Author Topic: Anti-depressants and mass shootings  (Read 1576 times)

Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« on: February 18, 2018, 07:09:22 PM »
Suppose you took this political position:

 anyone on antidepressants who is been on them for 14 months in a row has to turn in their guns to the police. After they have proven to be off of antidepressants and no longer taking them for a full year then they can get their guns back.

That would probably prevent most or all mass  shootings. it would actually never happen because the drug companies would aggressively oppose it, because it would make them look like crap. but just that alone would be an interesting point to make and it is totally ignored by the media that most of the shooters are all on antidepressant drugs.

It's not even radically anti-gun because all you have to do is stop taking antidepressants and you get your guns back

 That would also be better than the so-called mental health programs because whether someone has something like a mental problem is highly subjective and leaves it open to professional psychologist to decide and I don't think that they are capable or reliable in some cases
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 07:26:42 PM by surfivor »

Offline bcksknr

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2149
  • Karma: 313
  • Child of the Cold War
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2018, 08:56:24 PM »
     I can assure you that a person who is diagnosed with chronic depression is far more likely to have "problems" related from stopping taking prescribed anti-depressants, than continuing to take them as prescribed. The reason people take anti-depressants is to relieve the symptoms associated with depression (duh). The drug/s enable them to function in a normal, emotionally level manner by restoring the proper chemical balance in the brain. I don't know if people who are depressed are more likely to go completely "off the rails" and/or do something violent. I doubt that depression is the sole or even the most prevalent factor in violent activities. I think alcohol abuse causes more violent tendencies than depression.
     That's not to say that the government, in a "knee jerk" attempt to appear as though they are attempting to stop school shootings (or gun violence), may concoct some spurious law to confiscate firearms from those taking prescription anti-depressants. After all, with the current public outcry they will try to find an easy scapegoat to a complex problem.   

Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2018, 02:23:06 AM »
     I can assure you that a person who is diagnosed with chronic depression is far more likely to have "problems" related from stopping taking prescribed anti-depressants, than continuing to take them as prescribed. The reason people take anti-depressants is to relieve the symptoms associated with depression (duh). The drug/s enable them to function in a normal, emotionally level manner by restoring the proper chemical balance in the brain. I don't know if people who are depressed are more likely to go completely "off the rails" and/or do something violent. I doubt that depression is the sole or even the most prevalent factor in violent activities. I think alcohol abuse causes more violent tendencies than depression.
     That's not to say that the government, in a "knee jerk" attempt to appear as though they are attempting to stop school shootings (or gun violence), may concoct some spurious law to confiscate firearms from those taking prescription anti-depressants. After all, with the current public outcry they will try to find an easy scapegoat to a complex problem.

It's not the depression but the drugs, and I doubt they restore any chemical balance. Gary null points out the chemical balance theory has never been actually  proven


Most of the shooters have been on antidepressants or some type of psychotropic drug which can cause violence and they make people more prone to being brainwashed

I also mentioned a period of one year, if you are off such drugs for a year then you would not have withdrawal problems and would have beaten depression or dealt with it more naturally or not be subjected to the problems that these drugs cause
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 02:34:54 AM by surfivor »

Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2018, 02:58:25 AM »
Quote
After all, with the current public outcry they will try to find an easy scapegoat to a complex problem.


drugs would not be scapegoated, that is not the intended target only gun control is or something like mental health which is harder to define than the simple use of drugs.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/drugs-and-guns-dont-mix-medication-madness-military-madness-and-the-las-vegas-mass-shooting/5612178

Charles Whitman, age 25, the “Clock Tower Sniper” at the University of Texas/Austin (1966), an Eagle scout and an ex-Marine sharp-shooter was taking (and/or withdrawing from) prescribed Dexedrine (amphetamine) and barbiturates. 14 dead, 31 wounded.

Eric Harris, age 18, was on Luvox when he and Dylan Klebold killed classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado (1999). Klebold’s medical records were sealed. Both Harris and Klebold shot and killed themselves. 15 dead, 23 wounded.

Jeff Weise, age 16, was on 60 mg of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot and killed his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and 8 fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota (2005). He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Seung-Hui Cho, age 23, the shooter in the Virginia Tech Massacre (2007) was on Paxil. 33 dead, 29 wounded.

