Another mass shooting, this time in Jacksonville, FL

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,636
12,548
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
Even with no history of violent behavior?

And is the list based upon simply prescriptions, diagnoses, or a combination of the two?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
I don't think you should get the script without the diagnoses so I don't really see the difference. I guess you could get a script of Rispedal for something else though so perhaps it is diagnosis that matters more
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
I don't think you should get the script without the diagnoses so I don't really see the difference. I guess you could get a script of Rispedal for something else though so perhaps it is diagnosis that matters more
You can be prescribed antipsychotics for other things besides mood disorders, though not common. You can also be diagnosed with a mood disorder and be prescribed medication whose primary use is for something seemingly completely unrelated, like epilepsy.

You can also be diagnosed with a mood disorder and have no violent tendencies whatsoever.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

BamaInMo1

All-American
Oct 27, 2006
2,012
481
102
53
Cumming, GA
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you have been diagnosed with and are taking scrips for mental disorders I can agree with not being allowed to purchase a weapon whether or not you have outwardly displayed violent/destructive behaviors unless cleared by a physician. As much as I support the second amendment I can agree that in some cases a proactive approach may be best. That having been said, there would need to be a strong system of checks and ballances to prevent false diagnoses and so forth to protect people's rights.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,732
362
Mountainous Northern California
Looking at that first link, it appears as though he was prescribed antipsychotic meditations at or before the age of 12.

That's horrible.

Those types of drugs are known to cause psychosis in children.

If he didn't have a mental disorder before taking those medications, he likely did afterwards.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
But psychosis can be caused by a wide-ranging slection of drugs from corticosteroids to opiates to antibiotics to benadryl. Every prescription is a risk/benefit analysis. Sometimes the benefit still outweigh the risks, even if the risk is significant.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
But psychosis can be caused by a wide-ranging slection of drugs from corticosteroids to opiates to antibiotics to benadryl. Every prescription is a risk/benefit analysis. Sometimes the benefit still outweigh the risks, even if the risk is significant.
Perhaps but I am a firm believer that we have horribly over-medicated our children.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

2003TIDE

Hall of Fame
Jul 10, 2007
8,576
4,849
187
ATL
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you have been diagnosed with and are taking scrips for mental disorders I can agree with not being allowed to purchase a weapon whether or not you have outwardly displayed violent/destructive behaviors unless cleared by a physician. As much as I support the second amendment I can agree that in some cases a proactive approach may be best. That having been said, there would need to be a strong system of checks and ballances to prevent false diagnoses and so forth to protect people's rights.

I really don't understand why people are even arguing against this. The hardline 2A'ers need to realize if they don't get on board with some changes to the status quo, the pendulum is going to swing the other way pretty hard at some point and they aren't going to like the overcorrection.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,732
362
Mountainous Northern California
I really don't understand why people are even arguing against this. The hardline 2A'ers need to realize if they don't get on board with some changes to the status quo, the pendulum is going to swing the other way pretty hard at some point and they aren't going to like the overcorrection.
I've said before that I can see an emergency order much like a mental health safety hold that lasts 48-72 hours during which time a hearing must be held to continue the hold barring possession of firearms. a 30 days extension could be put in place during which time another hearing would be held to determine the longer term status. Diagnosis of any mental illness in and of itself would, in most cases, not be enough to remove a constitutional right so a real threat or a finding of incompetence must be established prior to extended removal of the right to bear arms.

The difference between the two approaches is significant. One does not have due process and would not stand to scrutiny. The other has emergency provisions, due process, and safeguards against abuse.
 

uafan4life

Hall of Fame
Mar 30, 2001
15,608
7,414
287
43
Florence, AL
I've said before that I can see an emergency order much like a mental health safety hold that lasts 48-72 hours during which time a hearing must be held to continue the hold barring possession of firearms. a 30 days extension could be put in place during which time another hearing would be held to determine the longer term status. Diagnosis of any mental illness in and of itself would, in most cases, not be enough to remove a constitutional right so a real threat or a finding of incompetence must be established prior to extended removal of the right to bear arms.

The difference between the two approaches is significant. One does not have due process and would not stand to scrutiny. The other has emergency provisions, due process, and safeguards against abuse.
While I wouldn't be opposed to such an approach, the problem there is that the likely end result isn't really any different than what we have now.

