Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dealing with Mental Health
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="trekrok" data-source="post: 4021749" data-attributes="member: 6668"><p>It's up to family and friends, imo. </p><p></p><p>Otherwise you are advocating for red flags, universal background and registration. Why is it when we start down the mental health path (which is highly relevant) do we then automatically try to tie it gun access? I mean, why wouldn't they just plow their car through a big crowd if they are intent on mass murder? Or should we just confine everyone that's flagged for an appropriate amount of time to make sure they are 'thinking' right? Should we just give up our rights to prove that there are other, equally effective ways to kill people?</p><p></p><p>Also, I would like to see an accurate accounting of what drugs (anti-depressants, anti-psychotics etc), all the shooters in the last 10-15 years were prescribed. And what their status was at the time - ie had they been taking them as prescribed, had they quit taking them?</p><p></p><p>The side effects on the tv ads for a lot of these drugs talk about suicidal thoughts. If that's a thing, it doesn't seem like homicidal thoughts would be a giant leap.</p><p></p><p>So before we talk general mental health, I'd like to see if a pill is a significant contributor.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="trekrok, post: 4021749, member: 6668"] It's up to family and friends, imo. Otherwise you are advocating for red flags, universal background and registration. Why is it when we start down the mental health path (which is highly relevant) do we then automatically try to tie it gun access? I mean, why wouldn't they just plow their car through a big crowd if they are intent on mass murder? Or should we just confine everyone that's flagged for an appropriate amount of time to make sure they are 'thinking' right? Should we just give up our rights to prove that there are other, equally effective ways to kill people? Also, I would like to see an accurate accounting of what drugs (anti-depressants, anti-psychotics etc), all the shooters in the last 10-15 years were prescribed. And what their status was at the time - ie had they been taking them as prescribed, had they quit taking them? The side effects on the tv ads for a lot of these drugs talk about suicidal thoughts. If that's a thing, it doesn't seem like homicidal thoughts would be a giant leap. So before we talk general mental health, I'd like to see if a pill is a significant contributor. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Dealing with Mental Health
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom