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.

Man, sounds like I should be taking what you take.

Mass killings and rampage killings went on before the meds came into public use.

They also took place when there were more mental institutions locking away the mentally ill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_murderers_and_spree_killers_by_number_of_victims

Click on "Americas" on the list, and they have a wider view of the numbers of these incidents.

The long and short of it is that mass killings occur when some lunatic gets it in his head that killing lots of folks is what he wants to do.


It isn't guns that cause it, it isn't the drugs, nor the period in history. There are more of them now because there are simply more people on earth... and when you have more people, you increase the chances that one will be born that will fulfill what the little voices in his head tells him to do. If they didn't have a gun, they would still commit mass killings. They would use a knife, a match and gasoline, or a stolen dump truck...but they will strive to succeed in what they get in their heads they need to do.

Logic, not emotion. Good post.

Did you watch the vid I posted? It's worth the 11 minutes and is full of pros that aren't " talking out their ass again".

A lot of these suicides and mass killings were done by people being treated for relatively minor conditions. In short, they weren't fuggin crazy, until they were put on these drugs...period.

Lotta good points there B-Bar.

Gunner

There are less outlets for the psychopaths today. Throughout time man has been in a constant state of war/battle etc. It was no big deal to go into your neighboring country 200 years ago and rape, pillage etc. Good work for psychopaths and it kept them busy for centuries.

300 years ago, many of today's psychopaths were likely battlefield heroes

Or that some people are ticking timebombs.

Even true today, lots of special forces/leo types are indeed fully functioning psychos.

Gunner

Very good post. There are many people on Psychotropics who have never and will never commit a crime. Also, as was said earlier, are the killings a function of the drugs or are they a function of the crazies who happen to be on the drugs? Another allusion is the drugs themselves triggering something in a minute amount of folks. Psychotropics have helped a lot of people who otherwise would be warehoused away in some medieval institution but who with the drugs, are able to be productive members of society.

Those of us who oppose new laws know the anti's are simply using this issue to create more classes of prohibited persons who will NEVER get their gun rights back. Who here has never been depressed? When do you seek help for that depression? Some turn to psychotherapy and others turn to an MD who prescribes them an ant-depressant. Should every person who has ever sought help for depression or some other malady be forever prohibited from owning a weapon?

The whole thing is just one more issue to divide and eventually conquer gun owners by convincing simpletons that anybody who even looks a little shaky should be forever banned from owning a weapon lest the rest of us lose our rights to hunt Prairie Chickens with our 1100. It is always the person, not the tool and the person who commits a crime should be held accountable, not somebody who might commit one because they resemble somebody else who did. Typical liberal, elitist mentality.

Not so. Mass murders have been happening since the dawn of man and not just by Governments.

Sick people do sick things. Asylums had their place in society. Too bad the poor care people got in them ruined it for the rest of us...

NO grant funded or government agency or pharmaceutical company is going to spend money to prove it might be "their drug" as part of the problem. Its so much easier to blame the gun and the gun is a useful scapegoat. When they outlaw guns people will just beat each other to death or the more creative will use Machete's or swords.

I've seen what people do to each other in brazil, thailand, india and africa with machetes, not pretty, but effective nontheless.

Gunner

and that is why
1. guns need to be readily accessible
2. concealed carry needs to be widely available, and
3. "gun-free" zones need to be limited in scope and few in number.

so such a ticking time bomb can be quickly neutralized if he decides he wants to become a mass murderer. Just knowing that they might be stopped before they killed anyone, or killed very many, might be enough to deter some of the ones who are crazy but still have some ability to think through possible scenarios.

OK, then show me why a kid being 'treated' with drugs for minor ADD just snaps and shoots 10 people. Should that kid have been thrown into an asylum and the key tossed away because school simply bored the fugg out of him? That seems to be what you're advocating.

the word "stupid" works for me. It is easy to try to demonize something as a reason for irrational behavior. Wacked out people have always been with us. I am pretty sure in every case in recent times there were people that saw the wacked behavior but what process that works in dealing with them? In the older days there were simpler methods of dealing with this.
I keep going back to i think it was maltus's theory, put some rats in a cage with plenty of food and water. They will eventually reproduce to such a degree as you start witnessing abnormal behavior for them.
People are the same. It's a giant lab experiment and you are seeing the results.

