# The NRA Weighs in on the NFL



## frodo (Oct 1, 2017)

A true American Hero.
Are we so lazy as Americans, so disgustingly forgetful that we can not give Honor where and too those to whom honor is do?
The NFL can eat crap and die.
I am tired that we have to "REMIND" them. Remind them of what if they don't know well this is a lesson they need, but they will never learn if they don't know it by now.?

Football was supposed to be weekend entertainment - instead people want to shame us? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=VJ-wNQIpP54






FOR WHAT? I am not letting anyone shame me, as I treat all people the same as if I am color blind. If you are an ***, you get treated like one. If you are a good person with a good heart I will treat you with that honorable respect.

Personally I don't care if football ever comes back because their salaries are outrageous. Ticket prices are over the top. STEALING from the Taxpayers for their stadiums and then spiting in our faces?
The Lord says we are to forgive if they ask.
And I think that is appropriate, but going back and allowing their CRIMINAL ENTITLED BEHAVIOR TO CONTINUE? 
Sending a message that "oh sure we will come back and you can treat us with disrespect" is ridiculous. Getting involved with Criminal behavior is unacceptable, domestic violence is not to be tolerated, ect. If they want to be honored act HONORABLY


----------



## Flyover (Oct 1, 2017)

For those of us who avoid the news/Twitter/Facebook/etc., can you fill us in on what you're talking about?

1. Who's the American Hero you're referring to?
2. What's this "remind" stuff in reference to?
3. Who sent the message of "we will come back and you can treat us with disrespect"?

I agree with you about the NFL being a waste of money/outrageous salaries etc. Other major league sports too, and NCAA. Seems like people use sports as their true religion. They cheer for Jesus on Sunday mornings but the rest of the time what they really believe in is OSU or the Yankees or the Cowboys or whatever.


----------



## slownsteady (Oct 2, 2017)

Pro sports are over-rated, and so is giving extra attention to the current "ker-fuffle".
That being said, what ever happened to *FREE SPEECH* and the RIGHT to PROTEST.? IF I recall correctly, the First Amendment comes before the Second Amendment. So who cares what the NRA thinks.


----------



## frodo (Oct 2, 2017)

My objection is not the free speech or the right to peaceably protest
Those are both rights of our constitution,
My objection is the location of the protest.
And the slap in the face of our Military.
In my opinion, They have no business protesting while they are in the stadium

Are you aware that players from Jacksonville Jaguars and the Baltimore Ravens dropped to their knees as the national anthem was played prior to the match in London.
Then
Stood  during the playing of God Save The Queen  Wembley, which followed the Star Spangled Banner. 
OH THE IRONY.
the star spangled banner is a song about the British bombing of Ft. McHenry during the War of 1812. 

 Kaepernick explained his decision in an interview with NFL Medias Steve Wyche as I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. 

There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.


 bodies in the Street?  The Bodies that are in the street are the bodies of BLACK ON BLACK Crime
But I do not hear a PEEP out of Mr Kaepernick about the wholesale slaughter of BLACKS BY BLACKS  7881 deaths in 2016
His Whole protest is disingenuous 

In 2016,   963 people were shot and killed by police
white  466
black  233
hispanic 160
other  42
unknown  62


----------



## Flyover (Oct 2, 2017)

@Frodo:

Why does the location of the protests matter? A sports stadium isn't exactly Arlington Cemetery. I like that we sing the anthem before sports games, but I don't like how they parade out members of the armed forces, the Color Guard, all that...it confuses government authority with a private entertainment organization. Sports events aren't civic events, or at least they shouldn't be.

Anyway I've seen those stats too. They would be impactful if this cops-shooting-black-people issue was about truth and rational discussion, but it isn't. It's about us vs. them and "look how evil they are and how innocent and oppressed we are" (on both sides!) and using any available facts as ammo to that end.

Seems to me like the obvious solution is to just quit paying attention to pro sports. The NFL only gets as much power as viewers and merch-buyers give it. I don't like sports being used as a platform for political statements, but rather than say "you can't make the statement" I think we should just make the platform low-visibility.

Besides, I can't emphasize enough how much better life is without TV.


----------



## frodo (Oct 2, 2017)

Flyover said:


> 1. Who's the American Hero you're referring to?
> Did you watch the video?
> 2. What's this "remind" stuff in reference to?
> It is about the NFL players disrespect of the vets
> ...


..................


