2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: hvybarrels on October 25, 2023, 05:48:32 PM
-
News is saying that the shooter was a firearms instructor and national guardsman who was recently treated at a psych facility. Still at large.
https://www.kitv.com/news/crime/firearms-instructor-treated-at-mental-health-facility-is-person-of-interest-in-maine-shooting-cops/article_88497727-0f61-51c4-9917-33796609ee3e.html
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/kitv.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/84/184d02a8-739b-11ee-bdf7-67b659c46d44/6539ba3df2182.image.jpg?resize=729%2C500)
-
Once again, zero armed people. Unknown if gun free zones.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Once again, zero armed people. Unknown if gun free zones.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You know there were no armed people, or you’re assuming?
-
So if this was Oahu. Both locations Could be "Sensitive" unless the "Signage" showing "Guns OK". The question is knowing that, would I still carry?
The other issue is that the "Anti Gunners" will have a "field day" and will TRY to RESTRICT our 2A Rights.
Heard that the Local Police did have an interaction in July with this person who was then sent to a Mental Facility. Did they Seize his gun(s)? Did they flag his Federal File? I think these questions needs to be answered.
here we go!
Be safe everyone!
Aloha!
-
So if this was Oahu. Both locations Could be "Sensitive" unless the "Signage" showing "Guns OK". The question is knowing that, would I still carry?
The other issue is that the "Anti Gunners" will have a "field day" and will TRY to RESTRICT our 2A Rights.
Heard that the Local Police did have an interaction in July with this person who was then sent to a Mental Facility. Did they Seize his gun(s)? Did they flag his Federal File? I think these questions needs to be answered.
here we go!
Be safe everyone!
Aloha!
The place targeted serves alcohol. Depending on their policy toward concealed carry, if allowed, then you can carry unless you are drinking. If not allowed, then the business has the right to make it a gun free zone.
i did some looking yesterday, and could not find that company's policy one way or another regarding concealed carry.
From a 2A perspective, Maine has had permit-less carry since 2015 IIRC. If you are legally able to own a firearm, you can carry one concealed in public with no additional reuirements. So, the state is supporting self-defense rights. It's the establishment which may or may not be as supportive.
-
and here it comes: https://www.yahoo.com/news/maine-massacre-suspect-anti-transgender-120853126.html
The suspect in a Maine mass shooting, Robert Card, has been revealed to hold extremist right-wing views, particularly against the transgender community.
The massacre, which began on Wednesday evening shortly before 7 p.m., has left 18 dead and 13 injured, according to a briefing from the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills.
An arrest warrant has now been issued, charging Card, 40, with eight counts of murder, a figure expected to rise as more victims are identified.
Card has retweeted far-right figures and their transphobic views, according to news site Heavy.
Card’s digital activity on X showcases his support for damaging narratives propagated by right-wing personalities Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr. Following a separate mass shooting incident in Nashville in March, Carlson posted inflammatory remarks on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“The trans movement, it turns out, is the mirror image of Christianity, and therefore its natural enemy. People who believe they’re God can’t stand to be reminded that they’re not,” Carlson said
-
Once again, zero armed people. Unknown if gun free zones.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Maine is a constitutional carry state and has few gun restrictions. Cannot carry while under the influence, but no sensitive places law like in Hawaii.
If someone was carrying, it would've been a very difficult situation. A skilled military rifleman is very dangerous and the odds of an average CCW guy taking him down is very low. Though still better than no chance without a gun. Takes at least 3 fairly skilled pistol shooters working together to even the odds.
-
Maine is a constitutional carry state and has few gun restrictions. Cannot carry while under the influence, but no sensitive places law like in Hawaii.
If someone was carrying, it would've been a very difficult situation. A skilled military rifleman is very dangerous and the odds of an average CCW guy taking him down is very low. Though still better than no chance without a gun. Takes at least 3 fairly skilled pistol shooters working together to even the odds.
Just stop with this narrative. A "skilled military rifleman" is NOT dangerous. A mentally deranged person is. All Army and Marine service members are skilled with rifles - if not they would not graduate from basic recruit training. What next chefs are skilled with knives so that makes them dangerous?
-
Its interesting how quickly (dis)information is spread these days. the shooter hasnt even been caught yet and they are already digging through a persons digital and personal history and using it to craft some kind of narrative. Less than 12 hours ago it was "at least 22 dead", now its 18 dead. I guess 4 people came back to life?
-
Its interesting how quickly (dis)information is spread these days. the shooter hasnt even been caught yet and they are already digging through a persons digital and personal history and using it to craft some kind of narrative. Less than 12 hours ago it was "at least 22 dead", now its 18 dead. I guess 4 people came back to life?
Yeah. I caught a little bit of that "speculation and sensationalization" last night when I caught some bits on network TV. There was one interview with an official in Maine, which I thought handled the questions great. Including stating what was fact, declining speculation, knowing potential ramifications of getting bad (or premature) info out.
-
Just stop with this narrative. A "skilled military rifleman" is NOT dangerous. A mentally deranged person is. All Army and Marine service members are skilled - if not they would not graduate from basic recruit training.
Derangement and evil is a separate attribute from being skilled. I'm not saying all military rifleman are deranged. I am saying if there were 2 deranged persons, one being a skilled military rifleman and another being your average gun owner (shoots their gun once a year or less), the skilled military rifleman would be able to kill more people and survive armed encounters better.
Just being deranged doesn't indicate skill level.
And not all military is skilled to the same degree and you very well know that. Basic training is the bare minimum standard to pass. infantry on average are at a higher standard in marksmanship and tactics than support . Same with professionally trained military firearms instructors. And special forces more so.
-
Derangement and evil is a separate attribute from being skilled. I'm not saying all military rifleman are deranged. I am saying if there were 2 deranged persons, one being a skilled military rifleman and another being your average gun owner (shoots their gun once a year or less), the skilled military rifleman would be able to kill more people and survive armed encounters better.
Just being deranged doesn't indicate skill level.
And not all military is skilled to the same degree and you very well know that. Basic training is the bare minimum standard to pass. infantry on average are at a higher standard in average in marksmanship and tactics than support . Same with professionally trained military firearms instructors. And special forces more so.
I did not know how to shoot a centerfire rifle till I enlisted and graduated from basic recruit training. I left with a skill. That skill doesn't make me any more dangerous than a sane person driving a car. Going with this narrative about "skills" - how about a background check for anyone looking to attend firearms training classes because "skills" makes them "more" dangerous?
Aren't you an NRA instructor? What do your students leave with?
-
That ex-FBI director or something that Fox drummed up for critique really harped on how "skilled" the gunman looked based on the pics took from surveillance cameras.
Talked about rifle to shoulder, stance, etc.
The gunman walked into places where the people were unsuspecting, whether they were armed or not.
Different story if these people were aware and anticipating.
That's the problem with these coward mass shooters. Whether they are "skilled" or "amateur".
Try come at me while I'm waiting for you......
-
I did not know how to shoot a centerfire rifle till I enlisted and graduated from basic recruit training. I left with a skill. That skill doesn't make me any more dangerous than a sane person driving a car. Going with this narrative about "skills" - how about a background check for anyone looking to attend firearms training classes because "skills" makes them "more" dangerous?
Aren't you an NRA instructor? What do your students leave with?
I was referring to only firearms skills. If the point is to compare it to other methods and situations, ya totally agree. It takes no skill to set fire to a crowded building or ram people in a parade or poison the punchbowl or go after a preschool. This results in more deaths.
This shooter is different as he wants people to know he did it. He didn't use a car or do something else. That he chose his victims on purpose and saw the fear in them up close. He's still thinking cause he didn't get caught yet and didn't commit suicide as far as we know. Very tormented.
-
Since you work closely with legislators how about proposing a background check for all people who want firearms training. Or extra scrutiny for military members with SF or infantry experience who want to acquire a firearm. An enhanced, "sensitive" background check.
Skills dont make a person dangerous. Intent does.
-
Include Martial artists.
And those who want to take lessons.
-
I was referring to only firearms skills. If the point is to compare it to other methods and situations, ya totally agree. It takes no skill to set fire to a crowded building or ram people in a parade or poison the punchbowl or go after a preschool. This results in more deaths.
This shooter is different as he wants people to know he did it. He didn't use a car or do something else. That he chose his victims on purpose and saw the fear in them up close. He's still thinking cause he didn't get caught yet and didn't commit suicide as far as we know. Very tormented.
I don't want to put words in Ren's mouth (he does fine without any help).
What i think he's taking exception with is you calling "A skilled military rifleman" "very dangerous."
I get what you're saying, but this plays into the hysteria of the general public and their irrational fear of firearms. It's one of the argument they have against public carry. Someone involved in a road rage incident is "more dangerous" if they are licensed to carry a firearm. I don't think that's true, since a car or truck can be a dangerous and lethal weapon, too.
Does being a skilled military rifleman make you dangerous? If so, then most mass shooters would have been skilled military riflemen I imagine.
I think it's a better choice of words to say a skilled military rifleman can be more effective if they decide to commit mass murder. Their thought process is what's dangerous. Their skill just makes them more capable of executing their plan.
Just sayin'.