Straw man, and you know it.

Several mental illnesses don't fully develop until later in life. Sometimes they develop slowly, sometimes they spurt, and so on. And yes, psychotic breaks do happen as do fugue states.

This has been well documented long before modern medication.

If someone is mentally ill, they are treated with drugs today.

The practice of treating mental illnesses in the world today is pretty much limited to use of drugs. So, I can guarantee you, if someone has signs of mental illness that are outwardly expressed and recognizable, that person WILL be on some sort of meds.

Drugs have taken the place of any physical mental treatments, and have certainly taken over where mental facilities used to keep them out of public.

It's not indicative to convince anyone that the drugs cause mass killings. It IS however indicative to reasonable state that the largest percentage of mass killers are mentally ill.

The psych evaluation for SF is very rigorous, and it's ongoing. Maybe one gets through every now and then. Maybe one turns every now and then. But to say "lots of"; sorry, that's just BS.

As for cops it's much the same. There are good cops and bad cops. There are very few whom have been proven to be psychopaths.

That's why I said "Independent Study".

It's not just the drugs, there are literally thousands if not hundreds of thousands of folks on these drugs. I believe it's a whole littany of things, changing the laws about commiting folks to the looney bin, destruction of the family through welfare, values, etc, but I see some of you already destroyed the argument about drugs as a stand-alone proposition...

It sure isn't Mayberry any more.

The whole country has changed since the 50's to the point of non-recognition. That doesn't bode well for the outcome of the next few years.

One more time. Anybody who thinks that "mentally ill" is a simple concept, and that it's easy to determine, and to control the crazies, including keeping guns away from them, needs to become educated about about DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychiatrists and other health professionals.

Probably over 200 separate diagnostic categories, that could apply to many or even most people, at some time in their lives.

Paul

I stand corrected.

The NRA has revised their stance to support a mentally ill database

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...abase-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/

In the past they were adamantly against any checks for gun purchases.

There is psycho good and psycho bad GG, the folks I speak of are psycho good, I know this for first hand fact.

Gunner

The family unit BIG, when all these little spoiled rotten self absorbed booger picking pukes that have been told how special and unique they are cant get their way and the WORLD doesnt bend around them, they snap.

Gunner

I agree. You can get into the schematics of complicated diagnosis of mental illness all you want to... But in the end, the parents KNOW something isn't right and their little angel isn't quite the little angel they want to believe he is.

They may not be able to tag what is wrong with their kid with a physiatrist level diagnosis, but they know Jr. ought to be culled.

There were mentally unstable people prior to the 1960s (when the prescription, by psychiatrists, of psychotropic medications started becoming routine in the general population), yet there was not even a small fraction the rate of these types of murders. That tends to eliminate mental instability at the cause, and tends to implicate psychotropic medications.

Never mind all that, where ya been, �Hawkeye?

The type of folks who have been committing the sorts of murders we're mainly discussing would have remained under the radar of the psychiatric commitment authorities in the "golden age" of which you speak.

These killings have been going on long before meds existed, and as to the current spate of them, like Jorge said, it's a stew of things that likely contribute.

As for the medications, one must consider this: There is a portion the schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, even add/adhd population who may harbor violent tendencies. Not necessarily BECAUSE of their disorder, but co-existing with it, for whatever reason. However, their disorder is sufficiently severe that in precludes good executive function - the ability to translate an abstract thought into discreet steps, and accomplishing them in an orderly, logical fashion, working towards a concrete answer/goal. They can't do it. There's too much noise in their thoughts, apathy, or susceptibility to distraction.

Now, take the same person and treat his/her mental illness, with good intentions all around. The medication works - the patient is overall more functional than they were. And what happens? That individual is sufficiently functional to carry out crime/murder.

The easiest example to appreciate is major depression and suicides. There are depressed persons too moribund with apathy and despair to carry out a suicide. Oh, they'd like to, they just can't get around to planning and doing it - they're too depressed. Give them some treatment. They will go through a phase in which they're "a little" better. Not feeling better about life, but they improved enough to actually get out of bed, eat a meal... and can plan out how to put a gun to their head.

Was it really the med that caused the violence? I'd say, no, in short, but it's complicated isn't it?

sandcritter md

Careful, now.

I'll say it again, correlation does not equal causation...that's just bad science.

I agree with most of your post.

It may be one reason that the shooters often self destruct at or before the moment authority figures get to them. They don't have the conviction, or the mental tools to be able to get past that point in most cases. It just pushes the "game over" button and they shoot themselves.

How many times have we as gun owners wondered why the death counts were not higher out of these instances of mass killing? Perhaps that is because we think in the terms of what we know WE would be able to do. We don't think in terms of those that are barely functioning through all the "white noise" in the heads of those that do perpetrate these crimes.

Busy.

Correlation is sufficient reason to form a hypothesis as to causation and to begin testing it.

That's damn near what I said on a previous post.

I think you're right, gunner, though these persons aren't ill in the same sense. Those are the potentially violent of the personality disordered - the anti-social, narcissists, and bordeliners of the world. Basically, the "sociopaths". And oddly enough, one can't fix these people with meds. At all (though people try for a variety of reasons). But some do respond somewhat to behavioral therapy - of which royal azz beatings until they change might work for some.

I think a more comprehensive study of what we know about ALL factors that lead a person to commit these crimes is needed, and causative action approaches need to be implemented on all levels to prevent this for occurring as much as it does right now.

Another major cause is the publicity these events garner.

That publicity is a major stimulant to potential perpetrators. They seem to crave it. each one trying to outdo the last.

So show me where I said correlation equals causation.

Gunner

Good points by doc sandcritter, and a couple of others.

Another factor that is overlooked in the mix is what appears to be a shift in moral values, especially the reverence for life that is part of Judeo-Christian moral principles. It seems that too many people, including those who are not clinically mentally ill or legally insane, are all too willing to strike out and even commit murder over objectively trivial reasons.

Mental illness isn't a sufficient explanation. With rare exception, even serious mental illness doesn't override a person's morals. Even somebody who is batshit crazy doesn't automatically lose all moral constraints.

The cases where mental illness causes irresistable impulses, such as "voices" telling somebody to kill, are extremely rare.

My own speculative theory is that these tragic events are often rooted in a seemingly epidemic low tolerance for frustration, combined with a sense of entitlement (not necessarily material). In extreme cases adding mental illness, and/or substance abuse, to the mix creates a lethal combination.

Paul

Lookin' for his meds . . . . . . . lol

I would say the evidence tends to support that. I find the coverage by the cable news outlets (CNN, FOX, CNBC) is just downright disgusting. (admittedly, I haven't watched ANY news coverage for well over a year; I don't even have a TV right now)

Well good to see you back.

Thanks.

Exactly. And without statistics to back it up, it's certainly my sense of things that those doing the labeling certainly lean strongly to the anti-gun side of things.

The NRA is routinely in support of more gun control. The majority of gun owners are simpletons who will and have been in support of their own disarmament.

+1

From the research I've seen (admittedly not comprehensive), the single best predictor of violent behavior, not necessarily mass killing, is youth. Of course researchers are discouraged from adding race to the mix, but one can speculate.

So, from the standpoint of resource effectiveness, we should deny guns to, say, all males under 40. Of course, no guns to any young black male, however law abiding. The Constitution be damned.

See how ridiculous a statistically based approach is? Yet, even some of those who easily recognize that impracticality would deny gun rights to somebody like Walt Kowalski , Clint Eastwood's character in Gran Torino. Combat veteran, Silver Star, depressed, likely with PTSD, and alcoholic. You know, one of those dangerous, crazy, patriotic, conservative white males.

Simple? Common sense? Not.

Paul

Sometimes, after a violent crime has been committed, we find that the perp had been doing well on his medication, then he stopped, or lowered his dose, or mixed old and new meds in order to find what he thought was the best mix.