Most doctors and/or even professional counselors/therapists aren't in a position to adequately make this determination for the vast majority of their patients, simply because of the amount of time they typically spend with them. The only people usually in a position to be able to make this determination when it is needed are the family and friends closest to them - the ones that spend time with them every day - and they are usually the ones most blind to what is going on.

There's a reason the lament is almost always "I should have seen what was happening" as opposed to "I saw what was happening and no one would listen to me."

The simple truth is that it may, and I emphasize may, not be possible to put measures in place which adequately prevent people who are about to snap from having access to firearms without violating a lot of people's second amendment rights.

It's similar to why suicide by firearm is not a gun issue for me, whatsoever. Even if you removed all access to firearms, it would have little to no effect on the suicide rate.

I'm all for responsible, sensible, effective legislation that helps to protect lives while not violating people's constitutional rights. I'm just not sure that it's possible.

Part of the perils of living in a fallen world.
 

MattinBama

Hall of Fame
Jul 31, 2007
11,144
5,453
187
I really don't understand why people are even arguing against this. The hardline 2A'ers need to realize if they don't get on board with some changes to the status quo, the pendulum is going to swing the other way pretty hard at some point and they aren't going to like the overcorrection.
The last time this possibility came up the reaction was basically-

 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,635
34,732
362
Mountainous Northern California
While I wouldn't be opposed to such an approach, the problem there is that the likely end result isn't really any different than what we have now.

Most doctors and/or even professional counselors/therapists aren't in a position to adequately make this determination for the vast majority of their patients, simply because of the amount of time they typically spend with them. The only people usually in a position to be able to make this determination when it is needed are the family and friends closest to them - the ones that spend time with them every day - and they are usually the ones most blind to what is going on.

There's a reason the lament is almost always "I should have seen what was happening" as opposed to "I saw what was happening and no one would listen to me."

The simple truth is that it may, and I emphasize may, not be possible to put measures in place which adequately prevent people who are about to snap from having access to firearms without violating a lot of people's second amendment rights.

It's similar to why suicide by firearm is not a gun issue for me, whatsoever. Even if you removed all access to firearms, it would have little to no effect on the suicide rate.

I'm all for responsible, sensible, effective legislation that helps to protect lives while not violating people's constitutional rights. I'm just not sure that it's possible.

Part of the perils of living in a fallen world.
Family and others would be able to petition the court just like they can now for other reasons.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
i feel like if you ever been prescribed meds for bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia you should get on a no-guns list at a federal level, even if as a juvenile
This is the sort of thing I think a vast majority of people - gun owners or not - can agree on.

I'd argue there should be some avenue for those affected to try to regain their ability to own firearms, though I'm not sure exactly what that would look like. Maybe having a doctor (or multiple doctors) agree there is no longer an issue or something? Seems like it would be too easy for someone to lose a fundamental right for the rest of their lives, even if what they dealt with was temporary.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
The simple truth is that it may, and I emphasize may, not be possible to put measures in place which adequately prevent people who are about to snap from having access to firearms without violating a lot of people's second amendment rights.
This is the big hurdle, and why most gun owners resist 'common sense gun laws' - they typically would likely have little overall effect while potentially affecting the right of many unnecessarily.

The fundamental issue here is there are lots of firearms in this country. Unless the people wish to remove 2A, this issue simply isn't going to disappear.
 

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
The California legislature just sent these three gun control measures to the governor's desk for signature:

1) Lifetime ban on owning firearms for anyone convicted of domestic violence.
2) Lifetime firearm ban for anyone placed on involuntary psychiatric holds twice in one year.
3) Higher standard for residents to obtain a concealed weapon permit (eight hours of training and a live-fire shooting test).
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
42,213
29,373
287
Vinings, ga., usa
The California legislature just sent these three gun control measures to the governor's desk for signature:

1) Lifetime ban on owning firearms for anyone convicted of domestic violence.
2) Lifetime firearm ban for anyone placed on involuntary psychiatric holds twice in one year.
3) Higher standard for residents to obtain a concealed weapon permit (eight hours of training and a live-fire shooting test).
#2 might still be a problem. It seems most of the time the crazy one wasn’t the one who purchased the guns, it was their crazy kid.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.