-
and here it comes: https://www.yahoo.com/news/maine-massacre-suspect-anti-transgender-120853126.html
The suspect in a Maine mass shooting, Robert Card, has been revealed to hold extremist right-wing views, particularly against the transgender community.
The massacre, which began on Wednesday evening shortly before 7 p.m., has left 18 dead and 13 injured, according to a briefing from the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills.
An arrest warrant has now been issued, charging Card, 40, with eight counts of murder, a figure expected to rise as more victims are identified.
Card has retweeted far-right figures and their transphobic views, according to news site Heavy.
Card’s digital activity on X showcases his support for damaging narratives propagated by right-wing personalities Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr. Following a separate mass shooting incident in Nashville in March, Carlson posted inflammatory remarks on X, formerly known as Twitter.
“The trans movement, it turns out, is the mirror image of Christianity, and therefore its natural enemy. People who believe they’re God can’t stand to be reminded that they’re not,” Carlson said
Hates trans, but doesn't shoot up a gay club or tranny hooker corner. I wonder what the fake news definition of transphobic is? We know that any who sides/follows/post/etc... with Tucker or Trump is defined by them as "far-right".
This is the war that the left is created. Step 1 is change the definition of things (ie change the language). Then the honest DOJ can be used to arrest people because they are defined newly as bad people.
-
Nice bump
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
-
Wait, all this info on the shooter within a few hours, but nothing much on the Tennessee school shooter? Guess the manifesto went to the same FBI agent who handled Hunters laptop.
-
I don't want to put words in Ren's mouth (he does fine without any help).
What i think he's taking exception with is you calling "A skilled military rifleman" "very dangerous."
I get what you're saying, but this plays into the hysteria of the general public and their irrational fear of firearms. It's one of the argument they have against public carry. Someone involved in a road rage incident is "more dangerous" if they are licensed to carry a firearm. I don't think that's true, since a car or truck can be a dangerous and lethal weapon, too.
Does being a skilled military rifleman make you dangerous? If so, then most mass shooters would have been skilled military riflemen I imagine.
I think it's a better choice of words to say a skilled military rifleman can be more effective if they decide to commit mass murder. Their thought process is what's dangerous. Their skill just makes them more capable of executing their plan.
Just sayin'.
There was a show on either NatGeo or like channel like 20 years ago about this. How when some people get out of the miltiary, they join a gang and teach them how to shoot or move and shoot. The show aired a video of a gang member shooting at police while taking effective cover, moving from cover to cover, and things like that.
Or are in a gang, but use joining to enhance their ability to shoot/take lives/fight. They had pics of guys in military uniforms making "gang signs".
-
https://www.foxnews.com/media/maine-community-riddled-fear-shooting-suspects-whereabouts-mystery-absolutely-terrifying
"This is something where we need to pray, read our Bibles and make sure our firearms are loaded. We're going to need any sense of peace to get through this," Pietrowicz continued.
"We're doing the right thing, sheltering in place, letting the authorities handle this. But it is certainly something where, I mean, this is just absolutely terrifying right now with what we're going through, and we just need to come together as a community and pray."
-
A friend of mine lives 100 miles from where the bowling alley is. He's a 2a guy, but 1 of those who doesn't ccw everywhere he goes. Today he is.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maine-pol-stunning-mea-culpa-231600963.html
The state lawmaker whose hometown in Maine was torn apart by a gunman wielding a sniper rifle on Wednesday issued a stunning mea culpa on Thursday, apologizing for previously voting against an assault rifle ban and vowing to do everything possible to outlaw “weapons of war.”
“The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles like the one used by the sick perpetrator of this mass killing,” said State Rep. Jared Golden, whose district includes Lewiston, where Army marksman Robert Card allegedly killed 18 people in a bowling alley and a nearby bar.
Golden conceded his prior opposition to gun control measures was based on several “misjudgments,” among them, his “fear of this dangerous world,” his determination to protect his wife and daughter in their home, and his “false confidence that our community was above this and that we could be in full control.”
Card, a trained firearms instructor in the U.S. Army Reserve, used a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets to unleash the carnage on Wednesday, officials told NBC News. Grainy photos released by cops, who were still hunting for Card on Thursday night, appeared to show a second magazine attached to his high-powered weapon.
If you knew nothing about firearms etc. What are the key elements you would take away from this article?
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maine-pol-stunning-mea-culpa-231600963.html
The state lawmaker whose hometown in Maine was torn apart by a gunman wielding a sniper rifle on Wednesday issued a stunning mea culpa on Thursday, apologizing for previously voting against an assault rifle ban and vowing to do everything possible to outlaw “weapons of war.”
“The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles like the one used by the sick perpetrator of this mass killing,” said State Rep. Jared Golden, whose district includes Lewiston, where Army marksman Robert Card allegedly killed 18 people in a bowling alley and a nearby bar.
Golden conceded his prior opposition to gun control measures was based on several “misjudgments,” among them, his “fear of this dangerous world,” his determination to protect his wife and daughter in their home, and his “false confidence that our community was above this and that we could be in full control.”
Card, a trained firearms instructor in the U.S. Army Reserve, used a sniper rifle with .308 caliber bullets to unleash the carnage on Wednesday, officials told NBC News. Grainy photos released by cops, who were still hunting for Card on Thursday night, appeared to show a second magazine attached to his high-powered weapon.
If you knew nothing about firearms etc. What are the key elements you would take away from this article?
Emotion gets bills passed into law.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ljvDD8BzC8
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKxROV3-Tr0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTdxhpOuylo
-
Maine is not the first state to have a reservist commit mass murder.
The term "going postal' was coined to describe the mass shooting in Edmund, OK. The perp was an Air Force reservist who, among other duties, taught firearm classes at Tinker AFB. My supervisor at the time had taken his class.
Patrick Henry Sherrill (November 13, 1941 – August 20, 1986) was born in Watonga,
Oklahoma, and had served in the United States Marine Corps. Sherrill was described
as a loner by those who knew him.[14] He was considered an expert marksman,[1]
gaining experience in small-arms through being in the Oklahoma Air National Guard,[5]
in which he was a member of a pistol team.[1]
Also, Maine is not the first state to suffer a mass shooting by a military member with a known mental health problem and still allowed to purchase and possess firearms.
Texas church shooter Devin Kelley escaped from a psychiatric hospital five years
before carrying out the worst mass killing in Texas history, according to a police
report released on Tuesday.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooter-devin-kelley-once-escaped-from-a-psychiatric-hospital-while-in-the-air-force
Kelley had previously served in the U.S. Air Force, and was stationed at Holloman
Air Force Base in New Mexico from 2010 until his discharge in 2014, an Air Force
spokesperson confirmed to Fox News.
He was court-martialed in 2012 for assaulting his wife and his child, and later received
a bad conduct discharge from the Air Force, in addition to confinement for 12 months,
and was reduced in rank.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/texas-church-shooter-devin-patrick-kelley-served-in-air-force-was-court-martialed-for-assaulting-wife-child
This is why the Air Force was found "mostly at fault" for the worst mass shooting in Texas' history. Even with 2 massive red flags -- mental illness and domestic abuse/assault -- he was never reported to the FBI for this information to be part of NICS. He simply checked the boxes he needed to in order to purchase his weapon, and the NICS check had no reason to deny him.
I'm sure i can find other examples of military members or shooters known to suffer mental illness prior to the mass murders, but just these two show that, even when the system's design should have caught the perp buying a firearm, it failed miserably.
The solution to failing to enforce existing gun laws should not be "make more laws."
-
If they really wanted to save lives, they would address mental health issues. But confiscating guns is more important. Those lives in Maine would have been spared if they addressed the shooters mental health signals.
Are our nation's leaders really concerned with saving people's lives? Or is there another, more important agenda.......
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vp-harris-follow-australia-s-example-confiscate-american-s-guns/ar-AA1iWWcr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=33b2137149e049078fa670064e4df84c&ei=14
-
If they really wanted to save lives, they would address mental health issues. But confiscating guns is more important. Those lives in Maine would have been spared if they addressed the shooters mental health signals.
Are our nation's leaders really concerned with saving people's lives? Or is there another, more important agenda.......
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vp-harris-follow-australia-s-example-confiscate-american-s-guns/ar-AA1iWWcr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=33b2137149e049078fa670064e4df84c&ei=14
...
This commentary has also led some gun activists to imply that Australia's reforms amounted
to a "surrender" of firearms ownership.
Despite this, evidence suggests that the number of guns in Australia may now be higher than
before Port Arthur.
Gun policy research shows that the total number of firearm imports to Australia since 2008
has been consistently higher than figures recorded in 1996 (although the same statistics show
there was a sudden spike of imports in 1997).
A 2021 article published by the University of Sydney also found that, while the proportions of
Australians that hold a gun license and Australian households with a firearm have fallen
dramatically since 1997, people who already owned guns have bought more.
It added that government figures on imports of modern firearms for private owners now
"fluctuate between 65,000 and 116,000 each year."
Furthermore, a 2019 report by The Australia Institute stated the number of guns per gun owner
in the country had increased from 2.1 guns per gun owner since 1997 to 3.9. Additionally, it found
the number of firearms reported in Australia were higher than pre-Port Arthur levels.
