Taking psychotropic meds then no gun possession? Theater guy drugged up.

[CIA_ran_9/11]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...193517014.html

Big pharma would suddenly become instant nra clones wouldn't they if people weren't allowed to own guns while taking their extremely dangerous drugs. People would dump their drugs to keep their rights, and big pharma's stock would drop as a result.

Obviously the entire 4473 is unconstitutional, because the feds have zero authority to regulate possession of ANYTHING by citizens, under the constitution, but how about a state ban on gun possession for anyone on any psychotropic drug (these doctors generally play god with people and "adjust" their meds for months, mixing and matching, and making a "cocktail," not knowing how the drugs will interact with the particular person, putting them and their families through HELL on earth)? To say these drugs are dangerous is an understatement and every mass killer has been on them or recently stopped. It's already illegal to possess a gun while drunk (in all states?), and this would merely be part of that.

Yes I know, many people stabilize on these drugs, but GETTING to that point is worse than a drunk with an AR15, and takes months or years of hell. I have an older relative who took years of hell to get the right combination of these dangerous drugs, and put us all through hell in the process. PLUS, all it takes is someone to stop taking these awful SSRI drugs and all hell breaks loose (we watched a female friend go absolutely nutso after stopping her meds). OR, their "doctor" monkeys with their meds and the combinations, as if you're a lab rat. The "doctor" doesn't have to live with the subject so he/she doesn't care.

This isn't gun control it's an extension of "no guns while drunk." Sheesh I've known a few people on these drugs and I'd rather have ten guys with a 12 pack of Pabst in them than one person who recently stopped taking their experimental cocktail of paxil/prosac/zoloft, or whose "doctor" recently monkeyed with the dosage.

Option 4 was supposed to read "...that big pharma makes millions from"

[Jamie B]

The thread title is a lie.

There were no drug screen results from the shooter.

Yet another worthless observation trying to start a conspiracy where none exists.

[CIA_ran_9/11]

The thread title is a lie.

There were no drug screen results from the shooter.

Yet another worthless observation trying to start a conspiracy where none exists.

You have been repeatedly warned about your harassment of me and your extremely rude and insulting posts at every turn with me. You literally follow me around from thread to thread and make harassing comments, insults, and attempts to start fights. Get out Jamie. Be man enough to leave me the hell alone because I don't want to talk to uncivil people like you. Leave my threads alone with your off topic trolling. I don't wish to have any kind of a conversation with you because you are endlessly uncivil. You start out this post calling me a liar. That is uncivil. It's not a conversation, you started out with an attack. Then you attack me and my thread as worthless. Get the hell out Jamie because clearly making attack posts towards me is all you think about. Leave. No one forced you to read and comment in this thread, but like a fly buzzing, here you are again with another insult filled post. Don't come back. I'm tired of you following me around and leaving attack posts. You're downright creepy how you follow me around.

Speaking of being dishonest, you claim that I'm "trying to start a conspiracy." Besides the grammar in your sentence not making sense, this thread has nothing to do with the dreaded subject of conspiracy that you are so hostile towards. But that is besides the point, I'm tired of your harassment. You try to start a fight with me every chance you get and you poison any thread I comment in. Get OUT Jamie. Leave. I've wondered what your problem is with me, but it's YOUR problem. I have tried repeatedly to be civil with you, I don't follow YOU around and leave attack posts full of insults. You want no part of civility. Leave Jamie. Enough is enough.

Theater guy was seeing a psychiatrist who specializes in schizophrenia, but according to my harasser Jamie, I'm WAAAY off base (and I must also be a liar too ) in concluding that he was prescribed meds. Fine, there's only a 99% chance that theater guy was on psychotropic drugs. Let's not have a discussion because of that 1% chance, and let's not have a discussion because jamie doesn't like me personally for some reason.

[Jamie B]

You have been repeatedly warned about your harassment of me and your extremely rude and insulting posts at every turn with me. You literally follow me around from thread to thread and make harassing comments, insults, and attempts to start fights. Get out Jamie. Be man enough to leave me the hell alone because I don't want to talk to uncivil people like you. Leave my threads alone with your off topic trolling. I don't wish to have any kind of a conversation with you because you are endlessly uncivil. You start out this post calling me a liar. That is uncivil. It's not a conversation, you started out with an attack. Then you attack me and my thread as worthless. Get the hell out Jamie because clearly making attack posts towards me is all you think about. Leave. No one forced you to read and comment in this thread, but like a fly buzzing, here you are again with another insult filled post. Don't come back. I'm tired of you following me around and leaving attack posts. You're downright creepy how you follow me around.

