The guy in vegas had been on them for years. As have almost every mass shooter outside of our friends from the religion of piece. So there's that.
OT: Las Vegas Active Shooter
- Thread starter raulduke_007
- Start date
The guy in vegas had been on them for years. As have almost every mass shooter outside of our friends from the religion of piece. So there's that.
Ok, so my next question would be, how do you square that with medical privacy laws?
I would also ask, did he purchase the guns before or after he was prescribed the drugs?
Also, would that type of law hold up in court?
Thanks for the response DIP, it's about what I was thinking.
I lived in vegas for a while and it was a very gun friendly town and I assume it still is. I assume if you are driving from san diego to utah, and stop in vegas overnight, a person who is legally carrying his 3 ar15's in his trunk may want to bring them up to his hotel room to be more safe. I think he was allowed to do that up until this incident.
I think that is going to change now and new rules will be put into place. I don't know how they can do so and get around 2nd, but it's going to happen.
I lived in vegas for a while and it was a very gun friendly town and I assume it still is. I assume if you are driving from san diego to utah, and stop in vegas overnight, a person who is legally carrying his 3 ar15's in his trunk may want to bring them up to his hotel room to be more safe. I think he was allowed to do that up until this incident.
I think that is going to change now and new rules will be put into place. I don't know how they can do so and get around 2nd, but it's going to happen.
I think you implied in your earlier post that it never happened? As for you new questions, perhaps ask Adam Lanza, or Dylan Roof. Or ask the people in MSM who you worship, why no coverage of this? In between the ads for valium and adderall, maybe a story about people acting out with the exact side effects listed on the meds?
Nope, I didn't imply anything. Stop makings assumptions. My point is that people throw around these ideas, when if you actually examine them, they wouldn't stop the shooters from obtaining guns.
I just looked it up, and I haven't seen any evidence that the Vegas shooter was on meds "for years." The only thing I found is that he was prescribed Valium back in June. So, if this guy bought the guns before he was prescribed the meds, your law wouldn't work.
Also, Adam Lanza didn't buy the guns. His mother bought them. He would not have come under this law either. And, Dylann Roof wasn't on a prescription for meds. He was buying them illegally.
Ok professor you're right and I'm wrong. We have all seen the warnings on these meds and heard them on the commercials.
How many of these mass shootings have been attributed to the side effects of the drugs? Again, the warnings about hallucinations etc etc are on every box and every TV commercial. How many have been killed because of this exact reaction? Zero? Really? Have you ever heard the term "useful idiot"?
Your problem is that you are going nuts and not paying attention to what I'm saying. You said people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns if they are on meds. Well, what I'm telling you is, many of these shooters were not on meds at the time they bought the guns. The Vegas shooter was prescribed meds back in June. Ok, well if he bought those guns any time before June, he would not have been on meds, hence no way to block the sale.
Similar with Adam Lanza. His mother bought the guns, not him. She wasn't on meds, so again, no way to block the sale.
Your idea would only work if these people bought the guns after they were prescribed the meds. That does nothing to stop people if they buy the guns before they are prescribed the meds.
Vegas guy had been on them for years. Refilled in June. They should not be allowed to purchase or access guns when on these meds.
Adam Lanza's mother would be an accomplice under my legislation. She knew the side effects but bought him whatever he wanted.
As for medical privacy. If a convicted sex offender moved in next door to you, you would receive notification. Even though we have privacy laws.
Sorry, don't mean to be defensive but it's pretty much clear as day. People are being duped badly.
Adam Lanza's mother would be an accomplice under my legislation. She knew the side effects but bought him whatever he wanted.
As for medical privacy. If a convicted sex offender moved in next door to you, you would receive notification. Even though we have privacy laws.
Sorry, don't mean to be defensive but it's pretty much clear as day. People are being duped badly.
Oh great. Let's tell people who need psychiatric help if you ask for help they'll take away your rights
Maybe its just the lawyer in me, but I'd like to see some changes in the state laws that immunize gun manufacturers and dealers from civil liability.
