ADVERTISEMENT

One more gun discharge

I think guns are covered as any object when the gun is in the hands of a consumer.

There are many people who give guns a far greater deference than any other physical item. More than cars, houses, hammers, etc. Some of those people happen to be police and prosecutors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeke4ahs
The one constant in the mass shootings is the presence of SRIs and/or the broad spectrum of psychiatric amphetamines. As this becomes more widely exposed, something might be done about it.
What do you think you’re saying?
 
It used to be that the you didn't need to have your foot an the brake to move a shift lever from park to neutral. Now you do. This is a response to kids and pets shifting cars from park and the injuries that caused. Negligent design is a thing.

Edit: Here is a homework assignment.

The appropriate test to apply in such a suit is whether the product is unreasonably dangerous when used in the intended manner. This test includes an analysis of many factors, such as the usefulness of the product and a cost-benefit analysis of additional safeguards. This analysis requires an examination of the facts of the case and is usually left to the jury. The motion for summary judgment was erroneously granted. Reversed and remanded.
Because of the federal immunity laws, we cannot apply this test to semi-auto guns and high velocity ammo being sold basically without restrictions.
Fair enough, especially in the case of child triggerings. What I don't get is how making guns reasonably safe (not unreasonably dangerous) will prevent mass murders. They don't happen by accident.
 
I don’t follow. Are you saying that anti-depressant meds are causing increased gun violence?
I'm not over-generalizing, as your statement seems to suggest. I'm talking about the shift from certain depressed people going from being inactively depressed to being active mass killers, for the reasons I explained above.

There's lots types of gun violence in our society. Most of them are not mass killings.
 
I'm not over-generalizing, as your statement seems to suggest. I'm talking about the shift from certain depressed people going from being inactively depressed to being active mass killers, for the reasons I explained above.

There's lots types of gun violence in our society. Most of them are not mass killings.
I’m still lost. I’ve heard whacko right wingers easily dismiss mass shootings as being the fruit of the pharmaceutical industry and SSRIs and other similar MoA products which is laughable.

But you seem to be saying something between the lines and I can’t decipher it. No biggie.
 
In other gun news, the NRA network is no longer and Dana Loesh is out. Thoughts and prayers....
 
I’m still lost. I’ve heard whacko right wingers easily dismiss mass shootings as being the fruit of the pharmaceutical industry and SSRIs and other similar MoA products which is laughable.

But you seem to be saying something between the lines and I can’t decipher it. No biggie.
Maybe you're overthinking this. It's neither new nor complicated. Harvard.edu:

The risk that antidepressants will incite violent or self-destructive actions is the subject of continuing controversy. In 2004, the FDA first initiated a Black Box Warning on SSRIs — its strongest available measure short of withdrawing a drug from the market. The warning is still placed on package inserts for all antidepressants in common use. It mentions the risk of suicidal thoughts, hostility, and agitation in children, teens and young adults.
and in addition to hostility, there can be emotional blunting and even detachment (quoted from this):

‘Emotional blunting’ or ‘numbing’ has been described by people taking antidepressants (Faulkner, 2016), and particularly Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).

According to Sansone and Sansone (2010) it is characterised by an insidious onset, dose-dependence (with higher doses causing more symptoms) and complete resolution with discontinuation of the offending drug. They describe 2 elements to the experience:
  • a behavioural syndrome of apathy and low motivation
  • an emotional aspect of indifference, diminution of responsiveness and detachment.
and:

Emotion blunting may be experienced as both a helpful and unhelpful phenomenon. At a low level it may help a person to detach from their immediate problems, but at a higher level it can be very disabling.​

Brief history of using amphetamines for depression:

Depression
From the 1930s, amphetamine was used to treat affective disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD), and schizophrenia.

However, in the 1950s and 1960s, amid growing concern about its adverse effects, it was replaced by newly available antidepressants.

