(11-06-2017 04:57 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:40 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want to stop these things, confiscate all the weapons that can be used to carry them out.

There is no other real solution.

And no, I'm not advocating for that...just acknowledging the elephant in the room.

So, no more truck rentals from Home Depot. etc. etc....

We're just talking about mass shootings here.

The tourists in NY are just as dead.

Yeah...I get it. But again, I'm not and we're not talking about all terrorists attacks which have been carried out or attempted by shoes, underwear, planes, vehicles, pressure cookers, pipes, fertilizer and on and on.

(11-06-2017 05:45 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:41 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want to stop these things, confiscate [b]all the weapons that can be used[b/] to carry them out.

So, all handguns, rifles, and shotguns? Please be specific in what weapons you actually mean.

As I said, I'm not advocating for this, but any weapon that can carry out a mass shooting like this would have to be included, right?

This could be done with a pistol, so do you outlaw them? Or a rifle?

How long are you going to keep this up? I was more than clear.

Other than that I was only referring to firearms, not every other item the determined conceive of. Sorry for not clarifying that part.

(11-07-2017 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 05:45 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:41 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want to stop these things, confiscate [b]all the weapons that can be used[b/] to carry them out.

So, all handguns, rifles, and shotguns? Please be specific in what weapons you actually mean.

As I said, I'm not advocating for this, but any weapon that can carry out a mass shooting like this would have to be included, right?

This could be done with a pistol, so do you outlaw them? Or a rifle?

How long are you going to keep this up? I was more than clear.

Other than that I was only referring to firearms, not every other item the determined conceive of. Sorry for not clarifying that part.

I agree with you, that would be the only way to do it. But we're not, so moot point. Furthermore, I am more afraid of being disarmed by the government than I am from dying at the hands of some nut with a gun. That's not to say that I am not afraid of some nut with a gun, I am just MORE afraid of what this country would become without our 2nd amendment rights being recognized and protected by law.

(11-07-2017 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 05:45 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:41 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  So, all handguns, rifles, and shotguns? Please be specific in what weapons you actually mean.

As I said, I'm not advocating for this, but any weapon that can carry out a mass shooting like this would have to be included, right?

This could be done with a pistol, so do you outlaw them? Or a rifle?

How long are you going to keep this up? I was more than clear.

Other than that I was only referring to firearms, not every other item the determined conceive of. Sorry for not clarifying that part.

I agree with you, that would be the only way to do it. But we're not, so moot point. Furthermore, I am more afraid of being disarmed by the government than I am from dying at the hands of some nut with a gun. That's not to say that I am not afraid of some nut with a gun, I am just MORE afraid of what this country would become without our 2nd amendment rights being recognized and protected by law.

I wouldn't. One, because I don't own guns...and two, because neither you nor I would stand a chance against our government should it try to take your guns. Besides, regardless of your comments, we all know that would NEVER happen.

(11-06-2017 07:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You getting your news from a racist conspiracy site? The guy was thinking he was the Grim Reaper wearing a hood that have a white skull. Antfa do not wear hoods with white skulls.

They wear anything that covers their face.

(11-07-2017 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 05:45 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:41 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you want to stop these things, confiscate [b]all the weapons that can be used[b/] to carry them out.

So, all handguns, rifles, and shotguns? Please be specific in what weapons you actually mean.

As I said, I'm not advocating for this, but any weapon that can carry out a mass shooting like this would have to be included, right?

This could be done with a pistol, so do you outlaw them? Or a rifle?

How long are you going to keep this up? I was more than clear.

Other than that I was only referring to firearms, not every other item the determined conceive of. Sorry for not clarifying that part.

Ok so you take away a madman's guns and they wanna kill another congregation of church members so they run an 18 wheeler through the whole thing, or at the mall, etc... Guns, once again, aren't the problem.

(11-07-2017 01:04 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 05:45 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:41 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  So, all handguns, rifles, and shotguns? Please be specific in what weapons you actually mean.

As I said, I'm not advocating for this, but any weapon that can carry out a mass shooting like this would have to be included, right?

This could be done with a pistol, so do you outlaw them? Or a rifle?

How long are you going to keep this up? I was more than clear.

Other than that I was only referring to firearms, not every other item the determined conceive of. Sorry for not clarifying that part.

Ok so you take away a madman's guns and they wanna kill another congregation of church members so they run an 18 wheeler through the whole thing, or at the mall, etc... Guns, once again, aren't the problem.