And he often appears to have committed his crime on a kind of backslide between that place where he's functioning well and that other place where he's curled up in a fetal ball.

Over 3 million kids are on Ritalin.

People should be horrified by that fact. Friggen drugging grade schoolers so they 'conform' is inherently evil. WTF isn't there more outrage?

Tom Cruise was right!

I don't think that's mere speculation or stereotyping. Both APAs (psychiatry and psychology) clearly lean to the left.

My best friend, a psychologist licensed in several states, and a strong self-defense advocate and a helluva good shot, wrote a blistering letter of resignation to the APA, for just that reason.

It's naive to think that professionals, either as individual practitioners or in their collective associations, don't have biases and are influenced by them.

It isn't supposed to work that way, but it does.

Paul

If this kids is truly being treated with "drugs" (plural), then by definition, he does not have a "minor" condition! ADD or otherwise.

I don't know what Tom Cruise said about it but the old name for "ADD" was "being a boy."

Where is the data to establish that the frequency of "mass murders" per capita has gone up in the time frame referenced?

I don't think that's been established.

In fact, I recall hearing the results of a study not too long ago that said the frequency had remained fairly constant.

Could be that mass murders just seem to be more frequent because news travels faster and is sensationalized ad nauseum.

Back in the day, if a mass murder happened, it'd be in the newspaper for a day or three. Not on TV and the internet 24-7.

(*) The 21st century personality disorder, or 21CPD, is what has replaced borderline personality disorder as the most intense headache for psychiatrists in the new millennium. It's basically narcissism without grandiosity, but with an absolute refusal to consider one's own behavior, expectations, or perceptions of others as being pathological. The problem is always localized externally: "my fianc� is lazy and emotionally abusive, my psychiatrist is an [bleep], my boss is a jerk, my bank is a bunch of criminals (and it's their fault I'm overdrawn), the cops who arrested me for smoking pot are stupid for not spending their time chasing 'real' criminals, my child embarrasses me in public and so I'm taking her to a child psychiatrist." See? The locus is *always* external.


Take a read through the "manifesto" of the recent California killer and it is full of narcissism and "poor me" thoughts. I would agree with a couple of posters above that the combination of mental illness, lack of moral compass and screwed up family foundations all likely have inputs into these folks finally cracking and going on a rampage.

Yep, they're drugging the 'boy' right out of these kids. Maybe that why there are so many fhags in the younger generation. Food for thought.

The checklist for the actual diagnosis of psychopathy:

Factor 1: Personality "Aggressive narcissism"
� Glibness/superficial charm
� Grandiose sense of self-worth
� Pathological lying
� Conning/manipulative
� Lack of remorse or guilt
� Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
� Callousness; lack of empathy
� Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

Factor 2: Case history "Socially deviant lifestyle".
� Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
� Parasitic lifestyle
� Poor behavioral control
� Lack of realistic long-term goals
� Impulsivity
� Irresponsibility
� Juvenile delinquency
� Early behavior problems
� Revocation of conditional release

Traits not correlated with either factor
� Promiscuous sexual behavior
� Many short-term (marital) relationships
� Criminal versatility
� Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e., a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive)

Very interesting, and seems to fit what I suggested. Any references?

Most of these types are just a royal PITA, not dangerous. Ask any supervisor. Glad I'm retired and no longer have to deal with employees. But when combined with other factors, it seems to be a common denominator in these seemingly senseless acts of violence.

Paul

The term and description were coined by a psychiatrist colleague of mine. I think it is something he developed on his own, based on what he sees in practice.

He absolutely was. I never understood the flack he got for what he said about psychiatry.

Wow, Ghost, you owe me one for listening to that, and I wouldn�t have done it for just anyone.:D

Five minutes of Matt Lauer and Tom Cruise going back and forth�only thing missing was nails on a chalkboard in the background. That said, it was nice seeing Cruise smack Lauer around a bit and I think Cruise made some valid points�surprisingly to me, given that he's such a flake otherwise.

Yep.

Yeah, but jorge has his good points, too.

yeah, maybe Cruise could use some Ritalin.

Short of permanently locking up everyone who has ever been mad at another person, there is no solution to any of this period!