----------



## frodo (Oct 2, 2017)

@ Flyover
https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Man+Takes+A+Knee+At+Arlington+Cemetery&qpvt=man+takes+a+knee+at+arlington+cemetary&FORM=EWRE
Did you say Arlington cemetary?



The national Anthim Is a Military Tradition that started back in ww1
http://time.com/4955623/history-national-anthem-sports-nfl/


----------



## Chris (Oct 2, 2017)

To me by kneeling for the flag you are making a statement that you don't support this country.  I understand protest and I would understand if they just stood there or sat on the bench but by kneeling it puts the negative into the equation. To me there are much better places and times for protest and I believe that most of these guys are not doing it because they truly believe in the cause but more jumping on the band wagon for their 15 minutes of fame. I don't see any of these guys on their own time doing any sort of protest or working to change things for the positive. All they have done is drug football into the division game that is being played in America and ruining more entertainment for people who don't want to see politics mixed in with entrrtainment.


----------



## frodo (Oct 2, 2017)

Chris said:


> To me by kneeling for the flag you are making a statement that you don't support this country.  I understand protest and I would understand if they just stood there or sat on the bench but by kneeling it puts the negative into the equation. To me there are much better places and times for protest and I believe that most of these guys are not doing it because they truly believe in the cause but more jumping on the band wagon for their 15 minutes of fame. I don't see any of these guys on their own time doing any sort of protest or working to change things for the positive. All they have done is drug football into the division game that is being played in America and ruining more entertainment for people who don't want to see politics mixed in with entrrtainment.



What he said


----------



## havasu (Oct 2, 2017)

I agree. If they can get down on one knee as a protest, I can shut off the TV as my protest. 

If they don't like this country, then GTFO!


----------



## Flyover (Oct 2, 2017)

Hm. Yeah, if I remember right, the Francis Scott Key poem was put to music around the time of WWI. It'd be interesting to learn if the connotation with sports was established then or later. I could easily imagine it was when a lot of athletes were drafted and became vets.

Anyway, I agree about kneeling during the anthem being disrespectful to the flag, potentially to vets, etc. and about mixing sports and politics, but I disagree that athletes should be kept from doing it. Unless the sports organizations want to come up with their own rules about political speech (might as well ban tattoos while they're at it...all that'd be nice but they'll never do it).

I disagree that it "ruins" the entertainment, once the anthem's over it's back to the game as usual. But I definitely have to keep restating...turn off your TV--heck, sell it on Craigslist and read books instead--is the best thing you can do.


----------



## frodo (Oct 2, 2017)

There are records of "The Star Spangled Banner" gracing the diamond going back as far as 1897, but the song wasn't adopted as the national anthem until 1931. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl-national-anthem-trump-kaepernick-history-trnd/index.html

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...2011-title36-subtitleI-partA-chap3-sec301.htm
§301. National anthem
(a) Designation.&#8212;The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
(b) Conduct During Playing.&#8212;During a rendition of the national anthem&#8212;
(1) when the flag is displayed&#8212;
(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;
(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and
(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.


----------



## Chris (Oct 2, 2017)

Flyover said:


> Hm. Yeah, if I remember right, the Francis Scott Key poem was put to music around the time of WWI. It'd be interesting to learn if the connotation with sports was established then or later. I could easily imagine it was when a lot of athletes were drafted and became vets.
> 
> Anyway, I agree about kneeling during the anthem being disrespectful to the flag, potentially to vets, etc. and about mixing sports and politics, but I disagree that athletes should be kept from doing it. Unless the sports organizations want to come up with their own rules about political speech (might as well ban tattoos while they're at it...all that'd be nice but they'll never do it).
> 
> I disagree that it "ruins" the entertainment, once the anthem's over it's back to the game as usual. But I definitely have to keep restating...turn off your TV--heck, sell it on Craigslist and read books instead--is the best thing you can do.



I agree on getting rid of TV or just don't abuse it. I watch the local news for about 30 minutes in the morning and that's it, don't watch anything else ever really and if I do its a hunting show but that's rare. I am an outdoors kinda guy. I usually check the forums when I am taking a break from whatever I am doing then get back to work. I guess I can say I am boycotting football because I never watched it in the first place. My life is too busy for TV.


