Crime Las Vegas Mass Shooting

[Falsedawn]

Citations to what?

Read and see playboy.

You could have been 3/4 of the way through it by now if you weren't desperately searching for a reason to discredit me without doing any work.

 

[weed]

the people gots no purpose, to much materialism, no God or ethnic, tribal or pride for religion. I think you hollywood produce stuff mtv is all bad and no purpose also gay propagandas is found all place and radical feminism take from men power which men need.

why do you always talk shit about the US, when you idolize Mike Perry?

 

[floivanus]

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

Updated October 4, 2017 - 10:00 am
Stephen Paddock, who killed at least 58 people and wounded hundreds more in Las Vegas on Sunday with high-powered rifles, was prescribed an anti-anxiety drug in June that can lead to aggressive behavior, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has learned.

Records from the Nevada Prescription Monitoring Program obtained Tuesday show Paddock was prescribed 50 10-milligram diazepam tablets by Henderson physician Dr. Steven Winkler on June 21.

A woman who answered the phone at Winkler’s office would not make him available to answer questions and would neither confirm nor deny that Paddock was ever a patient.

Paddock purchased the drug — its brand name is Valium — without insurance at a Walgreens store in Reno on the same day it was prescribed. He was supposed to take one pill a day.

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug in the class of drugs known as benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can trigger aggressive behavior. Chronic use or abuse of sedatives such as diazepam can also trigger psychotic experiences, according to drugabuse.com.

'They can become aggressive’

“If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center. “It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. … It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep.”

Pohl, who spoke to the Review-Journal from the Netherlands, said the effects of the drug also can be magnified by alcohol.

A 2015 study published in World Psychiatry of 960 Finnish adults and teens convicted of homicide showed that their odds of killing were 45 percent higher during time periods when they were on benzodiazepines.

A year earlier, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry published a study titled, “Benzodiazepine Use and Aggressive Behavior.” The authors wrote: “It appears that benzodiazepine use is moderately associated with subsequent aggressive behavior.”

Rest at:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local...shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

Diazepam is also used by snipers to steady their aim isn't it?

 

[My Spot]

Diazepam is also used by snipers to steady their aim isn't it?

Metal Gear Solid.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Do you have a link I

Take it up with Pew.

Do you have a link , the only thing I found from pew puts gun ownership at 30% which lines up with what the link i posted that referenced several studies

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

When it comes to the benzo theory...ive had first hand experience with the symptoms of rage. Ive beaten people down and didnt remember it happening until much later. Benzodiazpines are not a fucking joke.

 

[Falsedawn]

I'm sitting here explaining to you how the legal system actually works and you're responding with how you think it might or should work. You really are out of your element here regardless of whether you even realize it

I understand how the legal system works, if you think you're doing a service, you're speaking to a brick wall.

I'm talking about the decision made in DC vs Heller, Scalia's reasoning, and how it directly contradicts his own professed doctrine of "originalism" (as shown when he ignored all historical context surrounding the militia and legislated from the bench).

Keep on talking past me like I don't understand the ruling and i'll keep pointing out that i'm talking about the reasoning behind the ruling and its flaws. Either way, your promised besmirching doesn't appear to be coming any time soon. Sorry I nipped that in the bud.

 

[My Spot]

Do you have a link I


Do you have a link , the only thing I found from pew puts gun ownership at 30% which lines up with what the link i posted that referenced several studies

Your google fu sucks (or you're trolling).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

You missed some key words in there relating to the likelihood that it was caused by benzodiazepines.

"Can", "may", "occasionally", "paradoxically". They're there for a good reason.

Obviously, if they affected everyone that way they wouldn't be prescribed to anyone would they

 

[floivanus]

Metal Gear Solid.

Shhhhh! I was definitely messing around


And just singled you out as a NEEERrrrrrrrrrrrrd

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Citations to what?