So, while Australia's changes to gun ownership laws have made possession a far more
stringent process, and some illegal firearms have been bought back by the state after the law
was passed, it hasn't resulted in a "surrender" by private owners.
There is also evidence to suggest that the changes to Australia's gun laws have correlated
with a reduction in mass shootings.
However, the accuracy of the claim that gun laws have eradicated mass shootings in part
depends on the definition of such a crime.
A RAND Corporation analysis of mass shootings in Australia since 1996 defines mass
shootings as incidents in which four or more people have been killed.
In a separate report on mass shootings in the United States, RAND also highlighted
disagreement on whether a mass shooting can only be referred to as such if it took place
in a public setting.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-australia-solve-mass-shootings-surrendering-its-guns-1710584
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x36t7UHjF3U
-
Notice how all these mass shootings the shooter always has a mental problem and use drugs that are prescribed. And those shooters who were captured alive some say that voices told them to do it. Watch this video. I'll post time stamps.
24:07....Professor shows students he can project sounds into your head without hearing it out loud and other people won't hear it. (MKULTRA does not seem to far fetched now does it)
32:05....List of mass shootings where shooters were mentally ill.
Conspiracy theory? What do you think, choice is yours.
https://rumble.com/v3rwm2d-ep-3197b-ds-just-played-their-card-big-fail-game-over-speaker-was-the-targe.html
-
If they really wanted to save lives, they would address mental health issues. But confiscating guns is more important. Those lives in Maine would have been spared if they addressed the shooters mental health signals.
Are our nation's leaders really concerned with saving people's lives? Or is there another, more important agenda.......
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/vp-harris-follow-australia-s-example-confiscate-american-s-guns/ar-AA1iWWcr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=33b2137149e049078fa670064e4df84c&ei=14
That's what I've been saying is the reason why anti 2a orgs like ET and MDA are a joke. If they really wanted to do something, they would work with gun owners and not just take the guns away. But I get why they exist, those at the top level of the org's goal is deleting the 2A and not actual safety so the government and those in power can control the USA. It's the wacko's who believe public safety like those who attend the hearings and never mention their daughter committed suicide, while trying ban mags over 10 rds. Guess she shot herself 11+ times.
-
Notice how all these mass shootings the shooter always has a mental problem and use drugs that are prescribed. And those shooters who were captured alive some say that voices told them to do it. Watch this video. I'll post time stamps.
24:07....Professor shows students he can project sounds into your head without hearing it out loud and other people won't hear it. (MKULTRA does not seem to far fetched now does it)
32:05....List of mass shootings where shooters were mentally ill.
Conspiracy theory? What do you think, choice is yours.
https://rumble.com/v3rwm2d-ep-3197b-ds-just-played-their-card-big-fail-game-over-speaker-was-the-targe.html
If only we knew how many active shooters were on anti depressants...
-
The news reports that the dude offed himself.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KY6MGFBH/be2a1c89041b8c0aa1f17c12c40e5bfd.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
The news reports that the dude offed himself.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KY6MGFBH/be2a1c89041b8c0aa1f17c12c40e5bfd.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Even though he was suffering from mental illness the dude knew he was f*cked. Maybe one of the many voices in his head told him.
Hope people wake up. Those who want gun control are not primarily concerned with your lives nor those of your family.
If they did they would direct their energies and resources to the mental health problem.
-
Bowling alley is gun free zone.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://youtu.be/zcm-19myigo?si=H3fnLOAXp5RgKcrQ
-
https://youtu.be/zcm-19myigo?si=H3fnLOAXp5RgKcrQ
That video reiterated what i've always said about red flag laws.
if someone is too dangerous to possess guns, then they are too dangerous to be walking around freely. Lock the person up, and you won't have to worry about what weapons they might have access to: guns, bombs, airborne chemicals, poisons, vehicles, sharp implements, crossbows, ....
Taking away guns from dangerous people will not stop the threat of violence. if someone really wants to get a gun to do harm to others, there are too many ways to get them outside the legal process.
-
The news reports that the dude offed himself.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KY6MGFBH/be2a1c89041b8c0aa1f17c12c40e5bfd.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It seems that they found the Maine Shooter dead in the woods with 2 gun shot wounds to the head. Article was posted and a short time later retracted but not before it was captured.
Time stamp: 17:49
https://rumble.com/v3shz8j-ep.-3199b-trumpit-cant-be-much-longerone-year-is-a-very-longtimemartial-law.html
-
It seems that they found the Maine Shooter dead in the woods with 2 gun shot wounds to the head. Article was posted and a short time later retracted but not before it was captured.
Time stamp: 17:49
https://rumble.com/v3shz8j-ep.-3199b-trumpit-cant-be-much-longerone-year-is-a-very-longtimemartial-law.html
They found him with 2 GUNS -- not gunshots -- in a container used by the recycling plant he used to work at across the street from where he was found.
Internet journalism -- worst game of "Telephone" ever.
-
If only we knew how many active shooters were on anti depressants...
Do you think there would be fewer shootings if there were fewer anti depressants?
-
Do you think there would be fewer shootings if there were fewer anti depressants?
Unknown, but there is a high % that do both. But can 1 assume that any active shooter who wasn't diagnosed with a mental problem vs those who are, and not on anti depres. But also have to factor in undiagnosed mental problems, like hearing voices kind problems as murdering a lot of people is psycho in general.
-
Appears this guy doesn't have any special training from what's been announced. Not in a combat role in the military and not a military firearms instructor.
I'm surprised the military couldn't keep him confined for treatment longer with the violent threats he made earlier. Fortunately he offed himself. I thought a guy like him would keep going.
-
I thought a guy like him would keep going.
It's cause he's not the guy...
-
He was some kind of petroleum fuel specialist. ::)
Not sure but that MOS doesn't seem to fall in with the combat MOS so I suspect his military skills are average.
Unless he trained above and beyond what his MOS calls for.
-
So news was wrong when they said he was a firearms instructor? Or maybe "they" changed his MOS so the military doesn't look bad...
-
Unknown, but there is a high % that do both. But can 1 assume that any active shooter who wasn't diagnosed with a mental problem vs those who are, and not on anti depres. But also have to factor in undiagnosed mental problems, like hearing voices kind problems as murdering a lot of people is psycho in general.
Prescribing antidepressants isn't a cut and dried process. There are a very large number of them on the market, and it takes time to find the one that does what it needs to in every individual based on their body chemistry. It is pure trial and error science.
The side effects then become the issue.
Antidepressants are a popular treatment choice for depression. Although
antidepressants may not cure depression, they can reduce symptoms.
The first antidepressant you try may work fine. But if it doesn't relieve your
symptoms or it causes side effects that bother you, you may need to try
another.
Most antidepressants are generally safe, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) requires that all antidepressants carry black box warnings, the strictest
warnings for prescriptions. In some cases, children, teenagers and young adults
under 25 may have an increase in suicidal thoughts or behavior when taking
antidepressants, especially in the first few weeks after starting or when the dose
is changed.
Anyone taking an antidepressant should be watched closely for worsening
depression or unusual behavior. If you or someone you know has suicidal
thoughts when taking an antidepressant, immediately contact your health
care provider or get emergency help.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/antidepressants/art-20046273
Just because all patients taking antidepressants do not commit mass murder is not a reason to dismiss them as an underlying cause. if most mass shooters take these or other psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness, then the side effects are a potential, and often likely, factor -- especially if the mental illness symptoms are not being effectively controlled.
The drugs are not the lone cause. Instead, they are an indicator that the person has mental problems, and the chances of adverse side effects, including suicidal thoughts and thoughts of harming other, exist.
Will reducing the number of antidepressants reduce mass shootings? It's possible, but it's also possible untreated mentally ill people will also be a threat.
The only way to know is to confine them for the first 2-3 weeks after starting a new prescription to see what effects it is having. If that's not working, change to another one. At the very least, you aren't exposing society to someone with mental illnesses taking a drug that isn't working. At best, you've isolated someone who might be experiencing suicidal thoughts or a wish to shoot up a mall because the voices wouldn't stop.
Pretending it's a case of "drug or no drug" is ignorant and counterproductive. We know what the potential risks of prescribing these drugs are, yet we send them home to return to work and school without any idea what the side effects might be.
-
"in my opinion"
It's cause he's not the guy...
-
"in my opinion"
You're starting have many same opinions as me. Do you need a tinfoil hat membership application?
-
Do you think there would be fewer shootings if there were fewer anti depressants?
When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.
Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.
-
When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.
Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.
Yep. And these "gifts" these asshats have the audacity to give us keeps on giving...... :grrr:
-
When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.
Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.
I think the fad angle better explains mass shooters than does the emergence of anti-depressant drugs.
There was a phase, I think it was in the 80s, where serial killings spike but they later decreased back down to normal levels and there were many signs it was a fad wave. Mass shootings also have many signs they are a fad type of thing.
Anti-depressants could play a role but I haven't seen any evidence that really shows it plays any significant role.
-
Appears this guy doesn't have any special training from what's been announced. Not in a combat role in the military and not a military firearms instructor.
I'm surprised the military couldn't keep him confined for treatment longer with the violent threats he made earlier. Fortunately he offed himself. I thought a guy like him would keep going.