James Holmes, age 29, the Batman Shooter at Aurora, CO (2012) had been prescribed the brain-altering drugs Zoloft (sertraline), Klonopin (clonazepam), and Inderal (propranolol). 12 dead, 70 wounded.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, the “Killer at Thurston High” (1998), was taking Prozac and withdrawing from Ritalin when he shot up his cafeteria in Springfield, OR. 4 dead (including his two parents) 22 wounded.

Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, had been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien when he went on a shooting rampage before killing himself at Northern Illinois University. 5 dead, 16 wounded.

Shawn Cooper, age 15, was taking Ritalin when he fired a shotgun at school.

Elizabeth Bush, age 14, was on Paxil when she shot at fellow students in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, wounding one.

Mitchell Johnson, age 13, was taking an unspecified psych drug when he shot at fellow students in Jonesboro, Arkansas. 5 dead, many others wounded.

T. J. Solomon, age 15, was taking Ritalin when he shot six classmates in Conyers, Georgia.

Jason Hoffman, age 18, was on Effexor and Celexa when he shot at fellow students at his high school in El Cajon, California. 5 wounded.

Asa Coon, age 14, was on Trazodone when he shot and wounded four students at his school before killing himself.



====================

http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/media-ignoring-1-crucial-factor-in-florida-school-shooting/

In the case of Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old Florida mass-shooter, his mother’s sister, Barbara Kumbatovich, told the Miami Herald that she believed Cruz was on medication to deal with his emotional fragility.

..

 Adam Lanza and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything

..

Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s one in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.

In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.

In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.

Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”

John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.

Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years.

...

The truth is, to avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay millions of dollars to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies’ legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.


=========

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/28307-from-prozac-to-parkland-are-psychiatric-drugs-causing-mass-shootings

If you develop digestive problems after a change in diet, do you look for the cause in foods you always ate or the new ones you started eating? While the answer is obvious, this common sense is painfully uncommon when analyzing the new phenomenon of continual mass shootings: Many blame the long-present “foods” — guns in this case — and ignore the new diet whose embrace coincided with the problem. And part of what’s new is the widespread use of psychiatric drugs.

As a case in point, the Parkland, Florida, shooter (I won’t use his name and help provide the fame he craved), who murdered 17 on Valentine’s Day, was on medication for emotional issues, his aunt related. This is now a familiar story, too. As WND.com’s David Kupelian put it Thursday, the following is par for the course: As information about a “perpetrator emerges, a relative confides to a newspaper that the ‘troubled youth’ who committed the mass murder was on psychiatric medications — you know, those powerful, little understood, mind-altering drugs with fearsome side effects including ‘suicidal ideation’ and even ‘homicidal ideation.’”
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 03:13:28 AM by surfivor »

Offline trekker111

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
  • Karma: 71
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2018, 03:45:00 AM »
There are several off these drugs that have suicidal/ homicidal ideations as a possible side effect, and not unsurprisingly, every one of these mass shooters have been on them, as well as a high percentage of just garden variety violent criminals.

However, saying let's prevent people on these drugs from getting guns is a gross over simplification. Even if prohibited, they could still get their hands on guns. Even if there was a magical way to prevent them from getting guns, they will use bombs, or tear through the bus line in a truck, or start hacking people with a machete, or... We can go on and on.

There is established law to prevent people adjudicated mentally defective from possessing guns and I am not against it, at least on it's face, but the processes some have proposed to get us from point A to point B is what concerns me.

Take this guy in Florida as an example. There is all this talk in the media about how many times police had contact with him and asking why want he flawed in the "system". Yet there is no "system" the police could have flagged him in, and every if there were, the police do not and should not have the power to just glad someone, taking their rights away. Their is the national crime information center (ncic) which is a database which is what NICS accesses to determine if a person can buy a gun, as well as what police access to determine if a person can possessing a gun, or to see if a gun is stolen, or a car for that matter. There is a handful of ways a person can be entered which will prevent them from having a gun:

Be convicted of a felony
Be convicted of domestic violence
Be the subject of an active restraining order which prevents gun possession
Be adjudicated mentally defective

All of these categories have one thing in common, they require due process of law, with everything that comes along with that, the right to counsel, an appeal process, etc.