----------



## zannej (Oct 2, 2017)

So, because of this debacle, I have learned that the NFL gets federal funding. WTF? Why?
Although, honestly, I have a hard time caring about sports or about overpaid athletes. It may have been tacky for them to choose this venue for their protest, but at least the protests were peaceful. Nobody got hurt. Nothing was looted or set on fire. And as inappropriate a time and venue as it may be, it did get their message across (although met with mixed results) and unless there are rules in the NFL against it, there is nothing technically "wrong" with it. Tacky, yeah, but still beats some of the alternatives. I'll take NFL players kneeling during the anthem (where I don't have to watch or care) over people blocking streets, throwing things, breaking windows, and setting things on fire. But, if I actually gave a crap about sports and was watching to be entertained, I'm not sure how I would feel about having a political protest-- when I want to be entertained, I want politics to stay out of it.

I have also seen that there are some military and veterans who are supporting the right of the players to kneel. So, it's not a black and white issue (no pun intended). I don't think that the players meant any disrespect to the country or to the military and veterans though. Of course, there are consequences for actions and if people want to boycott the NFL, they have every right to do so.  I admit, I have a hard time actually caring (not about the country or respect for military-- but about sports and the players and what they think/do). There are far bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Chris (Oct 2, 2017)

Flyover said:


> Hm. Yeah, if I remember right, the Francis Scott Key poem was put to music around the time of WWI. It'd be interesting to learn if the connotation with sports was established then or later. I could easily imagine it was when a lot of athletes were drafted and became vets.
> 
> Anyway, I agree about kneeling during the anthem being disrespectful to the flag, potentially to vets, etc. and about mixing sports and politics, but I disagree that athletes should be kept from doing it. Unless the sports organizations want to come up with their own rules about political speech (might as well ban tattoos while they're at it...all that'd be nice but they'll never do it).
> 
> I disagree that it "ruins" the entertainment, once the anthem's over it's back to the game as usual. But I definitely have to keep restating...turn off your TV--heck, sell it on Craigslist and read books instead--is the best thing you can do.



They should also have disciplinary action for getting arrested, many young people look up to these guys and when they are running around being thugs thats not a good image.


----------



## zannej (Oct 3, 2017)

Since this thread mentions the NRA, I want to use it as a brief segue to an argument I had on FB. So, some people were saying that the right to have guns was made back when guns only fired 1 shot per x amount and were much lower powered and the sort of gunpower we have now was not something they thought of and that we needed to update for 2017. I countered that by that logic, with the original intent of the law being to allow citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, wouldn't it mean we would update to even MORE firepower? If the government has drones, missile launchers, heavy artillery, etc available, wouldn't that mean we should have equal power to fight back? And they are mad about people having semi-automatic weapons. But banning them won't stop people like the guy in LV from snapping and killing people. While I do think my state needs to have some more rules and regulations when it comes to buying a gun (all you need to do is be 18 and have an ID-- no background checks and no waiting period), it won't stop someone like the perpetrator in this case.

And back on topic, I do agree with Chris (although I would say convicted instead of arrested-- because sometimes people get wrongfully arrested-- happened to a friend of mine recently). If they are going around committing crimes, the NFL should penalize them.


----------



## frodo (Oct 3, 2017)

zannej said:


> Since this thread mentions the NRA, I want to use it as a brief segue to an argument I had on FB. So, some people were saying that the right to have guns was made back when guns only fired 1 shot per x amount and were much lower powered and the sort of gunpower we have now was not something they thought of and that we needed to update for 2017. I countered that by that logic, with the original intent of the law being to allow citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, wouldn't it mean we would update to even MORE firepower? If the government has drones, missile launchers, heavy artillery, etc available, wouldn't that mean we should have equal power to fight back? And they are mad about people having semi-automatic weapons. But banning them won't stop people like the guy in LV from snapping and killing people. While I do think my state needs to have some more rules and regulations when it comes to buying a gun (all you need to do is be 18 and have an ID-- no background checks and no waiting period), it won't stop someone like the perpetrator in this case.
> 
> And back on topic, I do agree with Chris (although I would say convicted instead of arrested-- because sometimes people get wrongfully arrested-- happened to a friend of mine recently). If they are going around committing crimes, the NFL should penalize them.