It is complicated. Psychologists and counselors have to say something if they believe the patient is immediately dangerous but have to keep quiet if the patient expresses dangerous thoughts but does not appear that they will act upon them in the near future.
All we get are headlines and short mentions of what he was in the hospital for. We don't know everything he said to doctors to evaluate whether he was an immediate risk or he was just verbalizing fleeting thoughts that came to his mind.
-
When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.
Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.
You have to draw pictures for some people.
it's not about drug treatment vs. no drugs. It's about treatment -- period.
When the choice is between "confinement until treatment works (drugs, therapy, etc.)" vs. "let them live their lives free while being treated with pharmaceuticals," the result is obvious -- one respects the right of the public at large to be safe, and the other respects the rights of the patients to be walking around free while relying on the drugs to make them safe.
The government has decided that anyone being diagnosed and treated for a mental illness is ineligible to own firearms, yet they are not too dangerous to drive, use pointy objects, etc. If this category of people is too dangerous to trust with firearms, then (again and again) they are too dangerous to allow out in public.
Debating any other aspects is a waste of time. Do what's necessary, and the mass shootings will stop. Leave mental illness to the pill pushers, and nothing will change.
But, the layman will continue to boil the problem down to a single aspect -- drug treatment.
-
I think the fad angle better explains mass shooters than does the emergence of anti-depressant drugs.
There was a phase, I think it was in the 80s, where serial killings spike but they later decreased back down to normal levels and there were many signs it was a fad wave. Mass shootings also have many signs they are a fad type of thing.
Anti-depressants could play a role but I haven't seen any evidence that really shows it plays any significant role.
Haven’t seen evidence? It’s right there on the long list of side effects on the label of these drugs.
-
Haven’t seen evidence? It’s right there on the long list of side effects on the label of these drugs.
Can you link to a label? The ones I’ve seen don’t say anything about risk of violent behavior toward others, just increased suicidality.
-
Labels are not going to include anything the government doesn't require, and without adequate studies reporting the drugs can/may cause violent behavior, you should look beyond the FDA's viewpoint.
This is from a Swedish study:
Using large national registries, over 850,000 individuals were identified who were
prescribed an SSRI medication. The authors then quantified the cumulative dose
of SSRIs and divided subjects into groups of low, moderate, and high. From other
registries, arrest and conviction records were examined and compared to the
medication histories.
The main finding of the study, and the one that received the most press, was that
for both males and females between the ages of 15 and 24 only, there was a statistically
significant increase in the rate of violent crime during the period someone was taking
the medication compared to the intervals when they weren’t. The “hazard ratio” for the
15-24 age group was 1.4 which roughly translates into a 40% increased likelihood.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201509/antidepressants-and-violence-link-in-search-cause
There are many other studies -- some wth similar results, and others failing to find a link between the drugs and violence.
We are talking about a class of drugs, not a single formulae. When someone is beginning treatment using these drugs, the doctor basically becomes a Rx dispensing optometrist.
Gives you a prescription. "Is your mood better, or worse?"
If worse or no improvement, they try a different prescription. "Is your mood better than before this prescription, or worse."
The doctor is 100% reliant on the patient to express how they feel to know if something is working. Also, since the various drugs being prescribed work in some people and not in others, it's reasonable to assume the same drug in 2 patients can make one better and the other turn to thoughts of suicide or hurting others.
Studies are the same way. not only is measurement difficult, but the same drug take by one random sample may have different side effects than when taken by another sample. Unlike most drugs, psychotropics have a wide range of effects on the human brain. Tylenol might work on most of us, but psychotropic effectiveness varies widely.
I think there are plenty of warnings if you do some research. They just haven't been forced on the drug makers to be printed on a label -- yet.
Some folks have put a lot of work in compiling this information for us, but the gov't isn't about to blow the whistle on Big Pharma -- think of the lawsuits if their drugs are directly linked to school shootings and other acts of extreme violence.
https://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/
-
Can you link to a label? The ones I’ve seen don’t say anything about risk of violent behavior toward others, just increased suicidality.
If one would have a tendency want to do harm to themselves, logically, depending on the personality, it stands to figure they might also wouldn’t have any problem doing harm to others.
If such drugs are causing such tendencies you really think the companies making billions legally peddling this garbage would voluntarily divulge such statistics.
I think not.
They don’t give two shits about the real issues. Nor does government, when there is an agenda being pushed. Peon pawns will be sacrificed until the goal is met.
-
If one would have a tendency want to do harm to themselves, logically, depending on the personality, it stands to figure they might also wouldn’t have any problem doing harm to others.
If such drugs are causing such tendencies you really think the companies making billions legally peddling this garbage would voluntarily divulge such statistics.
I think not.
They don’t give two shits about the real issues. Nor does government, when there is an agenda being pushed. Peon pawns will be sacrificed until the goal is met.
So you don’t know of any studies that actually show violent behavior toward others as a side effect of prescription antidepressants, and are just making a logical jump from suicidality to interpersonal violence?
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347007/
So you don’t know of any studies that actually show violent behavior toward others as a side effect of prescription antidepressants, and are just making a logical jump from suicidality to interpersonal violence?
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7347007/
While questions on causality remain, these results indicate that there may be an increased risk of violent crime during SSRI treatment in a small group of individuals. It may persist throughout medicated periods, across age groups, and after treatment discontinuation. Further confirmation is needed from studies with different designs, and clinical focus should be on high-risk individuals, as a majority of SSRI-users (around 97% in our cohort) will not commit violent crimes.
Super strong evidence there… from a for-profit journal.
-
Super strong evidence there… from a for-profit journal.
Where are the studies then? If the questions will not be asked and pushed, no real data can be collected. How many of these shooters was on these drugs? What kind of detective work is it when these things happen, the extent of the investigation is what type of firearm the shooter used and what was the person’s political affiliation?
It’s utterly ridiculous. And shows that the powers that be give no care to getting down to the real cause.
-
Super strong evidence there… from a for-profit journal.
The main finding of the study, and the one that received the most press, was that
for both males and females between the ages of 15 and 24 only, there was a statistically
significant increase in the rate of violent crime during the period someone was taking
the medication compared to the intervals when they weren’t. The “hazard ratio” for the
15-24 age group was 1.4 which roughly translates into a 40% increased likelihood.
-
As a result of one study, whose authors even say that other studies be done using other techniques. It’s a data point, but not a particularly strong one, and fraught with “correlation vs. causation” issues.
I’m not saying that antidepressants are without risk, but I haven’t seen enough evidence to even start to form an opinion.
-
you asked if heavies had any studies
i posted one
which you immediately dismissed
you didn't ask for a good, thorough study
you asked for a study
goalposts moved...
As a result of one study, whose authors even say that other studies be done using other techniques. It’s a data point, but not a particularly strong one, and fraught with “correlation vs. causation” issues.
I’m not saying that antidepressants are without risk, but I haven’t seen enough evidence to even start to form an opinion.
-
good studies will always say this...
As a result of one study, whose authors even say that other studies be done using other techniques. It’s a data point, but not a particularly strong one, and fraught with “correlation vs. causation” issues.
I’m not saying that antidepressants are without risk, but I haven’t seen enough evidence to even start to form an opinion.
-
As a result of one study, whose authors even say that other studies be done using other techniques. It’s a data point, but not a particularly strong one, and fraught with “correlation vs. causation” issues.
I’m not saying that antidepressants are without risk, but I haven’t seen enough evidence to even start to form an opinion.
YOU asked for a study. Now you say "it's only one study." Are you serious?
Did you even bother to read my previous post? I repeated the excerpt because it appears you ignored it completely.
BTW, unless you are a medical professional with special training in psychotropic drugs and their clinical trials, your opinions hold no water.
YOU asked for the data. I provided data. Now you want to argue as if your opinion is so precious you won't even decide without some arbitrary minimum number of studies.
The people trying to ban guns include "suicides" in the category "Gun Violence." Most statistical studies on gun violence don't differentiate between the two except as a footnote.
You're basically arguing that suicide is not violence. How is that even logical when the mass shooters more often than not either kill themselves right after, let the cops kill them willingly (suicide by cop) or commit suicide when they realize it's a matter of time before they are caught. You can't logically separate the mass shooting from suicidal tendencies unless the outcome results in the shooter turning themselves in rather than be caught by LE and possibly shot.
According to the Violence Project website, 31% of mass shooters were suicidal prior to the attack, 40% became suicidal during the attack, and 59% died on the scene.
Again, separating suicidal tendencies from an increase in violent thoughts is not supported by the evidence.
Mass shootings are public spectacles of violence intended as final acts.
Whether it’s self-inflicted, or comes at the hands of police officers, or after
life in prison, a mass shooting is a form of suicide.
Traditional preventive measures like increased armed security or harsh
criminal sentences will do little to stop them.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/
Is it really your belief that someone with new suicidal thoughts is possibly experiencing side effects from the psychotropic drugs,
but it's not JUST AS LIKELY that someone with thoughts of mass murder or other acts of violence are also experiencing drug side effects?
-
Shooter was restricted from using or participating in live fire training and reported to local sheriff office. So WTF happened? How was he able to come into possession of a firearm (firearm trace needed). Who dropped the ball?
https://youtu.be/FRaByCFx7Rg
-
Another possibility is the person was prescribed drugs, but wasn't taking them. A big problem with the homeless and crazies who may otherwise be fine under medication.