In 16 years so far as a cop, the only way I have never seen anyone be adjudicated mentally defective without one of the other categories, usually a felony conviction, also applying.

It is possible to come up with a plan that results in people on these drugs being adjudicated mentally defective while they take the drugs which I could support, but it has to include a judge, due process, an appeal process, and a remedy if the situation changes and the person is no longer defective.


Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2018, 06:07:07 AM »
There are several off these drugs that have suicidal/ homicidal ideations as a possible side effect, and not unsurprisingly, every one of these mass shooters have been on them, as well as a high percentage of just garden variety violent criminals.

However, saying let's prevent people on these drugs from getting guns is a gross over simplification. Even if prohibited, they could still get their hands on guns. Even if there was a magical way to prevent them from getting guns, they will use bombs, or tear through the bus line in a truck, or start hacking people with a machete, or... We can go on and on.

There is established law to prevent people adjudicated mentally defective from possessing guns and I am not against it, at least on it's face, but the processes some have proposed to get us from point A to point B is what concerns me.

Take this guy in Florida as an example. There is all this talk in the media about how many times police had contact with him and asking why want he flawed in the "system". Yet there is no "system" the police could have flagged him in, and every if there were, the police do not and should not have the power to just glad someone, taking their rights away. Their is the national crime information center (ncic) which is a database which is what NICS accesses to determine if a person can buy a gun, as well as what police access to determine if a person can possessing a gun, or to see if a gun is stolen, or a car for that matter. There is a handful of ways a person can be entered which will prevent them from having a gun:

Be convicted of a felony
Be convicted of domestic violence
Be the subject of an active restraining order which prevents gun possession
Be adjudicated mentally defective

All of these categories have one thing in common, they require due process of law, with everything that comes along with that, the right to counsel, an appeal process, etc.

In 16 years so far as a cop, the only way I have never seen anyone be adjudicated mentally defective without one of the other categories, usually a felony conviction, also applying.

It is possible to come up with a plan that results in people on these drugs being adjudicated mentally defective while they take the drugs which I could support, but it has to include a judge, due process, an appeal process, and a remedy if the situation changes and the person is no longer defective.

 No doubt the FBI and the system does a horrible job, and in the case of the FBI it is often deliberate. Definitely we need due process and constitutionality as well.

 Another thing that concerns me however is that many libertarians are kind of hands off, they just assume all government is bad and thus any involvement in politics, discussing problems, solutions or raising awareness about the bigger issue is useless. Meanwhile the liberals are all out there trying to ban all semi automatic guns

Offline Smurf Hunter

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 7023
  • Karma: 329
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2018, 12:25:32 PM »
This hits personally for me. I'm going to share some personal stuff in the hopes of bringing awareness to things many could be unaware of.

My son (14 next month) takes 1000mg of Zoloft daily.  He takes it for OCD. Not the humorous OCD like people who constantly organize sock drawers or check flight statuses.  For him he has debilitating cognitive issues, like counting in his head, or getting so myopically focused on some random detail that he almost goes into a trance while mid-conversation. He's a smart kid, but functionally useless from a productivity point without the zoloft. I'm happy to discuss alternative treatments, but lets move that to a different thread than here please.

Many conservative political groups, forums and bloggers have grabbed onto the pharmaceutical side of this issue. I think it's politically "safe" for republicans, as it doesn't blame the guns, the parents, or the schools. Here's the trouble. drugs like zoloft are prescribed for various reasons.

The side affects (I'm talking zoloft since I'm most familiar) when prescribed for depression are different the the side effects for OCD, PTSD, etc.
Similarly, regardless of your feelings about ADD/ADHD, drugs like ritalin "calm" those kids down, however when a neuro-typical person takes ritalin, they get high as if taking amphetamines.

This could be a slippery slope. If anyone prescribed Zoloft could be at risk, and thus we deny their gun rights, maybe we should do the same for combat vets?  I don't personally agree we should, but PTSD has similar psychotropic side effects. If I cannot legally prove that a patient on Zoloft is not a risk, no one can legally prove a combat vet with PTSD is not a risk. There are more examples, but I hope to strike a nerve using the examples of military vets to prove my point.

