VT shooting lead to bannning guns for former med takers?


PDA






Ratzinger_p38
April 20, 2007, 01:41 PM
Guys, I am sure I am not the only one who took meds in the past. When I was younger (from about when I was 16-18) I was given zoloft and prozac (briefly on prozac, perhaps 1 month). It was just general depression, although earlier they claimed I had 'obsessive compulsive' disorder (Hahahaa, yeah thats me, Im a regular Monk). Later on I was given trazadone when I had trouble sleeping back in 2002. I let myself think I was depressed, but in reality I was just fine. I got my wakeup call when I went to try and get SSI (Yeah, so depressed I cant work, funny to me that I tried this) and the SSI people told me in a somewhat amusing letter "youre fine, get a job". I stopped listening to the liberal BS about 'mental health' at this point and I have been better since.

I am worried, very much so, that such things would get me or people like me 'banned' from owning guns after this crap. There are so many people that take whatever for depression (even the more hardcore anti-pyshcotics) and are totally normal people. But now I read articles that practically say drugs should prevent you from owning firearms. I know I am not the only person here who had been on them before (its been 5 1/2 years for me now since I have been) and perhaps there are some guys here who are currently on meds for whatever reason.

Thoughts on this guys? Should we worry? Where do you people see all this leading to? This seems to be the thing they are grasping onto the most.

If you enjoyed reading about "VT shooting lead to bannning guns for former med takers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
News Shooter
April 20, 2007, 01:50 PM
3/4 of the population are on some kind of happy pills

RNB65
April 20, 2007, 01:57 PM
Don't worry about it. I'm sure there will be some efforts made to try to better identify people who are suicidal, psychotic, paranoid, etc. But no one's concerned about the mild stuff. Mild depression is almost as common as head colds. No big deal.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 20, 2007, 01:58 PM
I remember reading something about more than half of all women being on some form of anti-depressant. And, the pharmaceutical industry is doing it's best to match or surpass those numbers for men.

Personally, I think we are over-medicated as a society, and I refuse to take any type of mood altering substance, or pain pill. Mainly because I know people who get used to using something like that, and cannot get through the day without their meds. That being said, most of those folks aren't "done for" or mentally unfit.

Problem is the medical industry tells everyone they need something to get through pain. Whether emotional or physical. Nine times out of ten, you need friends, you need family. You might need a personal counselor, a Priest or Rabbi. But you don't need Prozac.

Cho needed Prozac. He also needed to be committed. But, the state didn't want to pay for that cost, and 30+ people died because of it.

Derek Zeanah
April 20, 2007, 02:05 PM
But no one's concerned about the mild stuff. Mild depression is almost as common as head colds. No big deal.Yet.

Ratzinger_p38
April 20, 2007, 02:18 PM
I do agree that Cho was dropped by the system. Looking at the rule he wasnt barred from buying a gun as far as I can tell - BUT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Basically the state shrugs off all people except for the people who are drooling on themselves, probably because they dont want to pay for the care.

This kid should have been helped, and perhaps right now hed be a more normal young man and all of his victims still living.

Geno
April 20, 2007, 02:26 PM
As I understand life, at any given time, somewhere around 25% of America has a depressive tendency. Following 9/11, over 50% of America had depressive tendencies. I really don't think it's a big deal. Michigan asks specifically are you taking any such meds at application time. They don't care a diddle about previous. Furthermore, states such as Michigan, which are "shall issue" states would not withhold firearms nor even CCW for a mild anti-depressant.

Besides, depression etc, does not play favorite. Recall Pres. Bush 1? He vomited on one of the Japanese politicians due to (it is believed) Prozac?

James T Thomas
April 20, 2007, 04:49 PM
Dear Doc:

What is your diagnosis?

The AMA requiring questioning of children as to whether mom or dad have a gun in the house.

The APA surreptitiously administering "psychological" evaluation of each and every child within the USA public school system and placing the results; classification in their permanent records.

The enactment of "hate crime" laws to further give governmetal control over the populace of our free nation.

Etc.

Was George Orwell an M.D.?

R.H. Lee
April 20, 2007, 05:08 PM
You really don't need Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Lexapro, or any of the SSRI seratonin uptake inhibitors. There exists a natural substance called DLPA which will accomplish the same thing, without side effects. The brain chemistry is only half the equation, however. You must concurrently apply Cognitive Therapy.

Soybomb
April 20, 2007, 05:11 PM
You really don't need Prozac, Paxil, Lexapro, or any of the SSRI seratonin uptake inhibitors.
Can I ask where you got your degree from, your clinical experience, and for a list of published papers under your name so I could review your qualifications for making such a sweeping statement?

gotarheels03
April 20, 2007, 05:25 PM
This was my 1st thought when people started talking about tying "mental health" with buying firearms. Because really, what does "mental heath" mean? I thought "Oh ****, this'll open the door for one more thing the gov. can do to deny me my rights." I mean I've never been on an anti-depressant (though I probably should have in the past) but I'm VERY uneasy with the idea of "mental health experts" holding the key to whether I can buy a gun.

