Home

Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used.

The overwhelming evidence suggests the single largest common factor in all of these incidents is that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.



Read more at:

http://libertycrier.com/nearly-ever...hing-common-weapons/#LVbkP0hY0Gf17Pgw.01

And the liberals which push these meds daily refuse to see that this has anything whatsoever to do with the murders.

The pharmaceutical companys are on the fast track to develop another NEW drug to counter that pesky issue. sarc

And I believe with the exception of one, they all occurred in "gun free zones"...

Just maybe, people that have mental issues are more likely to be on psychotropic meds. Association but not necessarily causation.

I've been saying this for years


However, 1. the NRA is firmly in support of mentally ill owning weapons - or at least checks that might determine if you are mentally ill attempting to purchase a weapon.

I understand the slippery slope issue here but it comes at the expense of all law abiding gun owners who continually have to fight against additional gun laws preventing *everyone* from pursuing the purchase of guns

and 2. The individual rights of the mentally ill in regards to privacy is always going to be much more powerful - which is why I think so many people jump on the anti-gun wagon. Because the idea of dealing with someone who has potentially violent tendencies will add billions of dollars of cost into a system that is cutting psychological care.

The path of least cost (and sad to say, resistance) is to continue going after gun owners. Fortunately we put up a pretty good fight.

I would also support laws that invoke harsh penalties on anyone that provides access to guns for someone they know is mentally ill. Why do you give a kid with known mental issues the combination to the safe where there are guns? Would that have prevented the shooting at Sandy Hook? I don't know but it would have been a step in the right direction. Ultimately that mothers decision to provide access to guns for her son ending up costing her, her life - and the lives of those children at that school.

Correct !
The lowest common denominator in every mass shooting was schizophrenia.

You can thank the ACLU and other lefties pushing the "patient bill of rights" which effectively dismantled any mental health system able to keep mentally ill patients hospitalized for their safety and that of others.

I think you need to back it up at least one more step, because it looks like you're trying to do the EXACT same thing that the anti-gunners are trying to do; blame something other than the person. The common denominator is that they were mentally unstable people.

Most were/are taking some sort of anti-depressant/anti-psychotic. The SCIENCE behind these drugs is pretty solid in most cases, and shaky in some cases. The SCIENCE supports the use of these medications is probably preventing FAR MORE of these incidents than it may be causing. And of these cases, how many happened because they STOPPED taking their meds?

But one side effect of these drugs is that they can in some cases give off feelings of wanting to commit suicide. It seems rather weird that a drug meant to treat such conditions can actually cause the issue to happen. But in those cases, you're rather screwed because they were psychotic before being on the meds, and you have to try the meds before you lock them up. And you have no control of whether they take the meds.

So personally, I'll leave the blame game for the politicians and the pundits, and let science take care of the issue of psych meds. And before anyone seeks to ban such meds, consider the unintended consequences; you may just cause more of these events to happen.

Serious independent study on the subject needs to be made.

I still see the issue is a psychotic person, not necessarily a medication.

It's a chicken or the egg discussion.

My view is that these drugs create ticking time bombs in certain people.

And you know it was that specific diagnosis how? What about psychosis, bi-polar disorder, and other diagnoses?

When did all these mass shootings begin? About the same time these drugs came to market. People were crazy before then, but mass killings didn't happen.

And 99% of these are rabid diseased democrats.

Gunner

And is that based on extensive psychological, medical, and body chemistry training...or you just talking out your arse again?

You're just as bad as the anti-gunners...You're making broad proclamations based on NO science, but a gut (emotional) feeling.

Thats right, and back in the day you were either committed to an institution and locked away or, the crazy/stupid/mean was beat outta you.

Gunner

It's just my opinion Kevin. Hell if it's so simple, prove me wrong.

that is exactly it, I take a lose dose of adderral for Adult ADHD, I have no depression issues, suicidal tendencies or an violent behavior. My biggest issue is I forget simple boring Day-day tasks that was causing a huge strain in our marriage, and the inability to focus on tasks i don't enjoy, this little drug has been a marriage saver for us, and I have lost my extra 30 lbs I didn't need to be carrying around, am I a disturbed psychopath, no, and there are a lot of people who are on psychotropic drugs for a variety of reasons, most commonly depression, but I know some anti-depressants are also used to treat migraine headaches as well.

While most or all of these shooters with out question had some severe mental disorder or something evil inside them psychotropic meds are not the cause. They were a ticking time bomb the whole time.

I'd like to see where the NRA came out firmly in support of mentally ill owning weapons.

I think the issue is, who gets to make the call.

That's my point, I don't see that you can PROVE it one way or another; AT THIS POINT. This is something that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven or dis-proven. Correlation doesn't mean causation, but it sure the hell means that someone ought to look a little deeper; on that we can agree.

With all the money that this government spends, surely we could fund a scientific study to see if these meds are preventing more than the cause, or are the causation.

We know that most of the meds do suppress psychotic tendencies; that's how they got approved by the FDA. And that little nasty side effect of causing what you're trying to stop, well I'll bet there's a whole lot less science behind that, because that's just something that's inconvenient for the drug companies.

So just a straight up triple blind study ought to cover the issue; this really shouldn't be a hard one to do.