The ease at which someone who should never have access to a firearm or any other type of weapon is a big problem, and the only one in which something/anything can possibly be done!

Does or will anything prevent or solve the problem, NO!


Phil

The Constitutional purpose for an armed citizenry is to provide a check against an out of control government, therefore it makes no logical sense to hand to the government a mechanism for deciding who may and who may not possess firearms. Ultimately, under those circumstances, anyone who might potentially operate as a check on an out of control government will eventually be classified at mentally ill and unfit to keep and bear arms. This is only consistent with human nature.

The only way to prevent this outcome is to prohibit government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, for any reason (short of periods of just imprisonment), which is precisely what the Framers believed they were doing with the Second Amendment.

For the most part, I agree with both of these posts. Well said.

It must be frustrating for a psychiatrist because there isn't a diagnosis for a**hole or victimhood in DSM V. Personality disorders are considered an Axis II diagnosis and will not even get you into mental health treatment under state guidelines [at least here in WA state]. The client must have an Axis I diagnosis as well. Not to mention, we have yet to see people with Axis II diagnoses respond to any psychotropic medication. People with BPD [borderline personality disorder] have shown some promise with cognitive behavioral therapy MIXED with a mild psychotic, but the jury is still out on that one.

It's not uncommon for folks on these meds to stop taking them when they feel better. They figure, "I feel great so I don't need my meds". This is a major challenge for those working in the mental health field. It often gets clients hospitalized if there is a not a community safety net to "catch" them in time.

My training and brief tenure as a mental health professional were long ago and far away, but I recall two cases where a psychiatrist's diagnosis was "a--hole".

To quote:

I dunno, a--hole, I guess (diagnosis)

He isn't dangerous, just an a--hole.

Not in the DSM or the textbooks, of course.

Paul

I've met a few of those, Paul. Might have even been one to someone else at times.

Now, I'm on my way, with my grand sons, to meet up with more than a few that fit your description; maybe anal a--holes be closer. All armed, to be sure.

Yep, no telling what psychotropic drugs Micajah "Big" Harpe and Wiley "Little" Harpe were on when they engaged in their years of murder and mayhem in several western states.

Werent they kin to the Lee sisters, Home and Ug?

Gunner

Didn't read the whole thread.
Ever wonder why these mentally ill/drug F'ed up people can seem to function at just the right level to commit these atrocities, but just under the level to stop themselves from doing them?

How 'bout this. They're not so screwed up that they stick their hand on a hot burner 10 times a day, or hold their head underwater until they drown, so they must understand basic cause/effect relationships. How about they aren't being held accountable, probably for decades, for smaller destructive behaviors, and it just morphs into fantasy and crime?

What if there were severe consequences when they misbehaved or fantasized about killing others? Wouldn't you think if the aversion was strong, if there was accountability in their lives, they'd have the brainpower to avoid it like they do holding their head under water or burning their hand on the stove? *some exceptions will always exist of course, but I bet the majority of these people are spoiled self indulgent brats that do not know accountability.

Oversimplified I know, but you get the idea. A collective smackdown such as public canings may do more good than we'll ever know. Create some damn aversion to mass crime. As it is now, it's glorified on TV and in video games. Gee, that helps!!

My contention is that if they can avoid pain, they can be taught to avoid mass murder. It just hasn't been made clear to them that there's a heavy price to pay and they will not like it.

I've been saying for a long time that all these mass murders are government operations.

LOL. Sounds like what our psychiatrist said when we [colleagues and myself] were "staffing" a difficult client. The particular behavior we were concerned about had nothing to do with mental illness, but I think we were just hoping it would be so the poor guy would get the right mix of meds. He was burning out clinicians right and left. The psychiatrist said he was sorry but "a**hole" is not in the DSM IV. In other words, he couldn't prescribe for it.

Your dead wrong. Kids with psychological problems are treated with these kinds of drugs. Some of them are truly crazy, democrats and murder people.

Most of these murders wear socks and shoes so that means socks and shoes caused them to murder!