Overall more funding should go towards mental health. In this case, the shooter could've been committed longer, undergo more monitoring and checkups, and go into community programs and social bonds.
-
Another possibility is the person was prescribed drugs, but wasn't taking them. A big problem with the homeless and crazies who may otherwise be fine under medication.
Overall more funding should go towards mental health. In this case, the shooter could've been committed longer, undergo more monitoring and checkups, and go into community programs and social bonds.
As you pointed out, treatment won't work unless the patient complies with the plan.
Either they really want to get better, or someone is making sure they take their meds. Too many opt out of treatment, and often nobody else knows until it's too late.
This aspect is further evidence that anyone with a potentially dangerous mental illness should not be allowed to live unspupervised.
-
The issue with all the dangerous psychiatric drugs floating around there is that many of them require a tapering off period, and if the patient stops cold turkey for whatever reason they can have the HOMICIDAL IDEATION kick in, which is actually a listed side effect on some of them.
But the Pharma Creeps don't tell parents about that when they pushing it on teenage boys
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/l0HlI3PEE1YgdaWWc/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952flh9thv2nf6kr8uh98jfimrnoo9pqp6ytq9w05wn&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
you asked if heavies had any studies
i posted one
which you immediately dismissed
you didn't ask for a good, thorough study
you asked for a study
goalposts moved...
::)
-
YOU asked for a study. Now you say "it's only one study." Are you serious?
Did you even bother to read my previous post? I repeated the excerpt because it appears you ignored it completely.
BTW, unless you are a medical professional with special training in psychotropic drugs and their clinical trials, your opinions hold no water.
YOU asked for the data. I provided data. Now you want to argue as if your opinion is so precious you won't even decide without some arbitrary minimum number of studies.
The people trying to ban guns include "suicides" in the category "Gun Violence." Most statistical studies on gun violence don't differentiate between the two except as a footnote.
You're basically arguing that suicide is not violence. How is that even logical when the mass shooters more often than not either kill themselves right after, let the cops kill them willingly (suicide by cop) or commit suicide when they realize it's a matter of time before they are caught. You can't logically separate the mass shooting from suicidal tendencies unless the outcome results in the shooter turning themselves in rather than be caught by LE and possibly shot.
According to the Violence Project website, 31% of mass shooters were suicidal prior to the attack, 40% became suicidal during the attack, and 59% died on the scene.
Again, separating suicidal tendencies from an increase in violent thoughts is not supported by the evidence.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/
Is it really your belief that someone with new suicidal thoughts is possibly experiencing side effects from the psychotropic drugs,
but it's not JUST AS LIKELY that someone with thoughts of mass murder or other acts of violence are also experiencing drug side effects?
I am, in fact, serious. If there were evidence of causation, you’d be able to find and link to it… more than just one study, from a for-profit journal, that didn’t make any inference of causation.
How many people who attempt or complete suicide show tendencies toward interpersonal violence prior to their suicide attempt? That would be an interesting data point.
Yes, it really is my belief that a tendency to new suicidal ideations after taking antidepressants does not mean an equal or greater tendency to interpersonal violence after taking antidepressants.
-
The issue with all the dangerous psychiatric drugs floating around there is that many of them require a tapering off period, and if the patient stops cold turkey for whatever reason they can have the HOMICIDAL IDEATION kick in, which is actually a listed side effect on some of them.
But the Pharma Creeps don't tell parents about that when they pushing it on teenage boys
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/l0HlI3PEE1YgdaWWc/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952flh9thv2nf6kr8uh98jfimrnoo9pqp6ytq9w05wn&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Doctors do warn about the possible risks associated with quitting psychoactive drugs cold turkey. They also mention it in advertising.
-
I am, in fact, serious. If there were evidence of causation, you’d be able to find and link to it… more than just one study, from a for-profit journal, that didn’t make any inference of causation.
How many people who attempt or complete suicide show tendencies toward interpersonal violence prior to their suicide attempt? That would be an interesting data point.
Yes, it really is my belief that a tendency to new suicidal ideations after taking antidepressants does not mean an equal or greater tendency to interpersonal violence after taking antidepressants.
You are not serious. If you were, you'd know I didn't post the same study as mac.
i can do the research for you, but i can't read (and understand) it for you.
That's two studies, Einstein.
-
so, you aren't taking this seriously
got it...
::)
-
how come you not replying to this post with rolled eyes too?
i guess that means you don't want to admit you are wrong...
good studies will always say this...
-
Doctors do warn about the possible risks associated with quitting psychoactive drugs cold turkey. They also mention it in advertising.
They aren't telling them about the possible side effects include mass murder
Not even close to informed consent.
-
that's not what you asked for
goalposts moved...
I am, in fact, serious. If there were evidence of causation, you’d be able to find and link to it… more than just one study, from a for-profit journal, that didn’t make any inference of causation.
How many people who attempt or complete suicide show tendencies toward interpersonal violence prior to their suicide attempt? That would be an interesting data point.
Yes, it really is my belief that a tendency to new suicidal ideations after taking antidepressants does not mean an equal or greater tendency to interpersonal violence after taking antidepressants.
-
https://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii-looking-at-expanding-psychedelic-therapies/article_cd31454e-793b-11ee-8ca9-bffd57a77635.html
"With more people experiencing trauma, we need to provide as many options as we can, to deal with PTSD, depression, and anxiety," added Hartsock.
Mani feels ketamine worked wonders for her, and Dr. Cook says Hawaii patients find it easier to accept the idea of psychedelic therapy than another important island group.
"It is harder to convince my doctor colleagues and lawmakers, because there is a cultural fear and cultural baggage. But once people delve into them, the healing becomes so personal that baggage becomes irrelevant," added Dr. Cook.
After informal meetings, Hawaii's Breakthrough Therapies Task Force will come up with recommendations before the legislative session.
Which means in a few months, lawmakers could end up voting on whether to expand psychedelic therapy in the islands.
-
https://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii-looking-at-expanding-psychedelic-therapies/article_cd31454e-793b-11ee-8ca9-bffd57a77635.html
"With more people experiencing trauma, we need to provide as many options as we can, to deal with PTSD, depression, and anxiety," added Hartsock.
Mani feels ketamine worked wonders for her, and Dr. Cook says Hawaii patients find it easier to accept the idea of psychedelic therapy than another important island group.
"It is harder to convince my doctor colleagues and lawmakers, because there is a cultural fear and cultural baggage. But once people delve into them, the healing becomes so personal that baggage becomes irrelevant," added Dr. Cook.
After informal meetings, Hawaii's Breakthrough Therapies Task Force will come up with recommendations before the legislative session.
Which means in a few months, lawmakers could end up voting on whether to expand psychedelic therapy in the islands.
Yeah. That’s a good idea. Let people already out of touch with reality go even further away from it.
-
Yeah. That’s a good idea. Let people already out of touch with reality go even further away from it.
thats a mentophobic statement
-
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/off-duty-pilot-accused-trying-disable-jetliner-faces-first-court-hearing-2023-10-24/
An off-duty pilot charged with trying to disable the engines of an Alaska Airlines jet in flight told police afterward he was suffering a nervous breakdown, had taken psychedelic mushrooms two days earlier and had not slept in 40 hours, court documents showed on Tuesday.
Joseph David Emerson, 44, an Alaska Airlines (ALK.N) pilot, was riding as a standby employee passenger in the cockpit "jump seat" of Sunday's flight, en route from Everett, Washington, to San Francisco, when the airborne altercation occurred, authorities said.
-
Haven’t seen evidence? It’s right there on the long list of side effects on the label of these drugs.
Problem is that those drugs are trying to treat conidiations where people already have those risks.
So a drug treating depression may have a side effect of suicidal thoughts but someone with serious depression is likely already having suicidal thoughts. So did they kill themselves because of the drug or because they were already depressed and the drug didn't do enough to treat the depression? Are these shootings a side effect of the drug or merely a symptom of a condition the drug is trying to treat.
Basically there is correlation without proof of causation.
On top of that it gets complicated because many psych meds need to be taken for a while to stabilize in someone's body be most effective. So if someone takes them for just a week then stops or takes it for 6 months and then stops they may have unstable mental health periods. Then is that the fault of the medication itself or a person's failure to take it consistently?
-
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/off-duty-pilot-accused-trying-disable-jetliner-faces-first-court-hearing-2023-10-24/
An off-duty pilot charged with trying to disable the engines of an Alaska Airlines jet in flight told police afterward he was suffering a nervous breakdown, had taken psychedelic mushrooms two days earlier and had not slept in 40 hours, court documents showed on Tuesday.
Joseph David Emerson, 44, an Alaska Airlines (ALK.N) pilot, was riding as a standby employee passenger in the cockpit "jump seat" of Sunday's flight, en route from Everett, Washington, to San Francisco, when the airborne altercation occurred, authorities said.
The largest ever mass killing (not terrorist/war related) was a pilot who decided to crash his plane and take everyone with him. I think it was like 140 dead.
Luckily these are few and far between.
This guy probably different though, he seems to have been trippin balls.
