital concepts such as truth, trust, justice and morality.

It's as simple as that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Because everyone’s rights are inalienable, and cannot be preempted absent due process.

If one believes someone is mentally ill and shouldn’t be in possession of firearms, fine; but that must first be proven at hearing before a judge.

You can do things which forfeit your rights.

You can use controlled substances = no gun per GCA.

Add these drugs to controlled substances.

Done,

You don’t understand.

The issue has nothing to do with a mentally ill person conceding a mental illness and being disallowed a firearm accordingly.

The issue has to do with the fact that a person who suffers from a mental illness, prior to being committed or otherwise compelled to sustain treatment against his will, has the right to hear the evidence against him, and present evidence of his own in his defense to be evaluated by a neutral magistrate.

The validity or merits of the evidence you’ve presented isn’t being contested.

What is being contested is your incorrect position that simply because someone has been diagnosed with a particular mental illness, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What is being contested is your incorrect position that simply because someone has been diagnosed with a particular mental illness, he should be summarily disallowed a firearm absent due process.

Not diagnosed with a particular illness.

Taking particular drugs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So what to attribute killing her children in their beds and herself to the humidity ?

LEt me think.

She was awarded the house because she managed to prove that her husband emotionally abused her, and her children, for years. She filed numerous complaints that he wasn't paying child support, or anything else, so she had financial problems on top of the emotional ones that come about after years of torture. The government, despite the beliefs of idiots that it can fix everything, was powerless to enforce even the most basic orders that they handed down.

You are right, it has to be the gun, nothing else could possibly be at fault.

1000's of nasty divorces don't end with killing children.

The change of brain chemistry make thoughts and rationale to do so seem justified.

First, you have no evidence she was taking any drugs. Second, unless you can prove that every other nasty divorce that ended like this involved involved drugs, which would require a time machine so that the drugs could be sent back through time to the people that did this before these drugs existed, all you are doing is making my point for me.