http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

Is the second amendment just for muskets?  you might be asking yourself if youre an idiot.
Weve heard the argument countless times from anti-gun advocates.
The problem is that its dead wrong. Well get to all of the pre-constitution assault weapons that already existed in a second. But firstly, to believe this premise youd have to believe that the founding fathers were SO stupid they have never witnessed nor anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever.
Believe it or not weapons have evolved since the beginning of mankind. Rocks became sharper rocks, sharper rocks became clubs, clubs became swords, swords became guns etc etc.
Also, quick irony alert (IRONY ALERT GRAPHIC), many of the filthy hipsters wanting to take away your 2nd amendment rights claiming that it wasnt written for advanced technology are doing so by exercising their first amendment rights written long before their iphones. //
But finally the good stuff, the guns. Turns out that by the time the 2nd amendment was written, assault weapons already existed.
-Yep just take the belton flintlock developed during the revolutionary war that could fire 20 or so rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the finger.
-Or the girandoni rifle, where a 22 high capacity round magazine accurately could be fired within 30 seconds created during the revolutionary war which was later used by Thomas Jefferson to famously outfit the lewis and clark expedition.
- Or even the Puckle gun early gatling gun created 60 years before the revolutionry war.
- Heck even the Pepper box revolvers some could hold over 20 rounds and were developed hundreds of years before the founding fathers.
Not only were the founding fathers aware of these weapons, they were FANS for crying out loud. Here's a letter of marque and reprisal signed by President Madison.*http://www.1812privateers.org/United States/PRINCE/usmarq.html for a privately owned ship carrying cannons that was authorized to attack enemy shipping. These were not muskets. And the founding fathers didnt give no craps.
The most important takeaway here is that even though the second amendment is written in a way that LITERALLY applies to all weapons, contrary to what weve been told the more attention we give to its context and history, the more you see that the founding fathers EXPRESSLY wrote it this way in full knowledge to include very serious, effective weapons. // So anytime a silly leftist tells you that the second amendment is for muskets, send them this video because its done. The argument is over. End of story, no more, stop misninforming the American public, you filthy hippies.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s[/ame]


----------



## slownsteady (Oct 3, 2017)

Frodo, the articles you choose to quote offend me on several levels. First of all, the fact that you quote them verbatim, without even bothering to interpret them (or filter them) through your own thoughts. A parrot could do as much. Second, you choose sources that are so biased that anyone who reads them can smell the hate for the other side. There is no serious reflection going on here, just knee-jerk reactionary statements to other points of view.
Third; this guy as anti-fas??? Who fed you that line of bullsh*t??? And why? Did he think that all country music fans are fascists? Or did some fascist writer think that he had to stir up some hate for a group he opposes? Why spread a rumor like that when no one can back it up?

In the case of the Las Vegas shootings, where an otherwise model citizen flips a lid and goes berserk - I agree - no amount of law would stop such a lunatic....even anti gun legislation. And yes, the anti-gun factions will argue that the devastation would be far less if the lunatic/killer was limited to just a knife or a club or his bare hands (they would be right as far as that goes). I am not for disarming the population. At some point in time the government will fail to be democratic and the oppressed will have to defend themselves. And who is to say what side of the line each person will fall on. But SOMETHING needs to be done to reduce the chances of this happening again......and again..................and again. It is just too sad to see innocent people fall for no reason. 
Better background checks? Maybe. 
Thought police? 
What if every NRA person present at the show turned and fired in the direction of the shooter????? 

Just how f**ked up will this become.?


----------



## havasu (Oct 3, 2017)

slownsteady said:


> What if every NRA person present at the show turned and fired in the direction of the shooter?????
> 
> Just how f**ked up will this become.?



If they were actually shooters who took the NRA safety course, they would be aware of the basic fundamental of shooting, which states "be aware of your target and beyond."

As a result of this rule, I would hope that nobody would have shot back.


----------



## Chris (Oct 3, 2017)

havasu said:


> If they were actually shooters who took the NRA safety course, they would be aware of the basic fundamental of shooting, which states "be aware of your target and beyond."
> 
> As a result of this rule, I would hope that nobody would have shot back.



I always carry my sniper rifle.


----------



## slownsteady (Oct 3, 2017)

Chris said:


> I always carry my sniper rifle.


Don't forget that big bushy camo thingie.


----------



## Chris (Oct 4, 2017)

Its in my backpack. It reverses to a city trash can for urban warfare


----------



## slownsteady (Oct 4, 2017)

Chris said:


> Its in my backpack. It reverses to a city trash can for urban warfare


I tried that camo once; people kept throwing empty beer cans at my head :hide:


----------



## Chris (Oct 4, 2017)

If you try the camo part while in the city people and dogs will pee on you


----------



## nealtw (Oct 4, 2017)

You guys with guns that have friends with guns. Would you notice a friend changing and what would it take to get him help.
I would think you would consider loosing a friend and even worse, what if you were wrong. Would you loose a bunch of friends.