Guns aren't the problem but they seem to be the common weapon of choice in many of these mass killings.

We don't need to ban them but we need a better system to regulate them.

Whether or not we need more laws.

(11-07-2017 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 12:51 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 05:45 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  As I said, I'm not advocating for this, but any weapon that can carry out a mass shooting like this would have to be included, right?

This could be done with a pistol, so do you outlaw them? Or a rifle?

How long are you going to keep this up? I was more than clear.

Other than that I was only referring to firearms, not every other item the determined conceive of. Sorry for not clarifying that part.

I agree with you, that would be the only way to do it. But we're not, so moot point. Furthermore, I am more afraid of being disarmed by the government than I am from dying at the hands of some nut with a gun. That's not to say that I am not afraid of some nut with a gun, I am just MORE afraid of what this country would become without our 2nd amendment rights being recognized and protected by law.

I wouldn't. One, because I don't own guns...and two, because neither you nor I would stand a chance against our government should it try to take your guns. Besides, regardless of your comments, we all know that would NEVER happen.

Well, it wouldn't be you OR me. it would be me, and apparently not you, and a VERY LARGE portion of law enforcement, a VERY LARGE proportion of military (retired and reserve as well as a lot of those currently serving refusing to follow unconstitutional orders), and a VERY LARGE proportion of the citizenry of this country who are armed.

I can easily see tanks turning against tanks, Fighter jets turning against fighter jets, and a whole lot of confusion. But the one thing I would not say, is that "we don't stand a chance."

Of course, this is only ONE of the situations the 2A is for, and I don't want to find out if I am right or you are right. The more plausible situation is that the citizenry have a chance in the case of an invading force. Which is why we haven't been invaded in the traditional sense since .... 1812?

(11-06-2017 01:43 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 01:39 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  We are so fortunate to have Trump leading us.

Can you imagine the state of f*ck we'd be in if Hillary would have been able to not only cheat her way to the DNC finals, but also the presidency?

Yeah, she'd probably blame one of the church's Sunday service videos as triggering the shooter.

(11-06-2017 04:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Oh they mean something. The mentally ill need to be locked up, if you want to stop mass shootings, SSRIs need to be banned.

YEP!

(11-07-2017 01:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Oh they mean something. The mentally ill need to be locked up, if you want to stop mass shootings, SSRIs need to be banned.

YEP!

I'm gonna guess you guys are talking about some kind of prescription medication?

(11-07-2017 02:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Oh they mean something. The mentally ill need to be locked up, if you want to stop mass shootings, SSRIs need to be banned.

YEP!

I'm gonna guess you guys are talking about some kind of prescription medication?

SSRIs are antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It's a med that stops the reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft, allowing for increased receptor activation. Usually used for patients exhibiting elevated levels of depression and takes 2-3 weeks post prescription to kick in to effect.

Often people stop seeing the benefits of SSRIs after prolonged use and sometimes they don't work at all (often people with major depressive disorder).

Not sure what they're trying to get at by bringing these up as I haven't read through the entire thread... but SSRIs are a first line drug now in the treatment of depression.

Classic SSRIs: Citalopram (Celexa)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva)
Sertraline (Zoloft)

(11-07-2017 02:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Oh they mean something. The mentally ill need to be locked up, if you want to stop mass shootings, SSRIs need to be banned.

YEP!

I'm gonna guess you guys are talking about some kind of prescription medication?

SSRIs are antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It's a med that stops the reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft, allowing for increased receptor activation. Usually used for patients exhibiting elevated levels of depression and takes 2-3 weeks post prescription to kick in to effect.

Often people stop seeing the benefits of SSRIs after prolonged use and sometimes they don't work at all (often people with major depressive disorder).

Not sure what they're trying to get at by bringing these up as I haven't read through the entire thread... but SSRIs are a first line drug now in the treatment of depression.

Classic SSRIs: Citalopram (Celexa)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva)
Sertraline (Zoloft)

Oh, I know that one... Prozac seems to be the drug of choice among mass shooters.

(11-07-2017 02:39 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

That's all democrats do is discuss. Discuss discuss. Now they want to discuss the discussion

(11-07-2017 02:46 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:39 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

That's all democrats do is discuss. Discuss discuss.

There was legislation to ban bump stocks that stalled with our current congress iirc.

(11-07-2017 02:45 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Oh they mean something. The mentally ill need to be locked up, if you want to stop mass shootings, SSRIs need to be banned.

YEP!

I'm gonna guess you guys are talking about some kind of prescription medication?

SSRIs are antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It's a med that stops the reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft, allowing for increased receptor activation. Usually used for patients exhibiting elevated levels of depression and takes 2-3 weeks post prescription to kick in to effect.

Often people stop seeing the benefits of SSRIs after prolonged use and sometimes they don't work at all (often people with major depressive disorder).

Not sure what they're trying to get at by bringing these up as I haven't read through the entire thread... but SSRIs are a first line drug now in the treatment of depression.

Classic SSRIs: Citalopram (Celexa)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva)
Sertraline (Zoloft)

Oh, I know that one... Prozac seems to be the drug of choice among mass shooters.

Correlative data at best... though I haven't ever read a study linking antidepressant users to mass violence. Begs the question... do antidepressants lead to users committing crimes? Or do crimes get committed by people needing antidrepessants? What would happen if you took depressed people off their drugs? More crimes? Less?

I think it's pretty obvious that a ban on antidepressants would lead to more hopelessness/depressed populations and therefore probably a rise in violent-suicidal crime. But again... no data to back up that assertion to my knowledge (i.e. I haven't read a good review article on it).

(11-07-2017 02:52 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:53 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  YEP!

I'm gonna guess you guys are talking about some kind of prescription medication?

SSRIs are antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It's a med that stops the reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft, allowing for increased receptor activation. Usually used for patients exhibiting elevated levels of depression and takes 2-3 weeks post prescription to kick in to effect.

Often people stop seeing the benefits of SSRIs after prolonged use and sometimes they don't work at all (often people with major depressive disorder).

Not sure what they're trying to get at by bringing these up as I haven't read through the entire thread... but SSRIs are a first line drug now in the treatment of depression.

Classic SSRIs: Citalopram (Celexa)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva)
Sertraline (Zoloft)

Oh, I know that one... Prozac seems to be the drug of choice among mass shooters.

Correlative data at best... though I haven't ever read a study linking antidepressant users to mass violence. Begs the question... do antidepressants lead to users committing crimes? Or do crimes get committed by people needing antidrepessants? What would happen if you took depressed people off their drugs? More crimes? Less?

I think it's pretty obvious that a ban on antidepressants would lead to more hopelessness/depressed populations and therefore probably a rise in violent-suicidal crime. But again... no data to back up that assertion to my knowledge (i.e. I haven't read a good review article on it).

Well, all I know is, we told the doctor "no" after we read the side-effects sheet when they wanted to prescribe that for my teenage son. He is now 26 and happily married, BTW...

(11-07-2017 02:56 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:52 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:32 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  I'm gonna guess you guys are talking about some kind of prescription medication?

SSRIs are antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. It's a med that stops the reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft, allowing for increased receptor activation. Usually used for patients exhibiting elevated levels of depression and takes 2-3 weeks post prescription to kick in to effect.

Often people stop seeing the benefits of SSRIs after prolonged use and sometimes they don't work at all (often people with major depressive disorder).

Not sure what they're trying to get at by bringing these up as I haven't read through the entire thread... but SSRIs are a first line drug now in the treatment of depression.

Classic SSRIs: Citalopram (Celexa)
Escitalopram (Lexapro)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Paroxetine (Paxil, Pexeva)
Sertraline (Zoloft)

Oh, I know that one... Prozac seems to be the drug of choice among mass shooters.

Correlative data at best... though I haven't ever read a study linking antidepressant users to mass violence. Begs the question... do antidepressants lead to users committing crimes? Or do crimes get committed by people needing antidrepessants? What would happen if you took depressed people off their drugs? More crimes? Less?

I think it's pretty obvious that a ban on antidepressants would lead to more hopelessness/depressed populations and therefore probably a rise in violent-suicidal crime. But again... no data to back up that assertion to my knowledge (i.e. I haven't read a good review article on it).

Well, all I know is, we told the doctor "no" after we read the side-effects sheet when they wanted to prescribe that for my teenage son. He is now 26 and happily married, BTW...

I'm happy for your son but anecdotes should not serve as a reason to cease treatment for people with clinical depression. SSRIs work through countering a severe neurotransmitter imbalance. It's biology. Does it work for everyone? No. Does everyone need to go on an antidepressant? No. Are there side effects that are by themselves often debilitating? Yes. The functionality of MAOIs and SSRIs was discovered by accident and like most modern medicine, still in need of further basic science research.