Opinions at the time. Some writings of Madison and Jefferson. Not much in terms of legal rulings. The things seemed most interested in tainting the 2nd with racist undertones. It didn't bother to explain how that meant the federal government really could infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Your google fu sucks (or you're trolling).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...on-americans-views-of-guns-and-gun-ownership/

I don't see where it says what you claim

 

[Seaside]

why do you always talk shit about the US, when you idolize Mike Perry?

i respect his skill i start watch mma from and through brazilian fighter then i look to USA market. And i no hate USA only you country aggressive support for world domination stuff. USA in past ruin many country in latin america to.

oh and i think without God or purpose people go crazy. USA need more God, i thinks yoel romero was right.

 

[faustian]

Read and see playboy.

You could have been 3/4 of the way through it by now if you weren't desperately searching for a reason to discredit me without doing any work.

Ok well I asked the question for a specific reason. You don't know what legal authority is or how it operates.

I'm not gonna sit here all night going in circles with you. Keep up the good work with the secondary sources, you probably actually do sound convincing to most people so hey whatever works

 

[My Spot]

I don't see where it says what you claim

It was up from 34%.
It's funny how gun controlls moved the goalposts after the CDC study destroyed your whole "more guns = more violence" narrative.

 

[weed]

oh and i think without God or purpose people go crazy. USA need more God, i thinks yoel romero was right.

$$$ >>>

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

It was up from 34%.
It's funny how gun controlls moved the goalposts after the CDC study destroyed your whole "more guns = more violence" narrative.

Ok that CDC not PEW and that doesn't reference household only individual

So please provide a link verifying your claim that household gun ownership is up 8%

 

[Seaside]

$$$ >>>

lol good one

 

[faustian]

I understand how the legal system works, if you think you're doing a service, you're speaking to a brick wall.

I'm talking about the decision made in DC vs Heller, Scalia's reasoning, and how it directly contradicts his own professed doctrine of "originalism" (as shown when he ignored all historical context surrounding the militia and legislated from the bench).

Keep on talking past me like I don't understand the ruling and i'll keep pointing out that i'm talking about the reasoning behind the ruling and its flaws. Either way, your promised besmirching doesn't appear to be coming any time soon. Sorry I nipped that in the bud.

Well, again, you're posting outright false claims. The Amendment's drafting history is specifically discussed in depth and cited in Scalia's holding

Anyways

What was the issue that turned the case and what reasoning did Scalia use to arrive at his holding?

Imma grab dinner so you can take some time trying to answer

 

[Falsedawn]

Ok well I asked the question for a specific reason. You don't know what legal authority is or how it operates.

I'm not gonna sit here all night going in circles with you. Keep up the good work with the secondary sources, you probably actually do sound convincing to most people so hey whatever works

Ok buddy, let's just put this one down.

https://content.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

"I deny the premise that law has nothing to do with historical inquiry," Scalia said, dismissing critics' assertions that inquiry into the past has nothing to do with law."Historical inquiry has nothing to do with the law only if the original meaning is irrelevant."

Scalia pointed to District of Columbia v. Heller, a 2008 Supreme Court case in which several D.C. residents challenged the District's ban on handguns and restrictions on other firearms. Defenders of the law said the right to "bear arms" as outlined in the Second Amendment had an exclusively military meaning, but a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court showed the meaning was different by looking at historical texts.

The right to have arms for personal use for self-defense was regarded as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, Scalia said.

The prologue of the Second Amendment, "a well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free state," could not be reconciled with the personal right to keep and bear arms unless one had the historical knowledge behind it. In England "the Stuart kings in had destroyed the people's militia by disarming those whom they disfavored."

From Antonin Scalia's mouth to your ears. If I don't know what legal authority is, then he damn sure didn't. My whole point (yet again), is that he interpreted this in a favorable manner instead of considering the more recent (respectively) discussions of the founders and their intentions when ratifying the Constitution. Had he actually done so, he would have ruled the other way, as there's plenty of evidence illustrating the purpose of the militia from the actual framers.

But please, keep preaching to me about legal authority, I don't know any better, I just took Scalia's words at face value. Muh legal authority am I right?

<puh-lease75>