A rational start to help prevent future mass shootings.

This is my first thread, so please be gentle.

Most of these shootings have a common link, (besides the use of guns) and that is a history of mental illness and use of anti-depressant medication. Having said that, I do not believe by just being on an anti-depressant medication prescription is enough to hinder one from acquiring a firearm, but those medical providers who issue the anti-depressants (IMO) are the public's first line of defense from these incidents.

With the medical field moving to EMR ( Electronic Medical Records), providers are now more connected than ever. I feel that having a provider who issues anti-depressants to patients should have a process in which they can evaluate the patient with certain questions and certain situations to determine if the patient in question is a risk to own, or in certain cases, live in a household with access to firearms.

I understand that this will not fix the problem completely, but I think this is a great staring point. With the vast education process our medical providers go through, I feel they are more than qualified to fill this role.

-Moonwalker

a reply to: Skymoonwalker

"This is my first thread, so please be gentle."

On a gun thread, on ATS...

Good luck with that.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Yea exactly what he said.

I myself am new and have posted something similar. I can tell your intentions are good, and don't argue your point, in fact I agree, however don't think people won't give you a hard time, they will. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it may help you to form new or more informed opinions on the matter.

But people are brutal and they always will be.

Good vibes to you friend!

a reply to: Skymoonwalker

You have balls I'll give you that for your first thread. SnF for that alone.

There was an article posted on here about a year ago that explored the link between SSRI's and shooters. I'll see if I can find it and link it here, unless someone beats me to it. If I remember correctly the post surmised SSRI's are beneficial for most who take them, but a very small percentage have very negative mental outcomes from taking them.

Anyway, as jonjonj said, Good luck.

Now people won't get help for mental issues because they are afraid some d-bag is going to try to take their Constitutional rights. Bad idea.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Skymoonwalker

"This is my first thread, so please be gentle."

On a gun thread, on ATS...

Good luck with that.

All too true no matter what the opinion.

But don't let that deter you Sky and welcome!

a reply to: Skymoonwalker

This is the way rational discussion on the problem of mass shootings should be started. Hat's off to you, sir.

We should recognize that guns have been around in this country since the beginning, but these mass shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon. So what has changed? Are these new antidepressant meds part of the problem? Is it a combination of factors? What are the common factors? Before we try to fix a problem, we need a clear understanding of the causes.

I'm not exactly a gun enthusiast, but I do have home protection and I'm seriously considering getting a concealed weapons permit. I'm not one to attempt to deny anyone their rights without good and clear reason.

Fingers crossed this thread doesn't degenerate into personal attacks and name calling. Frowny face to anyone that uses the term "gun-nut." You don't see anyone being called an abortion-nut or marriage-nut or vote-nut because they want to exercise their rights.

a reply to: DrumStickNinja

The thing is that although SSRI's will only cause these problems in a small percentage, there is a huge number of citizens regularly taking these meds. if 15 million people are on some form of SSRI, even 1/10 of a percent equals 15,000 people WHO will become hostile, violent, and pursue and act out thoughts of violence against others.

Maybe people should not be taking these medications after all??? I say we should ban the brain chemistry altering meds IMO.

I think it's the thread by Hefficide. I'd find it, but my phone is meh today.
a reply to: DrumStickNinja

step 1: begin removing arsenic, mercury, pharmceuticals, etc, etc from our food and water supply while continuing our war on lead contamination


thats it. remove the toxins that decrease mental capacity from the daily intake of humans, and mental health will improve.

But really....violent crime is already divebombing. It seems the only pony that can be trotted out for fear mongering in the spree killer. And while their individual crimes are horrifyingly shocking, the aggregate numbers still show that less of these tragedies happen on a personal level from one day to the next.

Firstly stop your Government from using mainstream media to brain wash people about the good guys and the bad guys, so to speak, ethnicity, religion, terrorists and all sorts of mind destructive propaganda stuff that gives people ideas about what to do with their guns.

Basically citizens are left blaming each from withing a system run by elected people who bend over to the guys with the money who make the rules at the end of the day.

It's complicated alright, it ain't a simply solution when a majority of people let it happen and some a so patriotic and are oblivious to the high level corruption that's rife in US politics.

That's my to cents on the GUN control debate and all other inequality BS flooding the mainstream media.

Peace

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

what really kicks me in the gut is the tendency to blame "society" as if it were some nebulous individual that was personally responsible.

We give a free pass to the individuals, and instead place the burden of blame on "society". It isn't weak minded little turds not exercising control of their behavior....its us. You and me. We are the blame.

The notion of personal responsibility has set beyond the horizon. Which means that to be "reasonable", since I share the blame, I have to also share the punishment. Obviously, being a product of "society", I am not trustworthy with a firearm.

a reply to: Skymoonwalker
Nice avatar!
So, Lincoln wouldn't have been allowed to own a gun? *__-

a reply to: Skymoonwalker

I don't disagree with the logic behind this, but the problem therein lies with the people tasked to determine if said individual is unfit to own or live with firearms. What if that doctor happens to be a closet anti-gun individual and abuses that power to flag individuals on certain meds? What if the government grabs control of that power and just does a one-size-fits-all ban on individuals using certain meds from owning or living with guns?

What you're doing is not only condemning some of these people who show no signs of being negatively affected by the meds to a life without a guaranteed right, but you're also disarming a household from one of the best ways to defend themselves from individuals who may be mentally unstable (all while possibly living with someone with negative side effects from an anti-depressant medication). So, now you've removed a guaranteed right from an entire household based on premise that maybe this person might could possibly perhaps but maybe not commit a violent firearm-related crime.

I fully get that this is a complicated issue, but as an avid supporter of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, I must say that I prefer to live with the inconveniences of too many freedoms than with the inconveniences of not enough freedom.

This is not Minority Report...we shouldn't strip away freedoms from people because of a possible future action that hasn't happened.

For the record, I support the 2nd amendment whole heartedly. Having been in the military (infantry) and growing up in rural Tennessee, I am well acclimated to being around firearms and those who are packing them.

I was not suggesting that we strip the patient's 2nd amend rights simply for being on anti-depressants. Only in the select few cases in which the provider sees actual red flags in the consultation should this process be applied.

I understand it has it's pros and cons, but it makes more sense to me than anything I've heard from the anti gun movement.

a reply to: Skymoonwalker

While i am not a fan of the fallacy, i can't help but see the huge risk of the slippery slope here.

We already see Conspiracy Theorists being branded as "mentally ill". All it takes is for popular consensus to agree (even if by silence).

15 years ago I would have never, in a million years, guessed that we would have a Grope and Rope before boarding a plane, or that we would have mass surveillance of US citizens. The unthinkable is thinkable now.

Instead of blaming guns and gun owners, I prefer to blame government. They are the ones that have kept promising it would be safer with each encroachment. The opposite seems to be happening. My tax dollars sure ain't being given freely...i expect a return on that investment. And, at the bare minimum, i expect what is advertised.