In rare cases, amphetamines are used alongside standard antidepressants to treat some types of depression that do not respond to other treatments, especially in people who also experience fatigue and apathy.

In a study that followed 65 patients taking amphetamines alongside normal medication, 38 "showed significant improvement, in particular with respect to energy, mood, and psychomotor activity."

According to the authors, side effects were minimal, and no drug dependency was seen.​

College students and others often use Adderal or similar amphetamines to "self-medicate: for their depression but it's not effective and can exacerbate depression and cause anxiety, among other side effects:

Specifically, using stimulants to self-medicate depression is counterproductive, as stimulants can precipitate depressive symptoms and exacerbate existing depression. Likewise, amphetamine stimulants can cause a host of adverse symptoms such as cardiac dysrhythmias, anxiety, high blood pressure, difficulty sleeping, diarrhea, dizziness, and unsteadiness.9
~~~

In short, one needn't be a genius to see that a depressed person who is detached from his emotions and juiced up with amphetamines can go on a killing rampage. Lilly has paid millions and millions to cover up various slaughters perpetrated by those on Prozac. (my emphasis)

But earlier this year, for the first time, Lilly came up against a family in the US who would not settle. The Forsyths wanted a hearing. Internal documents belonging to Lilly were produced in court. And although Lilly won the case - the jury decided it could not hold it responsible for Bill Forsyth Sr's death - it may have lost the argument, for those documents showed that Lilly knew as long as 20 years ago that Prozac can produce in some people a strange, agitated state of mind that can trigger in them an unstoppable urge to commit suicide or murder.
That article is from 1999. A lot of good that knowledge did. Even at that time there were more than 200 lawsuits against Ely Lilly:

Some 200 cases have come to court in the US. Victims and families of killers have sued the multi-national Eli Lilly, manufacturers of the world's most commercially successful drug. Until recently, not one case reached a verdict. Either it was dropped, or Lilly settled out of court, sometimes for millions of dollars - Lilly's defence has always been the same: blame the disease, not the drug. Depressed people get put on Prozac. Depressed people are often suicidal. Keep on taking the tablets.
~~~

In any case, sooner or later things will change.
 
Fair enough, especially in the case of child triggerings. What I don't get is how making guns reasonably safe (not unreasonably dangerous) will prevent mass murders. They don't happen by accident.

In my view a case can be made that a weapon like an AR15 which combines semi-auto and highly destructive high velocity ammo is an ultra-hazardous device that shouldn't be in the steam of commerce at all, or at least sold under conditions where the seller has a heightened duty of care in vetting the consumer. Add a bump stock to the mix and the ultra-hazardous case is a no-brainer. For those who might argue the semi-auto AR and high velocity ammo is a hunting weapon would need to convince me why a bolt-action firing mechanism is not satisfactory.

I think a case can also be made against manufacturers who distribute guns of all types in areas that the market suggests is beyond the needs of the market. This is one theory of the cases against opioid producers.

A case can also be made that the gun retailer should have "know your customer" standards of care similar to what the government imposed on the financial industry after the 2008 meltdown.

I think these three things, and maybe others, would result from repealing the gun industry immunity laws. This would obviate the need for more and more laws and regulations that the democrats keep yammering about whenever we have a shooting incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
In my view a case can be made that a weapon like an AR15 which combines semi-auto and highly destructive high velocity ammo is an ultra-hazardous device that shouldn't be in the steam of commerce at all, or at least sold under conditions where the seller has a heightened duty of care in vetting the consumer. Add a bump stock to the mix and the ultra-hazardous case is a no-brainer. For those who might argue the semi-auto AR and high velocity ammo is a hunting weapon would need to convince me why a bolt-action firing mechanism is not satisfactory.

I think a case can also be made against manufacturers who distribute guns of all types in areas that the market suggests is beyond the needs of the market. This is one theory of the cases against opioid producers.

A case can also be made that the gun retailer should have "know your customer" standards of care similar to what the government imposed on the financial industry after the 2008 meltdown.