In reality, most of these murders have had psychological problems for a long time. The treatment for this is these drugs. When society gives these mental cases freedom they are free to commit murders.

Progressive fascists want gun control, not to prevent mentally ill from committing murders, but to prevent the citizens from opposing the tyranny they impose on society.

Many of the mentally ill had lesser issues as children and the serious psychological problems only showed up when they were older, generally early adulthood.

When you assert a fact you need to provide the justification you used to decide that fact. You can't ask others to disprove your argument. You sound like one of the wizards from the old days who looked at chicken guts to make decisions.

No one will take a seriously mentally ill person off their meds for any reason. Think what happens if they murder people because they were denied their meds for your experiment.

As a scientist, I want to note that correlation does not imply causality. EVEN IF all these mass killers were taking psychotropic medications as stated, that does not PROVE that the medications CAUSED them to commit the murders. Any time correlation is observed, one must look for a possible common cause. PERHAPS the common cause in this case is that all these people committed the murders because they were mentally ill, AND they also were taking the medications because they were mentally ill. Obviously the medications didn't work as intended, which would be a better conclusion that to assume that the medications caused the violence.

As another example: Many people who die of heart attacks were found to have been taking nitrates, but that doesn't prove that nitrates cause heart attacks; it proves that people who die of heart attacks and those who take nitrates both do so because of a common factor: heart disease.

To infer that there would be fewer mass murders if psychotropic medications were eliminated is as faulty logic as to suggest that there would be fewer heart attacks if nitrates were eliminated.

how many of these medicines have as a known side effect suicidal thoughts?

That's not correct EE....

Hey Hawkeye, what about this:

So I have to go out and conduct a study in order to have an opinion on this matter?

I posted a vid, does that count?

The grandaddy of all gun control is the '68 GCA which the NRA supported. When I said "gun owners" I meant everybody in the US who owns a gun. As much support as there is for gun control, one has to conclude that yes, the majority of gun owners ARE for more gun control. Look at the stuff on this thread alone and this place is representative of hard core gun owners.

What everybody who is in support of such legislation needs to ask themselves is this: Do we really want folks who can't be trusted with guns walking around free themselves?

Going along with what I just said...it's the same assclowns that let all the crazies out of the mental institutions, then closed those institutions as cost cutting measures and because they were cruel, that want to ban anybody who has ever had psychotropics prescribed from owning guns.

A friend of mine is a paraplegic. He was in the hospital for Pneumonia. A doctor saw his toolkit for his wheelchair and called security because it had a small knife in it. The next thing he knew, he was carted down to the psych ward and pumped full of psychotropics. I guess he's a dangerous crazy and should be forever barred from owning weapons. Oh well, [bleep] him as long as everybody gets to keep their Citori and hunt [bleep] quails.

No. But you have to provide an argument backed up by real evidence to support your claims.

We are also able to see or hear about more of these killings now that we have the internet and media today which did not exist say 30 or 40 years ago.

I have a nephew in his mid teens who has ADHD and is considered to be border line Aspergers. He is very smart in many respects, but struggles at school. From a pre teen he refused to take medication as he "did not want to be different".

I don't know what the cause of these conditions are, but I can assure people they are real and go a lot deeper than being a naughty or difficult child.

Discipline and routine help, but the real help is one to one time with a caring/loving/understanding and patient adult. Unfortunately, life simply does not allow for the amount of this support he really needs.

Oh chill the fugg out. I posted an 11 minute video that supports my 'claim'.

Adam Lanza had Aspergers.

While research suggests that people diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders, including those with Asperger's, do show more aggressive behavior compared to the their peers, experts say that the aggression, which is usually characterized by more frequent tantrums, pushing or shoving, is very different than the behavior witnessed last Friday.

Previous studies have shown that aggressive behavior among people diagnosed with autism spectrum conditions happen 20 percent to 30 percent more often than the general population.

"But we are not talking about the kind of planned and intentional type of violence we have seen at Newtown," Butter noted, according to the Associated Press. "These types of tragedies have occurred at the hands of individuals with many different types of personalities and psychological profiles."

and a crazy mother that plied him with violent video games and gave him guns...

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

�NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22