-
You are not serious. If you were, you'd know I didn't post the same study as mac.
i can do the research for you, but i can't read (and understand) it for you.
That's two studies, Einstein.
At the risk of being accused of moving goalposts again, I’ll just put this here for reference. When I say “study,” what I’m referring to is “study published in a quality, peer-reviewed journal.”
Not a website self-referring their own “study.”
And, thanks! Einstein was a smart fella!
-
so, you aren't taking this seriously
got it...
I assure you, I am taking this VERY seriously. I’d just like to see some credible evidence that indicates causation before I reach the conclusion that antidepressants are responsible for mass shootings.
-
At the risk of being accused of moving goalposts again, I’ll just put this here for reference. When I say “study,” what I’m referring to is “study published in a quality, peer-reviewed journal.”
Not a website self-referring their own “study.”
And, thanks! Einstein was a smart fella!
Failure to recognize sarcasm earns you 4 "Swoosh!"-es.
Unless you have peers disagreeng with a published, Swedish study, then you have no basis for dismissing it.
Just because it doesn't meet your criteria in no way gives evidence the study is invalid.
-
Failure to recognize sarcasm earns you 4 "Swoosh!"-es.
Unless you have peers disagreeng with a published, Swedish study, then you have no basis for dismissing it.
Just because it doesn't meet your criteria in no way gives evidence the study is invalid.
I didn’t say it was invalid. I said it was one data point, of suspect reliability, that doesn’t even appear to attempt to draw a causal relationship between antidepressants and mass shootings.
-
I didn’t say it was invalid. I said it was one data point, of suspect reliability, that doesn’t even appear to attempt to draw a causal relationship between antidepressants and mass shootings.
How obtuse can one man be?
Nobody said these drugs were a sole factor. In fact, the existence of the meds indicate a preexisting mental problem. That's the primary causation.
The issue with the drugs is the side effects are not disputed. Nor are the severe mental problems associated with stopping the meds cold turkey.
If the drugs are present in more than half of mass shooters, why would you refuse to entertain the possibility that the drugs are a factor in their suicidal/violent behavior?
-
for a guy that likes to nitpick others' posts, you sure are careless about your own...
At the risk of being accused of moving goalposts again, I’ll just put this here for reference. When I say “study,” what I’m referring to is “study published in a quality, peer-reviewed journal.”
Not a website self-referring their own “study.”
And, thanks! Einstein was a smart fella!
-
still no comment about this???
good studies will always say this...
-
How obtuse can one man be?
Nobody said these drugs were a sole factor. In fact, the existence of the meds indicate a preexisting mental problem. That's the primary causation.
The issue with the drugs is the side effects are not disputed. Nor are the severe mental problems associated with stopping the meds cold turkey.
If the drugs are present in more than half of mass shooters, why would you refuse to entertain the possibility that the drugs are a factor in their suicidal/violent behavior?
If the ad hominem attacks make you feel better, by all means continue.
I never said anyone said antidepressants were “a sole factor.” I said I haven’t seen any evidence that the drugs are a causal or contributing factor. Not saying they aren’t, just saying I haven’t seen the evidence.
Yes, the drugs have side effects, one of the most dangerous is increased suicidality. Yes, quitting them cold turkey is a bad idea, which is why advertising, documentation, and prescribing psychiatrists all warn people about it.
-
still no comment about this???
Didn’t think it was worth addressing.
-
If the ad hominem attacks make you feel better, by all means continue.
I never said anyone said antidepressants were “a sole factor.” I said I haven’t seen any evidence that the drugs are a causal or contributing factor. Not saying they aren’t, just saying I haven’t seen the evidence.
Yes, the drugs have side effects, one of the most dangerous is increased suicidality. Yes, quitting them cold turkey is a bad idea, which is why advertising, documentation, and prescribing psychiatrists all warn people about it.
Really?? You used the term "contributing factor?" Please show me where you said that.
I must be going blind.
Speaking of blind, did you miss the whole mass shootings are a public spectacle that is actually a suicidal action posts? Why are you still intent on separating the two?
-
so you criticize a study because it says "more study is needed"?
is it "not worth adressing" because you deny this it is true that all good studies say this, or because you feel it is irrelevant?
Didn’t think it was worth addressing.
-
so you criticize a study because it says "more study is needed"?
is it "not worth adressing" because you deny this it is true that all good studies say this, or because you feel it is irrelevant?
I may not have communicated clearly.
I’m not criticizing the study because they recommend more studies; I give credit to the authors for recognizing that their study is not dispositive. I’m saying I think it would be a mistake to put too much weight on the results of this study, in part because the authors themselves recognize that their study is of limited value due to the methods they used.
I don’t have any reason to believe that “all good studies say this.”
I don’t believe it’s irrelevant, because as I say above, I think it limits the amount of weight one should give to this study in forming an opinion of whether antidepressants cause or contribute to mass shootings.
-
all that typing and you could have done the homework yourself instead of asking others to do it for you
-
Really?? You used the term "contributing factor?" Please show me where you said that.
I must be going blind.
Speaking of blind, did you miss the whole mass shootings are a public spectacle that is actually a suicidal action posts? Why are you still intent on separating the two?
So first I said “causal” and then I said “causal or contributing.” You’re saying that by widening the possible pool of evidence I could have seen from a smaller set (causal) to a larger set (causal OR contributing), that somehow invalidates my point rather than strengthening it?
I hope you’re not going blind; that would be tragic.
I separate the two because thousands of people in the U.S. commit suicide every year using firearms without killing or physically injuring anyone else in the process.
-
all that typing and you could have done the homework yourself instead of asking others to do it for you
I think if someone is making a claim that a thing (antidepressant use, in this case) is a causal or contributing factor to a behavior (mass murder with firearms), then the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.
-
I think if someone is making a claim that a thing (antidepressant use, in this case) is a causal or contributing factor to a behavior (mass murder with firearms), then the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.
are we in court? I don't see that in the forum rules. You could ask the moderators to make that a rule
-
are we in court? I don't see that in the forum rules. You could ask the moderators to make that a rule
Did I say it was a rule?
-
Did I say it was a rule?
you implied - you really are here just to argue aren't you
-
I think if someone is making a claim that a thing (antidepressant use, in this case) is a causal or contributing factor to a behavior (mass murder with firearms), then the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.
How the heck is an average citizen supposed to do this?
I’d like our politicians to get this question answered, instead of focusing on the gun. Any person with a slight ability to think logically and sensibly would be able to figure out that the tool is not the cause. And punishing those not responsible for the act is no solution.
People like you are the reason the hard questions don’t get asked. There is no studies because no one is making them do any. Until the problem is really reduced to its basic causes, there will never be any solution.
-
So first I said “causal” and then I said “causal or contributing.” You’re saying that by widening the possible pool of evidence I could have seen from a smaller set (causal) to a larger set (causal OR contributing), that somehow invalidates my point rather than strengthening it?
I hope you’re not going blind; that would be tragic.
I separate the two because thousands of people in the U.S. commit suicide every year using firearms without killing or physically injuring anyone else in the process.
Please show me where I said that -- any of it.
You should change your handle to Scarecrow. I'll let you figure that one out.
You specifically said the words "I said" and then proceeded to spout off something you never said. THAT was what i said, not what you want to pretend i said.
And you wonder why ad hominems are hurled your way. Geesh! :popcorn:
-
...
I separate the two because thousands of people in the U.S. commit suicide every year using firearms without killing or physically injuring anyone else in the process.
So, in your world, a majority that doesn't exhibit a behavior negates any chance that a small subset has a more severe reaction to the side-effects or withdrawal of a class of drugs? Drugs which are proven to have different efficacy and side effects on each individual?
Most felons never commit a violent crime, yet we prohibit all felons from possessing and buying firearms. Based on your reasoning, this must be because all felons have committed, are committing or will commit violent crimes.
-
How the heck is an average citizen supposed to do this?
I’d like our politicians to get this question answered, instead of focusing on the gun. Any person with a slight ability to think logically and sensibly would be able to figure out that the tool is not the cause. And punishing those not responsible for the act is no solution.
People like you are the reason the hard questions don’t get asked. There is no studies because no one is making them do any. Until the problem is really reduced to its basic causes, there will never be any solution.
Maybe by finding studies that provide evidence?
-
for someone that likes to nitpick other's posts so much, you would think that you would concentrate more on communicating clearly...
I may not have communicated clearly.
I’m not criticizing the study because they recommend more studies; I give credit to the authors for recognizing that their study is not dispositive. I’m saying I think it would be a mistake to put too much weight on the results of this study, in part because the authors themselves recognize that their study is of limited value due to the methods they used.
I don’t have any reason to believe that “all good studies say this.”
I don’t believe it’s irrelevant, because as I say above, I think it limits the amount of weight one should give to this study in forming an opinion of whether antidepressants cause or contribute to mass shootings.
-
So, in your world, a majority that doesn't exhibit a behavior negates any chance that a small subset has a more severe reaction to the side-effects or withdrawal of a class of drugs? Drugs which are proven to have different efficacy and side effects on each individual?
Most felons never commit a violent crime, yet we prohibit all felons from possessing and buying firearms. Based on your reasoning, this must be because all felons have committed, are committing or will commit violent crimes.
I may not have understood the point you were trying to make by bringing up the idea that mass shootings are a suicidal action. The line of reasoning that I believe we’ve been discussing is whether antidepressant use, or abrupt cessation of use, increases the likelihood of a mass shooting. As I see it, as far as suicidality is concerned, the line of reasoning has gone like this:
- Increased suicidality is a known side effect of some antidepressants
- Mass shootings are also suicidal acts
- Therefore, the suicidal nature of mass shootings means that the increased suicidality also contributes to the increased likelihood of mass shooting
In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings.
If that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and would appreciate clarification.
You seem to be saying that I have said that antidepressants DON’T or CANNOT cause or contribute to mass shootings. I don’t believe I’ve said that. It’s possible that they do. I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to cause me to come to that conclusion.
-
I may not have understood the point you were trying to make by bringing up the idea that mass shootings are a suicidal action. The line of reasoning that I believe we’ve been discussing is whether antidepressant use, or abrupt cessation of use, increases the likelihood of a mass shooting. As I see it, as far as suicidality is concerned, the line of reasoning has gone like this:
- Increased suicidality is a known side effect of some antidepressants
- Mass shootings are also suicidal acts
- Therefore, the suicidal nature of mass shootings means that the increased suicidality also contributes to the increased likelihood of mass shooting
In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings.
If that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and would appreciate clarification.
You seem to be saying that I have said that antidepressants DON’T or CANNOT cause or contribute to mass shootings. I don’t believe I’ve said that. It’s possible that they do. I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to cause me to come to that conclusion.
well then go look for it
-
well then go look for it
Asked and answered.
-
do you have any reason to believe that all good studies don't say this?
please show me where they "themselves recognize that their study is of limited value"
I may not have communicated clearly.
I’m not criticizing the study because they recommend more studies; I give credit to the authors for recognizing that their study is not dispositive. I’m saying I think it would be a mistake to put too much weight on the results of this study, in part because the authors themselves recognize that their study is of limited value due to the methods they used.
I don’t have any reason to believe that “all good studies say this.”
I don’t believe it’s irrelevant, because as I say above, I think it limits the amount of weight one should give to this study in forming an opinion of whether antidepressants cause or contribute to mass shootings.
-
do you have any reason to believe that all good studies don't say this?
please show me where they "themselves recognize that their study is of limited value"
So you’re telling me there’s not even one “good” study that doesn’t include that language? Please give me an exhaustive list of all “good” studies so I can “do my own research.” ::)
The indication that the recognize their study isn’t the final word on the subject is that they said further studies using different methodology are needed.
-
https://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii-looking-at-expanding-psychedelic-therapies/article_cd31454e-793b-11ee-8ca9-bffd57a77635.html
"With more people experiencing trauma, we need to provide as many options as we can, to deal with PTSD, depression, and anxiety," added Hartsock.
Mani feels ketamine worked wonders for her, and Dr. Cook says Hawaii patients find it easier to accept the idea of psychedelic therapy than another important island group.
"It is harder to convince my doctor colleagues and lawmakers, because there is a cultural fear and cultural baggage. But once people delve into them, the healing becomes so personal that baggage becomes irrelevant," added Dr. Cook.
After informal meetings, Hawaii's Breakthrough Therapies Task Force will come up with recommendations before the legislative session.
Which means in a few months, lawmakers could end up voting on whether to expand psychedelic therapy in the islands.
Far out man!(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20231105/9ef729d7867e7b1b14f3afd1cc641014.jpg)
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
How the heck is an average citizen supposed to do this?
If we cannot do this (support an assertion) then perhaps we shouldn't make such claims.
-
i don't think you understand what "doing your own research" means...
So you’re telling me there’s not even one “good” study that doesn’t include that language? Please give me an exhaustive list of all “good” studies so I can “do my own research.” ::)
The indication that the recognize their study isn’t the final word on the subject is that they said further studies using different methodology are needed.
-
I may not have understood the point you were trying to make by bringing up the idea that mass shootings are a suicidal action. The line of reasoning that I believe we’ve been discussing is whether antidepressant use, or abrupt cessation of use, increases the likelihood of a mass shooting. As I see it, as far as suicidality is concerned, the line of reasoning has gone like this:
- Increased suicidality is a known side effect of some antidepressants
- Mass shootings are also suicidal acts
- Therefore, the suicidal nature of mass shootings means that the increased suicidality also contributes to the increased likelihood of mass shooting
In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings.
If that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and would appreciate clarification.
You seem to be saying that I have said that antidepressants DON’T or CANNOT cause or contribute to mass shootings. I don’t believe I’ve said that. It’s possible that they do. I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to cause me to come to that conclusion.
...
According to the Violence Project website, 31% of mass shooters were suicidal prior to the attack, 40% became suicidal during the attack, and 59% died on the scene.
Again, separating suicidal tendencies from an increase in violent thoughts is not supported by the evidence.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/
Is it really your belief that someone with new suicidal thoughts is possibly experiencing side effects from the psychotropic drugs,
but it's not JUST AS LIKELY that someone with thoughts of mass murder or other acts of violence are also experiencing drug side effects?
Mass shootings are public spectacles of violence intended as final acts. Whether it’s
self-inflicted, or comes at the hands of police officers, or after life in prison, a mass
shooting is a form of suicide. Traditional preventive measures like increased armed
security or harsh criminal sentences will do little to stop them.
(https://i.imgur.com/AEshVBK.png)
You said "In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings."
What, precisely, is the percentage needed to go from "most don't have this behavior, so the theory has no basis," to "a portion of people in a given group are committing suicide at rates higher than the general population, so there may be some validity to the theory that X is a factor in those individual outcomes?"
Not all drug addicts commit crimes to be able to buy drugs, therefore the premise that drug addiction is an underlying factor in increased crime is "contradictory."
Not all serial killers were abused as children, therefore the premise that severe child abuse may be an underlying factor in developing serial killers is "contradictory."
Not everyone who watches porn -- particularly that which depicts rape and S&M -- go on to become rapists, therefore the premise that rapists may have been influenced by videos and images depicting such acts is "contradictory."
Another analogy would be, "Not everyone who goes to Ivey League Schools become rich and successful, therefore the theory that attending such a school is a factor in how some graduates became rich and successful is contradictory."
-
i don't think you understand what "doing your own research" means...
Ok.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/AEshVBK.png)
You said "In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings."
What, precisely, is the percentage needed to go from "most don't have this behavior, so the theory has no basis," to "a portion of people in a given group are committing suicide at rates higher than the general population, so there may be some validity to the theory that X is a factor in those individual outcomes?"
Not all drug addicts commit crimes to be able to buy drugs, therefore the premise that drug addiction is an underlying factor in increased crime is "contradictory."
Not all serial killers were abused as children, therefore the premise that severe child abuse may be an underlying factor in developing serial killers is "contradictory."
Not everyone who watches porn -- particularly that which depicts rape and S&M -- go on to become rapists, therefore the premise that rapists may have been influenced by videos and images depicting such acts is "contradictory."
Another analogy would be, "Not everyone who goes to Ivey League Schools become rich and successful, therefore the theory that attending such a school is a factor in how some graduates became rich and successful is contradictory."
I feel like I’ve said it a number of times already, but I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for antidepressants to increase the likelihood that someone taking them, or who has abruptly stopped taking them, will commit a mass shooting. I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient reliable evidence to cause me to draw that conclusion. You may think differently than that, and that’s ok. I think diversity of opinion is good; again, you may think otherwise. :shaka:
-
I feel like I’ve said it a number of times already, but I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for antidepressants to increase the likelihood that someone taking them, or who has abruptly stopped taking them, will commit a mass shooting. I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient reliable evidence to cause me to draw that conclusion. You may think differently than that, and that’s ok. I think diversity of opinion is good; again, you may think otherwise. :shaka:
"I refuse to form an opinion based on existing data on suicidal side effects of certain drugs even though the decision to do nothing means more mass shootings / suicides will occur."
That's all you had to say.
-
"I refuse to form an opinion based on existing data on suicidal side effects of certain drugs even though the decision to do nothing means more mass shootings / suicides will occur."
That's all you had to say.
I’d try to count up all the times you’ve misrepresented my position, but it’d take too long and I have to work tomorrow.
-
I’d try to count up all the times you’ve misrepresented my position, but it’d take too long and I have to work tomorrow.
Obviously you haven't been reading the posts you wrote misrepresenting what I said.
Not surprising, since you seem to not read most posts -- only the ones you want to bicker with.
-
Obviously you haven't been reading the posts you wrote misrepresenting what I said.
Not surprising, since you seem to not read most posts -- only the ones you want to bicker with.
I didn’t think I had misrepresented anything you said; if I did, it wasn’t intentional and I apologize for the error.
Whether intentionally or not, you have consistently misrepresented my position, and rarely posted a reply without taking a snarky ad hominem shot at me. I’ve mostly ignored those because honestly, they don’t really bother me. I do wonder what motivates you to attack personally instead of engaging in a civil manner, though, but only because I’m interested in what makes people tick.
Have a pleasant Sunday evening!