Or would it just be easier to say, me and all my friends are straight up guys nothing to think about.


----------



## Chris (Oct 4, 2017)

I don't have many friends but if for a minute I thought one of my friends could do something dangerous I would have no problem doing my part to make sure that doesn't happen. I lose friends rather quickly because I don't put up with crap.


----------



## nealtw (Oct 4, 2017)

Chris said:


> I don't have many friends but if for a minute I thought one of my friends could do something dangerous I would have no problem doing my part to make sure that doesn't happen. I lose friends rather quickly because I don't put up with crap.



I think that would be tough for most people that have been friends for years.


----------



## frodo (Oct 4, 2017)

nealtw said:


> You guys with guns that have friends with guns. Would you notice a friend changing and what would it take to get him help.
> I would think you would consider loosing a friend and even worse, what if you were wrong. Would you loose a bunch of friends.
> 
> Or would it just be easier to say, me and all my friends are straight up guys nothing to think about.



I have a very good friend that is going through a very rough time
had a stroke
the gun club went to his house and removed his firearms.
for his protection,  we love the old bastid enough to protect him
we sat him down and explained we were there because we care
when he recovered they would be at the club house in a safe
he agreed it would be the best all around
maybe you would like to buy one of his books
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006FAL94/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006RCBYA/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20


----------



## frodo (Oct 4, 2017)

nealtw said:


> You guys with guns that have friends with guns. Would you notice a friend changing and what would it take to get him help.
> I would think you would consider loosing a friend and even worse, what if you were wrong. Would you loose a bunch of friends.
> 
> Or would it just be easier to say, me and all my friends are straight up guys nothing to think about.



It is all about safety,  I hang out with 30 guys that all shoot
we have rules that we adhere to
wear your ears
eye protection
no alcohol or drugs
the only person who has shot anyone by accident was the gun smith
shot himself in the leg taking apart a gun his dumbass did not clear
he was very embarrassed, and we ragged him for a good 6 months


----------



## Flyover (Oct 4, 2017)

Here's my more serious theory on mass shootings (although it's also one I just made up). And actually this is generalizable to other types of crime, terrorism, etc. Maybe all behavior.

Very few people are inventive enough to come up with a new thing to do, or a new way of doing something--especially if it involves more than 3 or 4 steps. For most people, the stuff we do is stuff we saw other people do. It's a *model* that we got from somewhere else. This is true for everything from tying your shoes to fixing your A/C unit.

The "mass shooting" probably became a model for most people in 1966 when that guy in Texas shot 14 people from a tower. The public recoiled from that, cops learned to look out for it, and for a while it remained a pretty rare thing. Also, when one did happen, there were just a handful of TV stations, and they had news programs; they weren't news all the time. (Same goes for radio, I believe, though I'm not sure.) Those news programs often didn't have live feeds, they didn't have correspondents all over the place, they didn't have flashy graphics, etc.

(By the way, this is not me being sentimental about journalism. I think journalism is a bogus field and that the only thing that separates a journalist from any other kind of writer or media person is that a journalist pretends to be an impartial authority on everything. But journalism is actually a lot less overtly biased and sensational now than it used to be. If you don't believe me, look up New York Times articles from 100 years ago.)

As information started to move faster--first with video, then with cable, then with internet--models started spreading faster too. If I'm a wacko in 1967 and I want to commit mass murder, what models are available to me? Well, I know about that one guy last year who shot those people from a tower...but he was just one guy, and he must have been a really amazing shot to pull off something like that, and the cops are all looking out for that now anyway. Maybe I'll just go shoot a dog or something, that sounds easier.

But if I want to commit mass murder half a century later in 2017, I know about mass shootings (everything from Columbine to the Paris nightclub), I know about running into crowds of people with a truck, I know about bombing buses, etc. etc. and I've even watched actual footage of all these on Youtube over and over again.

The distance between "I want to commit mass murder" and "What models can I use to determine how I will do it" has been drastically reduced by the ubiquity of cameras, 24-hour news, the internet, and things like that.

As I've mentioned, I don't watch TV and I avoid the news and social media. One of the reasons I do that is because I see it has this kind of effect. The news channels social media feeds that go on and on endlessly every time a mass shooting like this happens are, in my opinion, helping ensure the next one happens too. They have no incentive not to, so I put my foot down and say I have an incentive not to include it as part of my life.