For 2016, licensed dealers reported over 9,000 gun thefts and an additional 9,000 lost guns. Licensed gun dealers are required to report the thefts and losses. And the reporting requirements have help track and prosecute illegal gun traffickers. Six dealers were looted in Texas after the hurricane. The number of guns estimated to be stolen from homes, cars, and trucks is much, much higher. (I read some time ago the DOJ estimates the number to be over 200,000/year), I'd like to see those reporting laws extended to gun owners in all states.
For 2016, licensed dealers reported over 9,000 gun thefts and an additional 9,000 lost guns. Licensed gun dealers are required to report the thefts and losses. And the reporting requirements have help track and prosecute illegal gun traffickers. Six dealers were looted in Texas after the hurricane. The number of guns estimated to be stolen from homes, cars, and trucks is much, much higher. (I read some time ago the DOJ estimates the number to be over 200,000/year), I'd like to see those reporting laws extended to gun owners in all states.
psychosis, which may include hallucinations or delusions. A 2006 study published in The New York Times estimated that about one in 400 patients might suffer from suicidal thoughts or psychotic behaviors.The risks may go up with nonmedical or recreational use.
So, what are the possible problems with giving people suffering from psychotic behaviors and having access to AR15's and other guns?
Anyway, I think it might be better to limit 2A rights for these unfortunate folks until they have healed rather than all of us lose more rights, which is what is going to happen.
We've always had guns 98. But something happened that allows a citizen to begin killing other people for no reason. Such that he can kill them, see the pain, then continue killing them, men, women, or children. Humans usually don't do that unless to protect themselves. The only change has been the introduction of the drugs. Specifically these anti psychotics. Doctors are giving them now for sleep aids.
The ads show the guy waking up with a talking pink elephant and Abe Lincoln in his room. This person should not have access to guns.
The ads show the guy waking up with a talking pink elephant and Abe Lincoln in his room. This person should not have access to guns.
You are going to need to show proof the Vegas shooter has been on meds "for years." I have not seen that. All the stories I've seen did not indicate he simply "refilled" his prescription.
Adam Lanza's mother would have been an accomplice after the fact. There would not have been any way to stop the sale at the time, under your proposal.
Your sex offender analogy doesn't hold up. Sex offenders have been convicted of a crime. That isn't a comparable situation to someone who hasn't broken any laws.
You are conflating your feelings about prescription medication with guns. They are two separate issues. If you have problems with certain medications, that's fine, but that's not the argument here.
Yes, it does change your argument. Your idea would not work if the shooters were not on the meds at the time they bought the guns.
No it doesn't change my argument. People on these drugs should not be allowed to purchase or have access to guns.
The problem is, that's only step 1. Step 2 is actually implementing it, and you don't have a way to do that. Until you have an idea that can produce some concrete results, it's just bluster.
Look, if you're giving your son drugs that clearly state he might wake up tonight in a discussion with Abe Lincoln and a talking pink elephant, then joined by Che Guevarra, are you going to take him to the store and stock up on ammo tonight because he is asking? Then leave him in the room next to you with a loaded AR15?
The mother is an accomplice, and the plan can be implemented. Try buying some OTC cold medicine and see the process you will go through.
The mother is an accomplice, and the plan can be implemented. Try buying some OTC cold medicine and see the process you will go through.
With this hypothetical youngster be allowed to get a driver's license couple years later?
Should people who are subject to hallucinations and psychotic behaviors have driver's license is a different question. My answer would be no. Maybe in cases of work only, as in dui cases. Again, the ad shows them waking with Abe Lincoln and talking animals. So the reaction isn't in question. Should they have guns? Drive cars? Rent trucks? I think it needs to be looked at.
Again, there isn't a way to stop anyone from buying a gun BEFORE they get on meds. Your idea only works AFTER they are on meds.
And also, you have the problem that a person who hasn't broken any laws has medical privacy rights. Then of course, you have the problem of if the Supreme Court would even uphold such a requirement as your are proposing.
And I'll ask again, was that BEFORE or AFTER he bought the guns?
Authorities said he bought 33 of the weapons since October 2016.
Every damn time.
How about you find ONE INSTANCE of a mass shooting where the killer did not have anti psycotic drugs. No religion of piece. Also the McVeigh guy I don't know about. Other than that, all of them are on the prescribed drugs.
Every damn time.
How about you find ONE INSTANCE of a mass shooting where the killer did not have anti psycotic drugs. No religion of piece. Also the McVeigh guy I don't know about. Other than that, all of them are on the prescribed drugs.
I can't agree with your approach because it further stigmatizes people who seek treatment for mental illness. Rather than risk losing their rights , many ill people will forgo desperately needed treatment.
IMO, the "something" that happened is that we, as a society, began bombarding each other with nonstop messages that dehumanize our fellow citizens in a never ending battle over who can be the most outraged. We've traded our compassion for bitterness and convinced ourselves its a righteous upgrade. Its what all the cool kids are doing.
Well, my kid loses his gun rights the day he goes on any drugs with that kind of potential side affects.
I would support a law for others as well.
I would support a law for others as well.
Right, October 2016 would be before June 2017. So again, show me how you would stop the sale of the guns, if he was buying them 8 months before he was prescribed the drugs.
I'm not arguing about the drugs. I'm arguing that your idea won't work, because it does nothing to stop these people from buying guns BEFORE they get on the drugs. If you can't stop that, then you are pissing in the wind.
33 is alot in such as short period for individual person.
I'm not saying such an action should be illegal but I don't know anybody who's ever purchase 33 firearms for personal use in such a short time ever.
I own 26 firearms of the various type from black powder to semi-automatic, a longbow a compound bow in a crossbow.
It took me 50 years to have the desire to accumulate these, and a quarter of them were willed to me.
Just to be clear 98, your argument is we can't stop mental ill people from buying guns. Especially the really mentally ill that need help the most. They must be able to purchase and have access to weapons.
That's your argument? Slacker indeed.
It's the kind of behavior one might expect from a person suffering from panic attacks and psychosis? Don't you think?
No argument will change anything here, but all of us are going to lose some 2a rights soon. I just think the pols are going to run with it.
No. People that have been involuntarily committed for treatment because they present a danger to themselves or others can certainly be prevented from purchasing guns.
I would also impose civil liability on those who negligently entrust guns with those people that present a real and foreseeable danger.
No need for name calling.
Last edited:
Apologies 98. But I'm returning a slight.
So people who are committed for mental illness cannot buy guns, or have access to them. But that's it.
People who may have instances of psychosis should have access. Known psycho reactions. They should be allowed to purchase and own weapons.
Is it because they live among us in our communities they should have the weapons? As opposed to those living in hospitals or facilities?
So people who are committed for mental illness cannot buy guns, or have access to them. But that's it.
People who may have instances of psychosis should have access. Known psycho reactions. They should be allowed to purchase and own weapons.
Is it because they live among us in our communities they should have the weapons? As opposed to those living in hospitals or facilities?
Again, I haven't seen any report that he filled the drug in 2016. You keep saying he did, and I haven't seen any report to support that statement. The only reporting I have seen regarding the meds is that he got a prescription June 2017. I've seen nothing about 2016.
Sounds like the drugs don't work very well...
You may want to set the bar high so medically losing you gun rights requires a standard nearly the same as establishing a guardianship. But if you let the government get their teeth on it it will become something like every boy who had trouble paying attention in school will be judged mentally unfit to be near a gun.
You may want to set the bar high so medically losing you gun rights requires a standard nearly the same as establishing a guardianship. But if you let the government get their teeth on it it will become something like every boy who had trouble paying attention in school will be judged mentally unfit to be near a gun.
They can't. That's what you don't get. They can't just run with it, because all it takes is one person suing, and the law gets overturned.
I'm not saying they will do what I am saying to do. They will definitely not. They are going to instead limit all of our 2A rights. That's what the pols are going to do.
And I'm telling you, they can't, because just one person has to sue, and the Supreme Court can overturn whatever law they passed, whether it's the one you want, or something else.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...w-about-las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock.html
Paddock had been prescribed the anti-anxiety medication diazepam in June, the Las Vegas Review-Journalreported on Wednesday, though it’s unclear why the doctor recommended that drug. Paddock also filled a prescription for the same drug in 2016.
You have yet to disprove any statement I have made.
Find me one mass shooter that wasn't on the anti psycho's.
