Another mass shooting...

Quote from: markjo on November 07, 2017, 08:40:42 PM

Quote from: disputeone on November 07, 2017, 08:26:06 PM

There's a clear link between anti-depressants and mass shootings.

Citation from one of the media outlets owned by the federal reserve please.

You win again.
The TV is the true measure of the truth. I'll chase up some statistical data later

Busy now.

Okay, so you admit that you have no credible sources.  Good to know.

There is a chicken or the egg conversation to be had about mass shooters being on medications.  You'll claim it's the medicine causing them to do this because evil of this sort is not in human nature because love. I don't think the answer is so cut and dry.

Why ask me when you can turn on your TV and watch news owned by big pharma about big pharma?

They would report honestly about themselves. It's not like they want to make money.

Wait....

D1, all simple answers, all the time.

No simple answers here.

I think we should re-evaluate giving SSRI's to people who just feel blue.

The side effects can be quite extreme.

Why ask me when you can turn on your TV and watch news owned by big pharma about big pharma?

They would report honestly about themselves. It's not like they want to make money.

Wait....

Who do you think would report honestly about anti-depressants and mass shootings?  I'm not kidding.  Who do you trust to tell the truth and why do you trust them?

Yeah, no. Indeed.

Quote from: disputeone on November 07, 2017, 08:48:25 PM

Why ask me when you can turn on your TV and watch news owned by big pharma about big pharma?

They would report honestly about themselves. It's not like they want to make money.

Wait....

Who do you think would report honestly about anti-depressants and mass shootings?  I'm not kidding.  Who do you trust to tell the truth and why do you trust them?

People who have no vested interest in what they are doing. I would accept police statistics.

I wouldn't trust google to tell me about their privacy policy for instance.

The people I trust most don't take credit or seek a reward for telling the truth.

We are everywhere.

No simple answers here.

I think we should re-evaluate giving SSRI's to people who just feel blue.

The side effects can be quite extreme.

Walked into a doctors office one day. Feeling a bit run down from the many hours doing 2 jobs. Walked out with a prescription for an SSRI anti depressant (maybe Zoloft) and Valium.

Read the side effects for the SSRI was weight gain and suicidal ideation amongst other crap. Figured 'F#&k this shit!' And never bothered with it. The medication is also designed in such a way that once you take it, you MUST keep taking it otherwise it can really screw you if you decide you've had enough.

I get the feeling that doctors get bonuses or commissions if they meet quotas for prescribing 'x' amount of medication. It makes it difficult to trust they are doing what's best for me if they have a personal stake in the advice or prescriptions they give.

I get the feeling that doctors get bonuses or commissions if they meet quotas for prescribing 'x' amount of medication. It makes it difficult to trust they are doing what's best for me if they have a personal stake in the advice or prescriptions they give.

This.

PM me anytime if you fancy a chat.

I think we should re-evaluate giving SSRI's to people who just feel blue.

Docs that are giving ssri's to people that don't really need them are bad docs. Simple as that.
(also: people are lazy. They rather take the "wonder pill" that makes them feel good, instead of doing sports, eating healthy, quit smoking etc.)

Walked into a doctors office one day. Feeling a bit run down from the many hours doing 2 jobs. Walked out with a prescription for an SSRI anti depressant (maybe Zoloft) and Valium.

Pretty sure that's not enough indication for prescribing you an antidepressant. Just a lazy doc.

I get the feeling that doctors get bonuses or commissions if they meet quotas for prescribing 'x' amount of medication.

Where I live, they don't, and that's good.

There's a clear link between anti-depressants and mass shootings.

The link probably is, that depressed people have a higher tendency to go for a mass shooting, and depressed people have a higher chance of using/having used an antidepressant. But who knows, perhaps some antidepressants have the side effects of lowering your inhibition threshold.
Anyway, source still needed.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

The Air Force failed in adding the criminal conduct to his background. So it's not a matter of more gun laws but rather the lack of enfircement of current laws.

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

It's nearly like big pharma is run for profit and not for the health of the people.

All companies are run for profits.  Its called capitalism.  They are run for the benefits of shareholders - they have no other reason to exist.

What do you suggest as the solution?  Nationalisation is one option.  Deep and heavily enforced regulation is another.

Neither of which has any chance in the USA right now.  Nationalisation is socialism, and socialism is bad m'kay.  And the current regime is tearing up regulations all over the place.

They really need to ban mass shooting hoaxes and cut back on medications,both would reallyhelp a lot.

They are run for the benefits of shareholders - they have no other reason to exist.

I disagree. Not everyone is driven by purely capitalistic reasons.

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 06:10:30 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

The security of a free State.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 06:45:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 06:10:30 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

The security of a free State.

I thought you had an oversized and overfunded army for that?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 08, 2017, 05:05:01 AM

They are run for the benefits of shareholders - they have no other reason to exist.

I disagree. Not everyone is driven by purely capitalistic reasons.

I never said they were - that would be silly.

However publicly traded companies, such as pharmaceutical firms, only exist to provide benefit to their shareholders.  In fact they are legally obliged to maximise the return on investment to their investors.  Everyone else can get fucked.  That's the system.

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 06:10:30 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

The imminent zombie apocalypse.  Or all out nuclear war with North Korea.  Whichever comes first.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 06:45:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 06:10:30 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

The imminent zombie apocalypse.  Or all out nuclear war with North Korea.  Whichever comes first.

The zombie apocalypse I understand, but why would a war with North Korea require an average hick in some small American town need a semi automatic for?

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 11:32:38 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 06:45:10 AM

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 06:10:30 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

The imminent zombie apocalypse.  Or all out nuclear war with North Korea.  Whichever comes first.

The zombie apocalypse I understand, but why would a war with North Korea require an average hick in some small American town need a semi automatic for?

Don't underestimate them, they gonna shoot the missile down themselfes!

Well they did defeat those hurricanes eventually. Good thing you guys had those guns you could shoot at the storm. I see your point

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 07, 2017, 04:21:03 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 07, 2017, 04:58:36 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 06, 2017, 07:16:03 PM

Once he fills out the form, they run it through NCIS. Any information that doesn't line up to his answers can delay or outright deny him. Depending on what he answered, he could be charged with perjury.

OOOH, THAT WILL PUT HIM IN HIS PLACE NOW!

The Air Force failed in adding the criminal conduct to his background. So it's not a matter of more gun laws but rather the lack of enfircement of current laws.

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

So you want to ban pistols and double action revolvers that emulate semi automatic fire?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

The VTech shooter used ten round magazines and pistols and he committed the largest mass shooting until Orlando.

Banning pistols might actually go a long way toward reducing homicides.

Quote from: markjo on November 08, 2017, 06:10:30 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on November 08, 2017, 04:27:12 AM

How about enforcing current laws PLUS new laws, such as prohibiting sale of semi automatics?

I'm all for common sense gun laws, but I don't think that semiautomatics should be banned outright.  However, I can see a case for limiting/banning high capacity magazines.

What's a use for semiautomatics that makes up for the risk?

The allowence of quick follow up shots in case the furst round didn't stopped the threats or in the case of multiple threats.

Banning pistols might actually go a long way toward reducing homicides.

I would like to see evidence.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on November 08, 2017, 12:59:00 PM

Banning pistols might actually go a long way toward reducing homicides.

I would like to see evidence.

Pistols seem to be used in quite a few cases of homicide and also gang related violence. Pistols can be easily concealed while it'd be more difficult to conceal a long arm. Thus, if gangsters can't hide their weapon, they may be less likely to openly carry one reducing homicides in the process.