----------



## zannej (Oct 9, 2017)

I really do think that one of the problems is not even the guns or gun control, but it's the attitudes people have.
The priorities and role models of today are different. I saw a meme about a little boy who is in medical school or already graduated or something like that and hardly anyone knows about him, but there is some bratty girl who appeared on some TV program (I think something like Dr. Phil) and she has thousands of "followers". The girl breaks the law, does drugs, and is generally what some would call a piece of trash.
Instead of valuing people who are intelligent, talented, and actually contribute to the world, there is some twisted obsession with the seedier side of life and people are looking to "reality" TV "stars" for role models. When you have someone like Chris Kardashian who openly exploits her daughters, people who just have a bunch of kids, people who do drugs, etc and those are the ones being featured on TV, it is not sending the right message. It's saying that if you do something bad, you will be remembered and have instant fame. Which brings me to another point, the focus on being popular and famous. I realize that the desire for that sort of external validation is sometimes just an innate personality trait, but the media today has greatly exaggerated it and makes a bigger deal about it. When people care more about what is popular than what is right, then we have a problem.
In order to stop mass killings, we would need to change the cultural attitude-- and that will be no easy task. But, it would be nice if we could start with the media and get them to be a little more responsible. They absolutely do deliberately stir crap and focus more on the negative than they do on the positive.

And now I have to go to the DMV to renew my driver's license. Be back later.


----------



## frodo (Oct 9, 2017)

couple of years  back i was studying the mass shootings, 
i looked at all the mass shootings in the last 2 year period  to see what gun was used in each incident.
this is when i found something i had not been looking for
antidepressants, all of the mass shootings  shooters were on antidepressants and or under a dr care for depression
this included the teenage shooters
it is my opinion, that dr. need to stop handing out antidepressants like candy
the side effects include  suicidal tendencies 

oh, btw,  the original reason for the study was to see how many mass shootings involved the ar 15
according to media it is used in every mass shooting.
that is a false hood,  a semiauto hand gun was used in 99 percent of the shootings and a ar was used in less than half


----------



## zannej (Oct 9, 2017)

frodo said:


> couple of years  back i was studying the mass shootings,
> i looked at all the mass shootings in the last 2 year period  to see what gun was used in each incident.
> this is when i found something i had not been looking for
> antidepressants, all of the mass shootings  shooters were on antidepressants and or under a dr care for depression
> ...


While there may be a correlation between antidepressants and the killings, the medicines themselves might not be the cause. The depression itself could be the factor. They just might not be on the right amount or type of antidepressants. Some of them may have stopped taking them due to side effects. If someone has a chemical imbalance causing severe depression and suicidal ideations, it can be difficult to treat. A lot of the times there is insufficient sarotonin, but that can't always be accurately measured and there is still so much that we don't know about how the brain works and about what the drugs can do. In many cases, the antidepressants can help-- unfortunately, each person has unique chemistry and what works for one person doesn't work for another. For instance: Valium will usually calm people and help them relax-- in my case, it makes me highly agitated and jittery. Vicodin makes my brother-in-law very happy and mellow-- it does absolutely nothing for me (doesn't even relieve pain). There is no guarantee that the medicines will help. I have some friends with clinical depression who are finding the antidepressants helpful. The key is getting the right mix and then hoping they don't get diminished returns from staying on it for too long. And then some meds (usually antipsychotics) can cause tardive dyskenisia after longtime use.

That said, I do think there are some meds that get pushed very hard by big pharma and doctors are often treating symptoms instead of trying to find a solution to the root cause-- partially because pharmaceutical companies make more $ if people become dependent on their products and because people don't want to be in pain, they will pay through the nose for meds.

From everything I've heard about this last killing, the shooter seemed to be in good mental health (at least outwardly). It's possible he just got fed up with people.

Also, I am interested in the research/info you found on the mass shootings. I've heard there were a lot of them. I'm wondering how many involved AR15s, how many of the guns used were obtained/owned legally, and that sort of thing.


----------



## slownsteady (Oct 10, 2017)

frodo said:


> .........  a semiauto hand gun was used in 99 percent of the shootings and a ar was used in less than half


99 percent and 49 percent make 148%


----------



## slownsteady (Oct 10, 2017)

As Flyover mentioned, vote with your remote control.....no ratings=no sponsors=no money.


----------



## frodo (Oct 10, 2017)

slownsteady said:


> 99 percent and 49 percent make 148%



more than 1  gun was used, some times 3 or 4 per incident
:banana:


----------