-
I didn’t think I had misrepresented anything you said; if I did, it wasn’t intentional and I apologize for the error.
Whether intentionally or not, you have consistently misrepresented my position, and rarely posted a reply without taking a snarky ad hominem shot at me. I’ve mostly ignored those because honestly, they don’t really bother me. I do wonder what motivates you to attack personally instead of engaging in a civil manner, though, but only because I’m interested in what makes people tick.
Have a pleasant Sunday evening!
Seems like snarky is what it takes to get your attention, since any posts in which I offer copious amounts of valuable information appear (in my estimation) too long for you to bother reading, Then you go on to make comments that my posts already contradicted with a variety of sources.
So, if you think I'm attacking you personally, it's only because you don't want to have an honest discussion. Your standards for everyone else's information (peer reviewed in more than one study, etc.) seem to only apply to us -- not you. Rather than shooting down every position just because you personally don't agree based on no additional information gets redundant. It also makes you appear to be shooting down anything that doesn't meet your standards even though you can't refute the information at all.
Maybe your standards need to change? Instead of arguing against anything that doesn't come with a certificate of truth and verified absolutism, do some research of your own to see where these posts you disagree with lead you. You might actually realize that not everything you don't trust is not actually incorrect.
-
Seems like snarky is what it takes to get your attention, since any posts in which I offer copious amounts of valuable information appear (in my estimation) too long for you to bother reading, Then you go on to make comments that my posts already contradicted with a variety of sources.
So, if you think I'm attacking you personally, it's only because you don't want to have an honest discussion. Your standards for everyone else's information (peer reviewed in more than one study, etc.) seem to only apply to us -- not you. Rather than shooting down every position just because you personally don't agree based on no additional information gets redundant. It also makes you appear to be shooting down anything that doesn't meet your standards even though you can't refute the information at all.
Maybe your standards need to change? Instead of arguing against anything that doesn't come with a certificate of truth and verified absolutism, do some research of your own to see where these posts you disagree with lead you. You might actually realize that not everything you don't trust is not actually incorrect.
How would you know you can’t get my attention without snarky ad hominems? You haven’t tried.
I think you’re still not understanding what I’m saying about the data that’s been linked here; I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct. I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis.
Have a great night!
-
swooooosh
someone still doesn't realize that there was more than one study presented...
How would you know you can’t get my attention without snarky ad hominems? You haven’t tried.
I think you’re still not understanding what I’m saying about the data that’s been linked here; I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct. I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis.
Have a great night!
-
How would you know you can’t get my attention without snarky ad hominems? You haven’t tried.
I think you’re still not understanding what I’m saying about the data that’s been linked here; I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct. I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis.
Have a great night!
"I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct. I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis."
Once again, you are using your own standard (doesn't show causation) to dismiss the study. And since there are multiple studies posted, maybe you should be specific about which study you are referring to -- just so you're clear.
I understood your post every time you repeated it. What i don't understand is why you think ANY study that involves human behavior would include a high degree of confidence that any one variable would be labeled 'the' cause.
Name another study that tries to explain any type of human behavior and which is able to isolate a single substance that causes said action.
If you can, I'd be impressed. If not, maybe your standard is impossible to attain for any study.
-
There's also the issue of access to studies. Try to look up studies on before/after rates of stuff like assault, breakins, etc on gun ban in Australia. VERY hard to get the real information, at least without someone's "analysis" (opinion) interjected. Looked into this a lot a while back, and that included when I had good friends in Australia's version of 2a movement. Just because one can't find studies, doesn't mean they don't exist. For Australia, they did exist, but were often buried. Or also lots of "experts" lined up to dispute the data, and that's before arguing the conclusions.
-
There's also the issue of access to studies. Try to look up studies on before/after rates of stuff like assault, breakins, etc on gun ban in Australia. VERY hard to get the real information, at least without someone's "analysis" (opinion) interjected. Looked into this a lot a while back, and that included when I had good friends in Australia's version of 2a movement. Just because one can't find studies, doesn't mean they don't exist. For Australia, they did exist, but were often buried. Or also lots of "experts" lined up to dispute the data, and that's before arguing the conclusions.
This is 1 major factor that a study can be modified to lean a certain way. I mean look at how the left uses children gun deaths and go from ages 1-19.
I don't think anyone here has the time to read thousands of pages of studies to show X or Y. Instead logic is used and any studies are skimmed through, unless major points are pointed out that shows the logic is incorrect. Google-fu is guud enuff.
-
This is 1 major factor that a study can be modified to lean a certain way. I mean look at how the left uses children gun deaths and go from ages 1-19.
I don't think anyone here has the time to read thousands of pages of studies to show X or Y. Instead logic is used and any studies are skimmed through, unless major points are pointed out that shows the logic is incorrect. Google-fu is guud enuff.
Then there's the "paid-for" results that didn't pan out as hoped.
There have been many studies uncovered for a variety of things which were paid for by a particular company, advocacy group, business sector, etc. If the results of the study either fail to support the wishes of the sponsor or worse contradict that desired outcome, the sponsor -- as the owner of the study and its results, has the right to not make those findings public. However, there is liability in those decisions, as a known adverse effect of a product which was covered up represents obvious liability issues.
I always look at the money used for a study. I can't count how many "studies" said eggs and milk are essential for good health -- all sponsored by the dairy industry.
-
This is 1 major factor that a study can be modified to lean a certain way. I mean look at how the left uses children gun deaths and go from ages 1-19.
I don't think anyone here has the time to read thousands of pages of studies to show X or Y. Instead logic is used and any studies are skimmed through, unless major points are pointed out that shows the logic is incorrect. Google-fu is guud enuff.
Yup (mostly). It's important to know the context of A) what was asked and B) who it was asked to and how those folks were "selected". If one digs, Australia is a terrible case study on overall affects of gun ban. Yeah, rates of gun suicide is down, but is suicide overall?
That's where having friends who were essentially a national level HIFICO for Australia helped. They had folks who scrubbed the "thousands of pages". They got nothing but time. . .
-
Then there's the "paid-for" results that didn't pan out as hoped.
There have been many studies uncovered for a variety of things which were paid for by a particular company, advocacy group, business sector, etc. If the results of the study either fail to support the wishes of the sponsor or worse contradict that desired outcome, the sponsor -- as the owner of the study and its results, has the right to not make those findings public. However, there is liability in those decisions, as a known adverse effect of a product which was covered up represents obvious liability issues.
I always look at the money used for a study. I can't count how many "studies" said eggs and milk are essential for good health -- all sponsored by the dairy industry.
Or even studies that gleaned info from "select sources". Depends what those "select sources" are, and who is gleaning the data. But yes, in the Australia example, there were many "Gov't funded" studies that were buried because the data didnt show what was being looked for. Well guess what? They had their own version of Snowden, and info was shared. . .
-
Yup (mostly). It's important to know the context of A) what was asked and B) who it was asked to and how those folks were "selected". If one digs, Australia is a terrible case study on overall affects of gun ban. Yeah, rates of gun suicide is down, but is suicide overall?
That's where having friends who were essentially a national level HIFICO for Australia helped. They had folks who scrubbed the "thousands of pages". They got nothing but time. . .
Dan Bongino had a vid recently where he talked about an old interview he did with an Australian reporter who brough up the ban there. Dan said gun crime is up, I can't remember if he said murder or just crime/violence. He then showed the reporter the source and the reporter was amazed.
-
Dan Bongino had a vid recently where he talked about an old interview he did with an Australian reporter who brough up the ban there. Dan said gun crime is up, I can't remember if he said murder or just crime/violence. He then showed the reporter the source and the reporter was amazed.
Depending on the timeframe for the article he used, I once read a very prominent publication's report saying the same thing: gun crime is up even after the ban.
What the headline omitted, but the article expounded on, was the crimes that increased were possession violations. Basically shootings were already on the decline before the ban, and that trend continued unaffected by the ban. But people being charged and convicted of "gun crimes" increased greatly because the new laws made previously lawful possessors of firearms criminals without them having committed a single act of violence.
A great example of a government criminalizong otherwise law-abiding citizens with legislation that did nothing to solve "gun violence" and mass shootings.
-
Depending on the timeframe for the article he used, I once read a very prominent publication's report saying the same thing: gun crime is up even after the ban.
What the headline omitted, but the article expounded on, was the crimes that increased were possession violations. Basically shootings were already on the decline before the ban, and that trend continued unaffected by the ban. But people being charged and convicted of "gun crimes" increased greatly because the new laws made previously lawful possessors of firearms criminals without them having committed a single act of violence.
A great example of a government criminalizong otherwise law-abiding citizens with legislation that did nothing to solve "gun violence" and mass shootings.
His IG post on 10/27. 60 Mins Australia flew to him to talk about "gun control". Dan says it doesn't work as there are more guns now than before the buy back.
-
Dan Bongino had a vid recently where he talked about an old interview he did with an Australian reporter who brough up the ban there. Dan said gun crime is up, I can't remember if he said murder or just crime/violence. He then showed the reporter the source and the reporter was amazed.
I'll try to dig up the studies. IIRC, it showed stuff like home invasions, armed robbery, assault, etc in 6 month intervals after the gun ban.
-
i'll just leave this here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxvBzEXAqUc