Gunsrlegal

I know. I think I'll try renting a simple rifle at my range (Gun for Hire) and just shoot it as @kman described. I have a feeling that ultimately I'll shoot right-handed. As a teenager I practiced archery and was pretty darn good shooting with my right hand. That was way before this cross-eye dominance thing implanted itself in my brain! I may not be a teenager anymore, but I WILL work through this...just because!

Shooting pistols hasn't been a problem at all for me cross-eye dominance-wise. I shoot right-handed and squint my right eye. However, I did have some difficulty readjusting after I had my cataract surgery and my astigmatism corrected. Anyway, I've only shot a rifle twice---I mean two rounds! I went with my right hand, but it just felt very clumsy. I know that only two shots aren't any kind of test. It's also possible that the rifle was too long for me; I'm only around 5'2" and I have short arms. I'll have to check those videos. I'd like to shoot a long gun, but I think my very brief clumsy experience with it has put a blockade in my head! Maybe I'm making too much of this cross-dominance issue?

How? Do you shoot lefty? I can't seem to make the switch. I'm really struggling with it. Is there some kind of scope? Any suggestions/pointers appreciated.

@Mrs. Peel, maybe we car pool? Think you're closer to Trenton (right?), I can head your way or we can meet somewhere convenient.

Just picked-up my 3 purty and shiny P2Ps. As of now my plans are G43, G19, and S&W 638 Airweight. Just because. Still can't manage a long gun due to cross-eye dominance (right-hand left-eye dominant), so no AR for me. Now I just want to find someplace to make my purchases in NJ so I don't have to deal with shipping to my FFL. If not, off to PA. Note: All ready have two S&W wheelies, model 36 and model 19-3. Now want a snubbie.

My Mom has one for free through a program in Ocean County. It's limited to only working in her house because it works off her landline. When in her house it works well with regular test calls; she had a choice of necklace button or bracelet button. They even check-in with me monthly. Before you buy anything, i would check with her town or county to see if anything is offered for seniors.

Looks wonderful. I've got to make the honey cornbread!

Much better, @Old Glock guy. Sorry, didn't mean to take you to the woodshed. It's just that I know a number of people who are on an SSRI/antidepressant (none of whom are young men) and I've seen their lives improve so much that sweeping statements about it get to me. I would trust any of them with my life...well, maybe not literally, but you know what I mean. I do agree that mental illness is a serious problem and much more needs to be done in general and as related to gun ownership. However, there's a huge difference between someone being treated for mild depression versus someone diagnosed with schizophrenia, at least IMHO. I wish I knew the answer as to how to sort it all out. However, now we learn that the SSRI debate is moot in this case. This POS is seriously mentally ill and violent. People knew. Local police knew. School officials knew. The FBI knew. His multiple firearms were on record and pictures were posted on public forums. And no one in any position of authority did a damn thing to stop him before he killed and maimed people. Now I wonder how much may have been known about other mass killers before people were murdered.

100% agree. I'm saving your recipe, @Displaced Texan, it looks and sounds delicious! What time is dinner?

Reading this made me physically ill. Here we are, generally good and law-abiding citizens, trying to pick apart the minutia of gun ownership so that future murders can be avoided, some even ready to compromise our minimal 2A rights to theoretically save others (that is *not* meant as a snarky comment), and the FBI fucking knew. There's really nothing left to say.

@raz-0, you make some good points. Yes, there people who take SSRIs who need frequent adjustments, who don't follow instructions while taking them, who get them from their primary care physician rather than a psychiatrist, and who don't have sufficient medical follow-up. All excellent points. Is there a legal way to only allow people who have been on a stable dosage for many years and who has close follow-up with his/her psychiatrist, and who this psychiatrist deems to be safe to himself/herself and is not a threat to others to purchase firearms? Those people are a lot different than people just having drugs given out like candy by your friendly internist, who then may not follow-up to see if the patient is taking the medication properly or is having side-effects. Maybe, but if we can't even get the military or the schools to properly follow-up with authorities about serious and obvious red flags, our hands become tied. At the top of this post is a summary of findings about people taking SSRIs from the CDC. That last bullet point scares me. Less than 1/3 to 1/2 of people taking an SSRI have seen a mental health professional in the last year. I would agree that those people shouldn't own guns. This comes back around to my initial point, we can't paint such a broad stroke and say "anyone taking an SSRI." Those who take them maybe sometimes and who don't followup with their doctors, maybe shouldn't be able to get guns legally. Unfortunaly, they can still get them illegally and if they're determined, they will. I see no reason to ban people who are taking SSRIs correctly and who have frequent folkowup with their psychiatrists and whose psychiatrist is willing to state that the individual is not a danger to himself or others. Not everyone has to keep increasing doses to the point of side effects. Personally, I don't want the NRA going out there and saying absolutely nothing has to be done. Personally, I think it's clear that we need much better inter-institutional communication on all levels. A kid permanently expelled from school due to violence shouldn't be able to buy a gun. But if it's not reported correctly, the kid has a clean record and can buy. It's very complex. We don't want people to be afraid to get needed assistance because they are afraid they'll be denied 2A rights down the road. That potentially causes a worse situation. I honestly think it comes down to better communication all around, both official and unofficial. This killer should never have been able to legally purchase his guns---if only the school officials reported the expulsion due to violence to the police. There are a lot of "if onlys" to this horror.

No, I never implied that I was fine with what happened and I don't appreciate you even implying that. It's the method that is being suggested to deny access to which I object because it's no more logical than denying firearms for every citizen. If most mass killers are males, are you prepared to give up your 2A rights? That is as logical as having everybody on medication give up their 2A rights, so is that okay with you? If it's not, what do you suggest? I agree with you that mental health intervention is desperately needed. From what I've read, the shooter had known problems. He reportedly posted about violence and shooting people on public forums. He was expelled from school due to violence. Where was the communication? Why didn't anyone, including the school, report this to the police? A record check would have shown that he was a gun owner. Could his guns have been confiscated due to these red flags? I don't know the answer to that on a legal basis. But this POS showed the signs of needing serious help for at least over a year to many people (school officials and classmates) and nothing was said or done. So to your point, where was the needed intervention? Was he even on medication? I haven't seen any reports about that yet. I am starting to see a pattern of lack of communication among officials: the military and civilian legal authorities, schools and legal authorities, etc. For God's sake, schools have to report the mere suspicion of child abuse if a student comes to school with bruises, why don't they have to report expulsion due to violence? Maybe a place to start? All of this "see something, say something" crap is meaningless if even the public officials ignore it.

You're correct about the age implication. I think research has found that the brain continues to develop until approximately age 24-years. The Las Vegas killer was an outlier as he was older. People in the military are often younger and have firearms. I don't know the answer, but you are absolutely correct about the potential side-effects of SSRIs and younger adults.

Duplicate post

Fair enough, but now you know for the future. I'm sorry that you weren't informed about the possibility. However, I still stand behind the rest of my statement. Have an honest talk with your psych and take the time to educate him about you as a gun owner. You may be surprised at the positive long-term benefit of this effort. I truly hope that it all works out for you. Good luck...and take deep breaths.

Wait a minute, slow down there. So the "strong evidence" that mass shooters are on "psych meds" equals denying 2A rights to an entire population of people who might take/have taken an SSRI? Then, "the rest of us" can have our 2A rights? That's painting a fairly large population of people with a very broad brush in order to deny them a constitutional right. That sure sounds like something most of us rail against when it's applied to anyone who owns a gun. Why is that acceptable while taking away everyone's 2A rights is not acceptable? Who gets to decide the definition of "psych meds"? Do we have an age cut-off for these meds (like under the age of 30, 50, 60) or does it apply to everyone? Does it apply to someone who was taking a "psych med" for a short time for a specific reason? To someone who has been on a "psych med" for years and who has stayed stable and compliant? To someone whose medical doctor is willing to state that the person can safely own a firearm? What happened to everyone who shouts that there can be no compromise because the anti-2As will just keep taking away our rights---the rights of every gun owner? At this point it looks like some gun owners now find it acceptable to throw other gun owners under the bus. Most mass shooters are males (who may be taking "psych meds"), so maybe we should take the next logical step and ban all men from owning a gun. Wow. Just wow.

As someone who also answered yes to that question, I suggest that you read and re-read the post from @SJG. Then read it again. I understand your frustration, but I have a question---and I promise that I'm not trying to be snarky, it's an honest question. When you saw your psych a couple of weeks ago why didn't you bring up the application? It's possible that the paperwork was at his/her office, but no one put it in your file or gave it to the doctor. Your question could have triggered the form being found and completed. I understand that you didn't know that there was an issue at that point, but you could have asked in order to ensure that the form was completed and returned. When I completed my initial FID application I spoke about it with my psych. He's not necessarily pro-2A, but he respected my position and feelings, and gave my PD a written statement. No muss, no fuss---we had an honest back and forth discussion, and he's definitely on my side. Finally, we sign-away our HIPPA rights with the Mental Health Consent form so don't use that as a defensive issue. As of now, by law in NJ, either you complete that form and HIPPA no longer applies or you don't apply for an FID or P2P. Not saying that I like it, but that's the law. Please don't look at this as a personal issue or a "shake-down." It's not. It's your psych doing his due diligence under NJ state law mixed with CYA of his profession and livelihood. Take the time until your next appointment to shake this off and calm down. As @Smokin .50 suggested, you'll be best served trying to make this doctor your ally.

I'm always interested in what @Ray Ray has to say. I may not pay attention, but I'm always entertained. Happy Valentine's Day, my friends.

This thread sure has taken some interesting turns! I'll avoid the Jeeps and vag discussion. As for my gift to myself, don't think I'm shotgun ready yet, @Zeke. I'm still working on my cross-eye dominance issue with a long gun. I had been hoping to get some practice and pointers during the anti-Super Bowl shoot. I don't mind Glocks, I own a G26 @GRIZ. I guess it is like eating at Arby's, but it gets the job done. I wouldn't mind the single-stack G43. I'll be getting three permits, which equals three presents. One will probably be a revolver, that one can be shiny!

I agree with you 100%. Here you had a group of knowledgeable women who discussed, among other things, the empowerment that firearms can provide for women who choose to own them and the entire subject was avoided. Disgraceful!

Per a Facebook post, seven members of The Well Armed Woman went to an NRA range in Virginia to meet with 60 Minutes and talk about the increased number of women involved with firearms. They said that they gave a full day of interviews and discussion, and none of it was used on the show. I guess "they" are afraid that acknowledging that more women are involved with firearms these days goes against their agenda. Women + firearms = less scary?

My husband liked to buy me shiny things like jewelry. At this point in my life I want shiny or non-shiny firearms. Thanks for the inspiration!

Ohhhh, that's a helluvan idea! I think I definitely need to add a lovely G19 to my collection. Thanks for the recommendation.

You're all giving me an idea. It'll be a little late, but I'm going to apply for a few P2Ps and buy myself something nice and shiny for Valentine's Day. Something in a 9mm... It's been 6 years since my husband passed away and I've tried to sleep through holidays. Yup, a nice shiny (or not shiny) gun should help!

Please accept my Happy Valentine's Day.