Ratzinger_p38
April 20, 2007, 05:36 PM
Well, gotarheels03, after I was called 'crazy' in multiple places for saying all of that by people who are usually in the 'sky is falling' mode I think we're safe. I hope so.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 20, 2007, 06:33 PM
Look folks, what RH Lee said is correct. There are chemicals in your brain which regulate depression, and feelings of being "good." Some people have a very normal and stable brain chemistry in which normal emotionally disturbing things happen, and they are depressed. But, over time, and with counseling the levels balance out, and they are good again.

Other folks have flawed brain chemistry. They need the drugs. (As I said, Cho is an example). The problem is that the system as it currently works would rather medicate you into feeling okay rather than fix the social and psychological problems which underlay the depression in the first place.

You socialize medicine (or unversalize it, depending on your perspective), and the problem doesn't go away, and might get worse. The government is going to want to give you a box o' drugs and push you out the door just as much as the HMOs. And, many people out there would rather run from their problems than face them.

As I said, some people need the drugs. As to who needs drugs, and who needs counseling, well, there are better educated people than I to make those decisions (we call them headshrinks). The problem, whether the government signs your check, or a private party is that you have to care for your patients (which I doubt the psych looking over Cho really did), and you need to NOT have someone breathing down your neck to keep a hospital clear of burdens to the mental health system.

Myself, while I'd like the system to be 90% private, if I only had to pay $5 a month to keep all the Klebolds, Harrises, and Chos of the world in a white padded room, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

gotarheels03
April 20, 2007, 06:34 PM
^ There are plenty of people on AD's in this country and they're not randomly going on shooting rampages. This guy was mentally unstable, he wanted to kill people, he wanted to kill himself, he wanted his message aired on TV........ he was successful.

Mannix
April 20, 2007, 07:00 PM
You should be fine(for now, at least). If they do make such a law, there will be a way to get a waiver of some sort. Personally I don't find anything wrong with a little depression, it's pretty natural really. At least for me, it just acted as a wake up call that there was something wrong.

Ex. I attended Minneapolis Public Schools, and they had me trained like a parrot when it came to politics. I hit a stint of depression, started questioning everything(God, Meaning of life, meaning of everything really) and I realize that between the "you are special" BS and their liberal everything, they had me convinced that I had my own political views. I start questioning my teachers, and they essentially call me a trouble maker because they have no answers. One day I start talking to the army recruiter and some dbag asks me "So, you want to learn how to maim and kill innocent civilians?". I turn around and ask him how he can say that, has he been to Afghanistan? He says no, starts rambling, and walks off.

Short story short, a nice dose of melancholy can open your eyes. I'm not saying pills are bad, in many cases people should take them, but in most cases, all that's really needed is a little soul searching and maybe a little action in the right direction(At least in my experience, though perhaps I should have been given happy pills, then maybe I'd still be a mindless liberal parrot :D).

RealGun
April 20, 2007, 07:48 PM
Is anyone talking about legislation to limit firearms ownership for those on AD meds?

Has anyone said that the VT incident was caused by taking meds?

Has anyone even said that Cho was on meds? I missed it if they did, but obviously he might have been. But who would really believe this guy's behavior was due primarily to meds?

The real question is whether "mental illness" will now be recorded in a way that can be checked when purchasing a gun or applying for a carry license. No more voluntary disclosure and privacy from Big Brother. That's aside from the fact that it already should be reported, but courts workaround the rules to avoid damning someone with such a record, and when all else fails, they afterward approve a request to expunge records. That happened in Cho's case.

Then the question becomes how more common forms of depression will be classified. But most damaging is whether a particular prescription drug is damning or cause for being a subject of investigation, never mind the actual diagnosis.

With a stupid ruling, what you will get in the end is a black market for meds, so one does not have to reveal that they need anti-depressants, self diagnosed without guidance on best choices and contra-indications. You will also have many others who could well benefit from meds but won't risk formal treatment. I know that as risking a rise in suicides while not precluding any heinous act by some crazy person.

River Wraith
April 20, 2007, 07:51 PM
If they can pass legislation to prohibit anyone who has had mental health issues from owning a gun, the anti gunners will have almost achieved their objective.

RealGun
April 20, 2007, 08:01 PM
If they can pass legislation to prohibit anyone who has had mental health issues from owning a gun, the anti gunners will have almost achieved their objective.

Let's be a lot more specific than "mental health issues". Being antigun is a mental health issue.

Dave_in_GA
April 20, 2007, 08:09 PM
I have heard somewhere if a child has been on Ritalin during some period in their life, they might be disqualified for Military Service. Something like this on your records, and it would be a VERY Short leap to say "If you can't qualify for military service, you can't buy a gun".

