Quite different.
SSRIs are MOOD altering drugs. Narcotics, weed, heroin, alcohol are all cognition-altering. That’s why the FAA allows several SSRIs. They’ve been demonstrated to be effective at controlling depression and have little or no impact on cognition.
There have been rumors about SSRI potentially causing the worst kind of violent outbursts. What is your opinion?
Thanks for sharing dear Scott361 . Yep.
In school, I had to study safety as it applies to nuclear power plants, commercial airlines, and healthcare.
Had my experience as a “mandated” (not can, but must) reporter, including having to make reports to the state police FOID division. Similar to reporting child abuse/neglect or that of a senior.
It’s by far not an ideal system, and of course, it’s a slippery slope of balancing rights of privacy against the safety of that person and society. I’ve even had to testify in court.
I’ve developed more respect for those who have reported under the mandates
It’s humbling, and makes me appreciate my own rights all the more. On a positive note; I understand that more hospitals are now being supplied with lock boxes for patients who “legally carry”.
Requiring a FOID card is not always a 100% guarantee that it would have stopped shooter Payton Gendron in Buffalo, NY. However, the way it’s supposed to work is, if he was seen by a certain licensed healthcare worker, if they suspect his intellectual ability as unsafe, they are required to report it to FOID. The FOID authorities are then supposed to investigate, and if they deem appropriate, revoke his license. I think we refer to it as “red flagging”.
It still might not have worked in his case, but think about the several other clients or patients.
The Buffalo case still resonates in that those elders and even teens who knew him, I‘m not blaming, as I know very little about his case, but I wonder if someone could have helped that poor chap before the climatic tragedy.
There’s no single one easy solution; but could be a multifaceted approach. Or, just let anyone over a certain age “purchase/own” (not something I personally would vote for).
“Love our children, cherish our rights, never take either for granted.”
Yeah, that’s a real thing. There’s some debate as to whether the SSRIs cause the anger/rage issues, or if it’s just an underlying mental health issue that the SSRI is allowing to manifest itself.
In many people, the side effect goes away, That’s why usually when people start on SSRIs, the docs recommend giving it 4-6 weeks to take full effect.
In the case of the FAA, pilots must be on an SSRI for six months with no reported side effects before they can fly again.
A 2A purist would say “yup”. A 2A realist, particularly in light of incidents like Buffalo, may have a different opinion.
AKA, gun control believer… as the crime stats prove, gun control is an utter failure. I am a realist and a believer in our inalienable rights. An FFL dealer is not required to sell anyone a firearm, and can decide not to sell for any reason. The Obama-Holder gun walking scheme shows that FFL dealers do take that seriously. They reported attempted sales to the ATF and were told to sell them anyway, that they were aware, were monitoring those individuals, and to allow the illegal sales.
In a free society, we cannot prevent all bad outcomes. Even in a totalitarian society, we cannot prevent all bad outcomes. I prefer freedom over soul-crushing totalitarianism, the last couple of years has only made me more aware of the ills of the latter form of government. The words I will not comply are still ringing in my ears.
American Airlines Captain Robert Snow speaks out about his vaccine injury (rumble.com)
COVID vaccine injury claims mount, but recourse is lacking for those harmed | Reuters
India Supreme Court Rules Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates - Vaccine Impact
I guess a literal purist might argue that incarcerated felons are still entitled to keep and bear by the plain language.
I think the practical purist might say “yup, unless disqualified for specific cause by action of law.” Of course, there may still be debate about what “action of law” passes Constitutional muster to deprive life, liberty, or property (cf. 5A, 6A, 14A).
In light of incidents like Buffalo, some might take a position like “Constitution is too hard — let’s skip over that part.” 
And even the last firewall to hopefully stop us from completely ignoring the constitution is fraying at the edges. I pray the Supreme Court is able to keep it together, or get it back together. That’s our last human hope.
God is always our greatest hope.
And what happens with people on SSRI’s who are also abusing other drugs and alcohol? Perhaps they become psychotic?
The answer is, “it depends.” I know when the docs prescribe SSRIs, or really ANY psych med, they recommend no other drugs, legal or otherwise. You just can’t tell what the interaction will be.
Alcohol in particular is a CNS depressant, so it would be working against whatever an SSRI is doing.
Mixing drugs - not a good idea.
So, earlier I asked about the regulations on pilots and whether it might cause a pilot to avoid seeking mental health expertise, out of fear that it could cause him/her to lose his/her ability to fly and earn a paycheck.
Today I heard that Dog the Bounty Hunter suggested that every firearm owner should have to pass a mental health exam. The law of unintended consequences could have the same effect, so I’ll ask the same question. If the U.S. could restrict firearm ownership based on mental health, could that keep those who own firearms from seeking help for mental health issues? Even if the U.S. required mandatory annual visits, it’s not too difficult to lie on a routine screening and be cleared.
If periodic mental health clearances became “a thing” that would open up a whole new boutique of “walk-in and pay mental health clearances now” businesses. Market demand drives most everything, right?
In these days of “gender confusion”, being unable to give the definition of “woman”, and “men can become pregnant”, etc. there are more than enough people in need of psychiatric/ psychological intervention without going after “all” gun owners, the great majority who hope to God they never have to use them to defend themselves or others.
And how about those who are unsure if there is catastrophic climate change, or if they should get the 5th booster shot –they are positively insane!
Read about Soviet punitive psychiatry. “It cannot happen here”, of course.
It depends on how you test/screen. A routine screening, yes, easy to fake it. (Patients do it to me all the time.) But a more detailed exam like the MMPI is designed to detect lying. It costs around $500 to get an MMPI test. Interesting to wonder about who’s going to pay that!
I think that absolutely would stop some people from seeking help. At the very least it might cause others to be less open and honest about their troubles with a provider. A system specifically designed to assess everyone’s mental health before allowing gun ownership would be a disastrous violation of multiple constitutional rights.
But if someone reveals themselves to be mentally incapable of safely handling a firearm (or any pointy or blunt object for that matter), whether through clearly threatening statements or actions, then there does need to be a more effective and efficient system in place for rapidly and effectively applying due process to assess and remove the threat should it be shown to exist beyond a reasonable doubt. That person needs to then have the means to regain their rights in a timely manor if they can show they are not a threat.
I’m in agreement. And I won’t pretend I know how to design such a system. It seems to me that every time a nutcase runs loose with a firearm, everyone is quick to blame 1) evil guns, and 2) anyone who didn’t report or follow-up on the now obvious mental health issues. It’s easy to place blame in retrospect; it’s a lot more difficult to design a system that catches everyone before the crime is committed without infringing on the rights of people who are no danger to others.
NYS recently passed a law requiring mental health screening for CC holders, it might all firearm owners, I don’t recall exactly. We shall see how well that works… I am so glad I left NYS. I cannot imagine living with such ridiculous laws, and the fees for purchase/transfer of firearms is also insane.
I guess where this makes me nervous is when I wonder who gets to set the standard. There’s been a pattern in recent years with politicians increasingly telling mental health workers, psychiatrists, and psychologists how to do their job.
And the “standard” will never, ever be 100% effective at 1) Accurately screening out psychologically imbalanced people who are likely to harm others with a firearm, and 2) NOT screening out people who could responsibly own and carry.
Zero standards for gun ownership will mean some people who cannot responsibly own and carry will anyways. Any standard will get it wrong sometimes.
No perfect solution.