I think these three things, and maybe others, would result from repealing the gun industry immunity laws. This would obviate the need for more and more laws and regulations that the democrats keep yammering about whenever we have a shooting incident.
Spoken like a true lawyer.

Also, bump stocks have been outlawed already, if I’m not mistaken.
 
Spoken like a true lawyer.

Also, bump stocks have been outlawed already, if I’m not mistaken.
It’s spoken well and is a legitimate path forward. If that draws a snarky “spoken like a true lawyer” childish comment from you, and you’ll turn on yet another real conservative in your allegiance to something you don’t understand or want to really understand.

This is why real conservatives can’t have nice things anymore. Thanks bud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
It’s spoken well and is a legitimate path forward. If that draws a snarky “spoken like a true lawyer” childish comment from you, and you’ll turn on yet another real conservative in your allegiance to something you don’t understand or want to really understand.

This is why real conservatives can’t have nice things anymore. Thanks bud.
Ha ha ha. Right.

First of all, I’m not “turning” on anyone. I was being facetious. I’ve known CO’s position on this since I joined here and while I think he’s wrong, I respect his opinion.

Secondly, and most hilarious, thanks for deciding who gets to be a “real conservative”. That’s pretty awesome. It’s incredibly conceited and ignorant, but still awesome for the laughs alone.

So, thanks for the laughs, bud.
 
Thanks. Why would I assume any good and useful gun control action of the Trump Administration would be widely reported?

It was widely reported. It is just there is some guy in this big round office who is terrible about stepping on his own message.
 
Not charge her.
Why? She broke into his apartment to steal what he had already been ordered by a judge to surrender.

Seems like they had to charge her.

Seems like none of this has anything to do with the NRA.

I get that they’re the big bad boogeyman for many of you, but this has literally nothing to do with them.
 
Safety first:

Douglas Artry, who carries a concealed weapon, believes the Kroger incident was irresponsible.

“I don’t know what that guy was doing for it to go off, I hate that it happened,” said Artry, who carries a concealed weapon. “Having it out where people can see it, to me that’s asking for trouble.”

He admitted his own reaction would have been immediate.

“I probably would have went for mine’s not knowing if somebody’s trying to rob Kroger or do something,” he said. “My main concern is keeping my daughter and grand baby safe.”​
 
Safety first:

Douglas Artry, who carries a concealed weapon, believes the Kroger incident was irresponsible.

“I don’t know what that guy was doing for it to go off, I hate that it happened,” said Artry, who carries a concealed weapon. “Having it out where people can see it, to me that’s asking for trouble.”

He admitted his own reaction would have been immediate.

“I probably would have went for mine’s not knowing if somebody’s trying to rob Kroger or do something,” he said. “My main concern is keeping my daughter and grand baby safe.”​

Can we ask the question - how loony do you have to be to think you need to carry a gun to buy groceries? If you are that scared of society, you need therapy. Not a gun.
 
Can we ask the question - how loony do you have to be to think you need to carry a gun to buy groceries? If you are that scared of society, you need therapy. Not a gun.
Or....Maybe people just want to be protected in the event something happens.

Do you lock your doors at night? Odds of someone actually breaking into your home are unlikely. Yet I’m sure you lock your doors. You must be loony.
 
Last edited:
Or....Maybe people just want to be protected in the event something happens.

Do you lock your doors at night? Odds of someone actually breaking into your home are unlikely. Yet I’m sure you lock your doors. You must be loony.

So locked doors = carrying a gun???

Talk about false equivalency.
 
So locked doors = carrying a gun???

Talk about false equivalency.
Lol. How so? Both can protect you. I'm saying that liberals often use that same line highlighting that violence/mass public shootings happen so infrequently that we shouldn't need to carry a gun to a grocery store (in this example I responded to). So along those same lines, home invasions happen so infrequently, why would anyone need to lock their own doors? School shootings happen so infrequently, why would we need to lock our schools down? Why would we even need gun control? See? The argument is idiotic. We do things to prevent bad stuff from happening. Carrying a firearm is another way to do so. You liberals just can't handle it.
 
Lol. How so? Both can protect you. I'm saying that liberals often use that same line highlighting that violence/mass public shootings happen so infrequently that we shouldn't need to carry a gun to a grocery store (in this example I responded to). So along those same lines, home invasions happen so infrequently, why would anyone need to lock their own doors? School shootings happen so infrequently, why would we need to lock our schools down? Why would we even need gun control? See? The argument is idiotic. We do things to prevent bad stuff from happening. Carrying a firearm is another way to do so. You liberals just can't handle it.

Why stop at guns? Why not bear all the arms? Bazookas, grenades, missile launchers? If we are going to do this, let's do it right.
 
Why stop at guns? Why not bear all the arms? Bazookas, grenades, missile launchers? If we are going to do this, let's do it right.
Or maybe we should ban all guns and sharp objects. I'm sure all the bad people and criminals will follow those laws. Maybe if a criminal with an illegal gun or knife approaches you, maybe you can just ask them to pretty, pretty, pretty please leave you alone. That should do the trick. Maybe ask if they'd like a hug instead. I'm sure that will be enough to stop violence.
 
Or maybe we should ban all guns and sharp objects. I'm sure all the bad people and criminals will follow those laws. Maybe if a criminal with an illegal gun or knife approaches you, maybe you can just ask them to pretty, pretty, pretty please leave you alone. That should do the trick. Maybe ask if they'd like a hug instead. I'm sure that will be enough to stop violence.

And maybe you can shoot him, or the innocent people next to him, or maybe he will be quicker on the draw and shoot you and a few innocent bystanders, or maybe another gun carrier will open fire and shoot you thinking you are the criminal, or maybe a policeman will shoot you because you are pointing a gun, or maybe while the policeman is having to figure out who the bad guy is, the bad guy will shoot him, or maybe you will shoot yourself as you are drawing out your gun, or maybe the bad guy is just a little more desperate than you, and even though you shoot him, he takes hostages and he, or you, shoot them...
 
And maybe you can shoot him, or the innocent people next to him, or maybe he will be quicker on the draw and shoot you and a few innocent bystanders, or maybe another gun carrier will open fire and shoot you thinking you are the criminal, or maybe a policeman will shoot you because you are pointing a gun, or maybe while the policeman is having to figure out who the bad guy is, the bad guy will shoot him, or maybe you will shoot yourself as you are drawing out your gun, or maybe the bad guy is just a little more desperate than you, and even though you shoot him, he takes hostages and he, or you, shoot them...
 
You're right! BAN ALL GUNS! Bad guys will follow the rules. Hell, might as well get rid of locks now. No longer need them. We have laws people follow. No need to worry about crime or criminals any longer! Whew. What a relief. I'm so glad the loony libs figured this whole mess out. I'm just going to carry a list of all the laws out there and make sure if I'm ever confronted by a criminal, I'll just tell them about the law they're trying to break. They'll listen and stop. I'm positive.

Nah, let's just arm everyone!!!! Biggest gun wins!!! Let's all build compounds with tanks and land mines, and cannons. Then there will be no crime at all. I'm just going to carry around a missile launcher, and all the criminals will be scared, and all crime will cease to exist!!! I'm positive!!!
 
What do you think you’re saying?

The problem with that argument is miillions of people take anti depressants, anti anxiety, or amphetamines. They dont cause violent behavior overall. I would equate bullying, home life, media consumed online, and ideology way higher on the list of grievances that would cause a human to massacre others.

Of course there are people out there that just want to watch the world burn.
 
The latest in Bton is a guy who was wrestling on the bed with his young son, with a Glock in his pants waist. Gun supposedly fell out, discharged, and shot them both in the head. Father is okay, son is in Riley in critical condition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
ADVERTISEMENT