Then it would be "If you have ever been perscribed ..Viagra"
or "OH, I see you have been using Prilosec..."

I am of the opinion that America is over medicated.....

Zoomer
April 20, 2007, 09:17 PM
Too bad my friend was in the mental health field - and depressed, yet refused to get help...he knew what would happen if he admitted he was "troubled". The stigma associated with needing help runs deep. He ended his life the day before last Christmas with a 357. Have a holly, jolly Christmas my A55.

Caimlas
April 21, 2007, 02:22 AM
This is precisely why I have refused my mother's pleas throughout the years to try anti-depressants: because it can, and will eventually, be used against us as citizens.

Not only that, but I am philosophically opposed to antidepressants and similar things. Yes, there are people that are simply too sick to deal with society - put them in treatment and make them work through their problems.

If they're too sick for that, medicate them and lock them up. It's quite simple: people have done "just fine" for millennia without happy pills and anti-psychotics. If people was depressed or psychotic, they'd either kill themselves or get locked up for being crazy. It's a nece

It's all a part of being a mature adult. If you're an adult, you don't get a lollipop every damn time you're upset, in a funk, or otherwise upset. You either pick up your b*lls and carry on, or roll over and die. That is precisely what has made America great: individualism, freedom to live or die as you see fit, and the encouragement to persevere through the incentive of not starving.

People need to gain some freakin' perspective and get themselves off the medications. It's doing more harm to them than it is doing good, for the most part (there are, of course, exceptions), and their lives would be much better with all the bounty this country has to offer. Plant a garden, stop watching TV, get out and exercise, at least - do something!

I went from a mopey kid to someone with conviction overnight, and the only thing that really changed was my perspective on what I'm entitled to, and what I can do and retain self-dignity. Maybe I'm faking it, I guess - but it doesn't feel that way. "Physician, heal thyself", as they say.

.45&TKD
April 21, 2007, 02:34 AM
That's the trap, when even the conservatives say this Cho guy should not have been able to get a gun. He would have gotten one any way, illegally, even if he was flagged at the NICS check. Or, he would have used something else as a weapon. Something as simple as gasoline and a zippo.

The solution to this problem is more CCW to stop the threat when it starts. Not trying to identify who may break the law in advance. We can't lock up everyone who may commit a crime. Face it, we don't even lock up the one's who do commit crimes, or at least, not for very long.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 21, 2007, 03:00 AM
.45&TKD

I'm not saying that the Cho incident would have been guaranteed impossible by a change in law and the NICS system. I agree that CCW licensure and presence likely would have stopped this tragedy.

But, as you said, another weapon could have been used.

If we fail to lock up psychotic folks, but every tenth person is a CCW, it won't stop acts of bloodshed. What you'd have then is psychos either using "sniper" (I use that expression in the loosest of terms) attacks, or more likely, using bombs. You can't stop a gasoline or a fertilizer bomb with a concealed handgun.

You still are left with the essential issue, "How do we keep nuts off the streets? How do we differentiate between nuts and the general populace?"

To me, it's not all that hard to do. It'll just take psych facilities not being so concerned with pushing people through their facilities as soon as possible. It'll take private insurance realizing the danger of not paying for those folks lockup, and the local governments deciding to play it safe for the good of everyone in our communities.

While I like CCW, and think it should be allowed on college campuses (and other schools as well), I also understand it isn't a panacea.

But I address the issue as in society a guy like Cho can't just not be trusted with a pistol, he can't be trusted with a plastic spork, and should've been in a straight jacket long ago.

.45&TKD
April 21, 2007, 03:30 AM
mordechaianiliewicz,

I just have a legitimate concern that the liberals will use this to ban guns from other law abiding citizens, and will use this as a stepping stone to ban other groups, until everyone is banned. Like the people falsely accused of domestic abuse are now.

From the previous posts, apparently some of our members have been on meds in the past. Should they lose their rights for a lifetime? The criminals and the insane alike; they shouldn't be loose if they can't be trusted with a gun? Because if they want one, they will find a way.

So for me, the fact that he was able to buy a gun is a problem that is secondary to the banning of concealed carry on campus and other gunfree zone issues. It is used as a distraction by the gun grabbers. Just like focusing on "semi-automatics" and "hi-cap magazines. Don't fall for it.

RealGun
April 21, 2007, 02:45 PM
This is precisely why I have refused my mother's pleas throughout the years to try anti-depressants: because it can, and will eventually, be used against us as citizens.

Well then you went on to convince yourself that you didn't need meds anyway. You wouldn't be the first who resisted the idea of being "broken" or needing professional help.

Some need meds and some don't. How about respecting that you might not represent everyone?

If you enjoyed reading about "VT shooting lead to bannning guns for former med takers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!