I'm far from an expert, I only have a passing familiarity with some of these pharmaceuticals.  What REALLY concerns me is how ignorant the average person is on this subject, and worse, half of the people are more ignorant than that!


Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2018, 12:45:07 PM »
Quote
This could be a slippery slope. If anyone prescribed Zoloft could be at risk, and thus we deny their gun rights, maybe we should do the same for combat vets?  I don't personally agree we should, but PTSD has similar psychotropic side effects. If I cannot legally prove that a patient on Zoloft is not a risk, no one can legally prove a combat vet with PTSD is not a risk. There are more examples, but I hope to strike a nerve using the examples of military vets to prove my point.

 PTSD is a condition, it's not a drug. Any such condition is subjective. Any psychologist could claim you are unstable for any reason, maybe just because you are a prepper. Some pychologists are probably like that. Pychology is a soft science with a lot of theory.  Taking drugs, alcohol etc is not as subjective and has less grey areas ... I personally have a lot of doubts about these drugs and their side effects

  I don't know as far as how much Zoloft some people take, if some take a little or some take alot for how many years and things like that but it does seem that these mass shooters are on these types of drugs and the media tries to ignore it or hide it.



« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 12:53:42 PM by surfivor »

Online FreeLancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 5675
  • Karma: 759
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2018, 12:50:38 PM »
This hits personally for me. I'm going to share some personal stuff in the hopes of bringing awareness to things many could be unaware of.

My son (14 next month) takes 1000mg of Zoloft daily.  He takes it for OCD. Not the humorous OCD like people who constantly organize sock drawers or check flight statuses.  For him he has debilitating cognitive issues, like counting in his head, or getting so myopically focused on some random detail that he almost goes into a trance while mid-conversation. He's a smart kid, but functionally useless from a productivity point without the zoloft. I'm happy to discuss alternative treatments, but lets move that to a different thread than here please.

Many conservative political groups, forums and bloggers have grabbed onto the pharmaceutical side of this issue. I think it's politically "safe" for republicans, as it doesn't blame the guns, the parents, or the schools. Here's the trouble. drugs like zoloft are prescribed for various reasons.

The side affects (I'm talking zoloft since I'm most familiar) when prescribed for depression are different the the side effects for OCD, PTSD, etc.
Similarly, regardless of your feelings about ADD/ADHD, drugs like ritalin "calm" those kids down, however when a neuro-typical person takes ritalin, they get high as if taking amphetamines.

This could be a slippery slope. If anyone prescribed Zoloft could be at risk, and thus we deny their gun rights, maybe we should do the same for combat vets?  I don't personally agree we should, but PTSD has similar psychotropic side effects. If I cannot legally prove that a patient on Zoloft is not a risk, no one can legally prove a combat vet with PTSD is not a risk. There are more examples, but I hope to strike a nerve using the examples of military vets to prove my point.

I'm far from an expert, I only have a passing familiarity with some of these pharmaceuticals.  What REALLY concerns me is how ignorant the average person is on this subject, and worse, half of the people are more ignorant than that!

Nailed it.

Offline mountainmoma

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4309
  • Karma: 193
  • suburban homesteader
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2018, 01:25:47 PM »
Rather than vilifying the drugs, we should be altering the over prescribing of them for certain young people. One of my (over 18)kids was prescribed an antidepressant, and my take from that time was that it was a very "lazy" thing for the medical community to do. No actual work, or therapy, or time spent on issues, just give a prescription. The prescription was tossed after a month or two and we went for other solutions, including some extreme support/parenting one on one, medicinal pot, etc..... This is not meant to say there are not very good reasons for these types of drugs, like Smurf has in his household. But, something that is true is that many young people would be better served by the harder and more time consuming work of actually reaching them or supporting, looking at the stresses we make in our schools, our society, etc..... And, it is true that for many conditions there are side effects, especially for coming off of them, and while on them. We should strive to scale back our extreme use of them for many reasons. I also beieve from what I have read, that there has been a connection, for at least some, of shooting events associated with the prescription side effects, and even more of a connection for suicides. So, this means we should be much more thoughtful in treatment and looking at more time consuming/expensive treatment options to minimize this further. But, as SMurfs example shows, we certainly should not be taking away people rights only based on getting a prescription. We need to only take away rights based on due process, court/proof/ ability to state your case etc... We should NOT have even what CA recently passed where you have rights taken away via someones opinion without due process !

Offline Smurf Hunter

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 7023
  • Karma: 329
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2018, 01:38:44 PM »
PTSD is a condition, it's not a drug. Any such condition is subjective. Any psychologist could claim you are unstable for any reason, maybe just because you are a prepper. Some pychologists are probably like that. Pychology is a soft science with a lot of theory.  Taking drugs, alcohol etc is not as subjective and has less grey areas ... I personally have a lot of doubts about these drugs and their side effects

  I don't know as far as how much Zoloft some people take, if some take a little or some take alot for how many years and things like that but it does seem that these mass shooters are on these types of drugs and the media tries to ignore it or hide it.

did you read what I posted?

Maybe there are just more depressed people today, and we're only focusing on the RX used for treatment.

Going down the reasons for depression can stir up some raw emotions. Maybe parents are both forced to work, or dad left the scene at a young age.
Poverty, bullying, social media.  There are a thousand reasons for a young person to be depressed. Some of them aren't going to be popular to discuss publicly.


Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2018, 01:58:52 PM »
 The left already wants to try to ban people based on mental health opinions of "experts".

 It seems it already happens in NY, but if you stop taking medication then you don't get your firearms back I would guess based on their system

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/10/hey-new-york-if-you%E2%80%99ve-taken-a-psychotropic-drug-governement-can-take-your-guns/

“If you have taken or are taking a psychotropic drug, you will lose your gun in New York, at least if this stands.  This is from the SAFE Act, the mental health law provision of the SAFE Act, the one that they just passed in New York.  It has a short phrase:  Protect the public’s health and wellbeing.  It’s being cited as the reason government can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat depression and anxiety known as SSRI,” Glenn said.

=============

https://www.infowars.com/new-york-police-confiscating-firearms-from-people-takin-anti-anxiety-medication/

The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation.

“We are representing a client right now who is impacted by this onerous activity of the government,” Tresmond told WBEN, a news talk radio station in Buffalo, New York.


« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 02:07:34 PM by surfivor »

Offline trekker111

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
  • Karma: 71
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2018, 06:23:27 PM »
The more I think about it, I am starting to think the public safety restraining order idea may be the most viable, if it works like other restraining orders.

Someone, the police, a licensed mental health professional, a family member, etc, feels a person is a risk. The restraining order is applied for, and a hearing is held. The person has a right to hire an attorney, or have a court appointed attorney, to confront their accuser(s), present evidence in their defense, then a judge makes a decision. The restraining order can be appealed, and it automatically expires after a year, at which point if there accuser thinks the person is still a danger a hearing is held to determine if the order should be extended another year, based on new evidence.

Being prescribed a psychotropic is evidence, but not enough in and of itself since 99% of those prescribed them will never actually hurt anyone.

Social media posts would be evidence, but not enough by itself since 90% are just running their mouth. (There would likely be less of that as well)

It can respect the Constitution, yet provide an avenue to decrease the likelyhood of these mass killings while leaving the rest of us alone.

Offline Applejack

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
  • Karma: 12
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2018, 06:56:19 PM »
All I can say is that it is a sad, sad world we live in today when our kids have to use these type of drugs just to get through the day. They do not realize what these drugs can do to their minds and bodies. This type of thing to drug kids didn't happen 20 years ago. What has happened to this country to cause this is beyond my understanding. Where did the parents, pastors, and teachers go wrong? A lot to make you think about how we will ever get through all this shooting and killing by children.

Offline surfivor

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 6755
  • Karma: 88
Re: Anti-depressants and mass shootings
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2018, 07:35:38 PM »
Quote
Being prescribed a psychotropic is evidence, but not enough in and of itself since 99% of those prescribed them will never actually hurt anyone.

 It should have that as a requirement otherwise if you criticize the government or have ever said anything politically incorrect in your entire life, some psychologist somewhere will be happy to claim you are mentally deranged; but if they can't prove you are on drugs and that is a requirement and all the shooters have been on drugs then they are stuck and can't declare you mentally unfit

This thread however was more of a thought experiment and conversation starter rather than a real endorsement of such laws
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 07:42:42 PM by surfivor »