Speaking of being dishonest, you claim that I'm "trying to start a conspiracy." Besides the grammar in your sentence not making sense, this thread has nothing to do with the dreaded subject of conspiracy that you are so hostile towards. But that is besides the point, I'm tired of your harassment. You try to start a fight with me every chance you get and you poison any thread I comment in. Get OUT Jamie. Leave. I've wondered what your problem is with me, but it's YOUR problem. I have tried repeatedly to be civil with you, I don't follow YOU around and leave attack posts full of insults. You want no part of civility. Leave Jamie. Enough is enough.

Theater guy was seeing a psychiatrist who specializes in schizophrenia, but according to my harasser Jamie, I'm WAAAY off base (and I must also be a liar too ) in concluding that he was prescribed meds. Fine, there's only a 99% chance that theater guy was on psychotropic drugs. Let's not have a discussion because of that 1% chance, and let's not have a discussion because jamie doesn't like me personally for some reason.

There is a huge difference between what is thought and what is fact.

When you continue to spew your slanted and off-base opinions, you should expect to be challenged.

When you present fiction, lies, or completely incorrect material, you will be challenged.

My observation was direct, but exactly correct - there is no proof the shooter took any medication.
There was no mention in the article that the shooter took any drugs.
Just because you think that he did does not make it true.
Based upon these truths, from your referenced article, shows that you completely falsified the thread title.

Just because you do not like to read an opinion different than yours does not make me wrong or nasty.

If you present your opinion supported by facts, then a discussion can take place.

If you discount any viewpoint other than yours, then you will continue to get nasty and angry at others like me.

Big pharma would suddenly become instant nra clones wouldn't they if people weren't allowed to own guns while taking their extremely dangerous drugs. People would dump their drugs to keep their rights, and big pharma's stock would drop as a result.

Gee, this looks like a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory to me.

[Loosedhorse]

Currently, I am not sure that any state prohibits you from owning firearms unless you have been adjucated as mentally incompetent, or as a danger to self or others (a typical determination justifying involuntary hospitalization/commitment). The simple presence of a psych diagnosis or psych medications prescription is not a bar to ownership, I think.

It may be a bar to carry permit in some may-issue states: in at least one county in CA, you needed (when I checked many years ago) a psych declaration that you are NOT a threat (even with no psych history) in order to be considered for a carry permit.

As owning a gun is a fundamental right, and given the Americans with Disabilities Act, it is unlikely that gun ownership will be lost absent a finding of dangerousness. Carry permits may be more likely a future target for denial in the case of a psych condition, but that hardly matters for prevention: I'm sure lack of a carry permit wouldn't stop the next theater-shooter.

Psych docs are under civil obligation to report any patient they feel poses an immediate danger. We'll see if this shooter's doc gets sued for failure to predict.

[alsaqr]

My observation was direct, but exactly correct - there is no proof the shooter took any medication.

Bingo!!
There is currently no evidence the murderer was on any drugs.

[eyesonly]

Obviously the entire 4473 is unconstitutional, because the feds have zero authority to regulate possession of ANYTHING by citizens, under the constitution,

You said something almost the same in another thread. Could you provide some justification for this? If I were David Hahn's neighbors I might disagree.

[Loosedhorse]

Bingo!!
There is currently no evidence the murderer was on any drugs

Depends on what you mean by "no evidence". There have been reports that he was on Vicodin.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/nation...-investigators

[Carl N. Brown]

following Loosedhorse's link:
Arthur Kane and John Ferrugia, "James Holmes, Aurora shooting suspect, not cooperating with investigators", CALL7/ABC15.COM, 20 Jul 2012.

....the shooter had taken 100mg of Vicodin about two and half hours before the shooting, according to information from sources....

If Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) rings a bell, it is House's drug of choice. Painkiller, easily abused. Aka Lortab, and other names.

[Bubbles]

Currently, I am not sure that any state prohibits you from owning firearms unless you have been adjucated as mentally incompetent, or as a danger to self or others (a typical determination justifying involuntary hospitalization/commitment). The simple presence of a psych diagnosis or psych medications prescription is not a bar to ownership, I think.

It may be a bar to carry permit in some may-issue states: in at least one county in CA, you needed (when I checked many years ago) a psych declaration that you are NOT a threat (even with no psych history) in order to be considered for a carry permit.

In IL any admission to a mental hospital - whether voluntary or involuntary - is grounds to revoke your FOID. I don't know of any state where a mere Dx of mental illness is a disqualifier.

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks.

Not that anyone will get around to it soon (enough 2A suits in IL these days), but that seems challengeable to me. A voluntary hospitalization is (legally) very little different from a "mere diagnosis."

Do you know: is the revocation life-long?

[NEOKShooter]

None of the poll choices were correct; a simple "No" choice would have been good.

Before the days of big brother government caring for all of our ills, families took care of their mentally ill and made sure they didn't get guns. It didn't always work. Big brother is not able to always keep guns out of the hands of crazies either.

If I have a broken leg and they give me a strong pain killer that affects my judgement, I should not handle guns. But once I am better and off the drug, why wouldn't I? Many people are cured of mental illness - whether they were locked up voluntarily or by order of a judge (being ordered has zero relationship to the effectiveness of treatment). Once their illness is cured, why wouldn't they own a gun? If you have a breakdown due to the death of a family member, does that mean you have to be a perpetual defenseless victim afterwards?

Just as bans on felons owning guns doesn't keep felons from owning guns, bans on crazy people doesn't keep crazy people from owning guns. The government needs to stay out of it. React to the crime, not the potential for crime.

[autospike]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...193517014.html

Big pharma would suddenly become instant nra clones wouldn't they if people weren't allowed to own guns while taking their extremely dangerous drugs. People would dump their drugs to keep their rights, and big pharma's stock would drop as a result.

Obviously the entire 4473 is unconstitutional, because the feds have zero authority to regulate possession of ANYTHING by citizens, under the constitution, but how about a state ban on gun possession for anyone on any psychotropic drug (these doctors generally play god with people and "adjust" their meds for months, mixing and matching, and making a "cocktail," not knowing how the drugs will interact with the particular person, putting them and their families through HELL on earth)? To say these drugs are dangerous is an understatement and every mass killer has been on them or recently stopped. It's already illegal to possess a gun while drunk (in all states?), and this would merely be part of that.

Yes I know, many people stabilize on these drugs, but GETTING to that point is worse than a drunk with an AR15, and takes months or years of hell. I have an older relative who took years of hell to get the right combination of these dangerous drugs, and put us all through hell in the process. PLUS, all it takes is someone to stop taking these awful SSRI drugs and all hell breaks loose (we watched a female friend go absolutely nutso after stopping her meds). OR, their "doctor" monkeys with their meds and the combinations, as if you're a lab rat. The "doctor" doesn't have to live with the subject so he/she doesn't care.

This isn't gun control it's an extension of "no guns while drunk." Sheesh I've known a few people on these drugs and I'd rather have ten guys with a 12 pack of Pabst in them than one person who recently stopped taking their experimental cocktail of paxil/prosac/zoloft, or whose "doctor" recently monkeyed with the dosage.

Option 4 was supposed to read "...that big pharma makes millions from"

None of the choices in the poll really made any sense to me so I didn't vote.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are very much against *anyone* being on any of these class of drugs. Is that right?

What would you have someone like that do?

Are there any medications that are "OK" with you for them to take?

Are you suggesting that it would be better to have someone that is mentally ill, or clinically depressed, or suffering from a great deal of pain just tough it out without anything? And if so, are they OK to have a firearm then? Not trolling you; I just really don't understand what you are saying.

[cambeul41]

None of the above would be my answer.

Those who say there is a simple answer to a complex problem will soon say something else equally simple.

[cassandrasdaddy]

There is a huge difference between what is thought and what is fact.

When you continue to spew your slanted and off-base opinions, you should expect to be challenged.

When you present fiction, lies, or completely incorrect material, you will be challenged.

My observation was direct, but exactly correct - there is no proof the shooter took any medication.
There was no mention in the article that the shooter took any drugs.
Just because you think that he did does not make it true.
Based upon these truths, from your referenced article, shows that you completely falsified the thread title.

Just because you do not like to read an opinion different than yours does not make me wrong or nasty.

If you present your opinion supported by facts, then a discussion can take place.

If you discount any viewpoint other than yours, then you will continue to get nasty and angry at others like me.


Gee, this looks like a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory to me.

some folks have never heard the old saw about if more than a couple folks call you a duck you might be one.


and since holmes lawyered up and has never been drug tested...... well you do the figuring

[spwenger]

The thread title is a lie.

There were no drug screen results from the shooter.

Yet another worthless observation trying to start a conspiracy where none exists.

...CIA_ran_9/11 - what do you expect?

Prescription psychotropic drugs no more cause specific behavior than do illicit recreational drugs.

I suspect that, when confronted by statistics-based arguments concerning the RKBA, most members of this forum can grasp that correlation does not equal causation. While I will not argue that psychotropic drugs are always prescribed and monitored correctly, much as with firearms, they are used much more extensively with beneficial results than the very small proportion of "outlier" cases where they are associated with violence.

(If you had friends, as I do, with severe PTSD as a result of military service, you might be a bit more inclined to keep some of these medications - along with more research - available.)

[CIA_ran_9/11]

I see jamie sidestepped his attack post full of personal insults.

Any quick check of my posts will reveal that if you challenge my points, I make counter points. It's called a discussion. I stay subject and topic driven instead of following people around and starting fights like Jamie does. Jamie COULD have been civil and said that concluding that theater guy was drugged up was a conclusion he wasn't willing to make, but NO, Jamie had to get nasty, personal, and violate the forum rules multiple times in his post. It's what he's good at.

Anyway, seeing a psychiatrist EQUALS being on psychotropic drugs. Let's not beat around the bush. Everyone who is honest knows how the medical establishment PUSHES these dangerous drugs at every turn (I've seen MDs, i.e. NON PSYCHIATRISTS, hand out samples of SSRIs like candy). Every other past mass killer has had some SSRI in their system. What is highly disturbing is how the media seems to be delaying the release of this information following each spree killing (yes, this is a claim of conspiracy, so better start the personal insults, right?) It's interesting how it took several days for the media to even admit that theater killer was tied up with a psychiatrist. A person would have to be VERY naive to assume that there's even a remote chance that theater guy WASN'T on ssris.

In answer to a question, yes, these ssri's are demonstrably dangerous to the point they shouldn't be on the market and big pharma shouldn't be profiting from the trail of death that follows them (now I wait for someone to draw the comparison between guns and these drugs, even though drugs impair the brain, and cause radical chemical changes in the brain).

Funny how I didn't notice anyone dealing with the fact that yes it's illegal to have a gun in your possession while drunk. Interesting. This is a core aspect of this, which has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with impairment from a drug.

[cassandrasdaddy]

you never heard about hippa on the conspiracy web sites?

[Loosedhorse]

Anyway, seeing a psychiatrist EQUALS being on psychotropic drugs.

No.

I've seen MDs, i.e. NON PSYCHIATRISTS, hand out samples of SSRIs like candy

As opposed to Vicodin, we have zero evidence for now that he was on SSRIs.

Every other past mass killer has had some SSRI in their system.

A list of "every other" mass killer, plus the reference that shows he was on SSRIs would be helpful to your claim. SSRIs weren't marketed before 1982, so you could stop there.

BTW, researchers started looking for a link between SSRIs and violence in the early 1990s. Nothing found yet (yeah, I know: a big pharma cover-up).

Please note that SSRIs are often used to treat persons with violent tendencies and impulse control defects; not surprising then that some folks on SSRIs (or recently off them) are quite violent (selection bias).

A typical paper (here) shows that SSRIs are associated with a 60% decreased risk of violence; however, consumption of alcohol (another psychoactive drug) increases the risk of violence 13 times. Sounds right to me.

[Guns and more]

Can we stick to facts?

[cassandrasdaddy]

kill joy!

[Jamie B]

Can we stick to facts?

Let's not beat around the bush, as those pesky facts are much better than opinions reflected in the OP.

My point exactly!

[Old Dog]

Probably just me, but it sorta seems as though anyone with the screen-name "cia-ran-9/11" is gonna keep running with the conspiracy-theory threads ... kinda hard to take his posts seriously.

As I said, probably just me ...

(Disclaimer: no harassment, insults or rudeness intended to the OP)

[GrayGhoul]

As someone on medication I can say that hell wasn't going on medication. Sure there were some annoying effects until I got dosed right. But "hell" was when I was off the drugs. Imagine getting no more than an hour of sleep a night, spending the rest of the time hyperventilating, crying, throwing up, and punching the walls until you bruise your bones.

So suggesting that somehow I or others who have it FAR worse (i don't see or hear things, though I do often feel like people are out to to get me) would somehow be better off is almost insulting. We aren't being duped by "big pharma" into taking things we don't need. I literally can't cope without them. And I might not be alive today without them. That isn't a conspiracy. That is the truth.

[cassandrasdaddy]

Probably just me, but it sorta seems as though anyone with the screen-name "cia-ran-9/11" is gonna keep running with the conspiracy-theory threads ... kinda hard to take his posts seriously.

As I said, probably just me ...

(Disclaimer: no harassment, insults or rudeness intended to the OP)

might not be just you