A common denominator in mass shootings

[mojo84]

Isn't it the misuse of these drugs by giving them to people that don't need them, or giving the wrong drug or people stopping their meds that is the real issue when meds are involved?I'm sure there are exceptions in this issue as there are everywhere.

There is a cost and risk to being a society of free people. We need to be better prepared to deal with bad people when they go astray. Blaming the meds or psychiatrist and making new laws denying people their rights is not the answer in my opinion.

It would help if family and loved ones of those people suffering from mental illness to help people identify their illness and get the treatment they need.




Just discussing and not arguing.

[baldeagle]

Here's an article that points out that

The number of children taking powerful antipsychotic drugs has nearly tripled over the last 10 to 15 years, according to recent research. The increase comes not because of an epidemic of schizophrenia or other forms of serious mental illness in children, but because doctors are increasingly prescribing the drugs to treat behavior problems, a use not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And a disproportionate number of those prescriptions are written for poor and minority children, some as young as age 2.

By the time these children become teenagers, who knows what sort of behaviors they will have? Some of them will almost certainly become violent, given the evidence.

Of the 1937 total case reports of violence toward others, there were 387 cases of homicide, 404 physical assaults, 27 cases of physical abuse, 896 reports of homicidal ideation, and 223 cases of "violence related symptoms."

The adverse events reported to the FDA are known to represent but a tiny fraction of all such adverse events. This study simply identified 31 drugs responsible for most of the FDA case reports of violence toward others, with antidepressants near the top of that list.

In light of this finding, the many past shootings at school campuses and other public venues should perhaps be investigated anew by government officials, with an eye toward ascertaining whether psychotropic use may have, in the manner of an adverse event, triggered that violence.

The handwriting is on the wall. The question is, will mass shootings continue to be used as excuses for gun control? Or will we begin to investigate the potential cause of these behaviors and take action to prevent them before they occur?

[gthaustex]

Here's an article that points out that

The number of children taking powerful antipsychotic drugs has nearly tripled over the last 10 to 15 years, according to recent research. The increase comes not because of an epidemic of schizophrenia or other forms of serious mental illness in children, but because doctors are increasingly prescribing the drugs to treat behavior problems, a use not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And a disproportionate number of those prescriptions are written for poor and minority children, some as young as age 2.

By the time these children become teenagers, who knows what sort of behaviors they will have? Some of them will almost certainly become violent, given the evidence.

Of the 1937 total case reports of violence toward others, there were 387 cases of homicide, 404 physical assaults, 27 cases of physical abuse, 896 reports of homicidal ideation, and 223 cases of "violence related symptoms."

The adverse events reported to the FDA are known to represent but a tiny fraction of all such adverse events. This study simply identified 31 drugs responsible for most of the FDA case reports of violence toward others, with antidepressants near the top of that list.

In light of this finding, the many past shootings at school campuses and other public venues should perhaps be investigated anew by government officials, with an eye toward ascertaining whether psychotropic use may have, in the manner of an adverse event, triggered that violence.

The handwriting is on the wall. The question is, will mass shootings continue to be used as excuses for gun control? Or will we begin to investigate the potential cause of these behaviors and take action to prevent them before they occur?

If the past behavior of the anti-gun crowd is any indication, yes, they will continue to push for control, even if other behavioral causes are found. It isn't about the lives lost, it is about control. Otherwise, IMHO, there would be more concern over other causes of death as well.

[Pawpaw]

Pyschotropic drugs. Instead of advocating for gun control, activitsts should be advoating for suing the pharmaceutical companies that sell the drugs and the psychiatrists who prescribe them.

I really have to disagree with this statement. I have seen many psychotic individuals return to full functioning human beings when they took their drugs. What bothers me about the latest shooting in Colorado is that the young man was an Eagle Scout. I have never seen a "bad" kid that was an Eagle Scout. Something major had to cause a psychotic break.

On the flip side of this, I have seen several good kids who were put on these drugs and they turned into hellions.

Why are "good" kids put on psychotropic drugs? Who treats psychosis in normal kids? Of course "good" kids can go bad if they abuse drugs such as amphetamines and heroin but when we talk about psychotropic drugs I am talking about psychotic individuals that return as functional people with the use of drugs. There is a lot of difference between neurosis and true psychosis.

Because far too many doctors (not all, but too many) try to fix every problem by throwing a pill at it.

Little Johnny won't do his homework... put him on Ritalin!
Little Susie talks too much in class... put her on Prozak!

It's the old hammer/nail problem. Well that and too many doctors think that having that title makes them a genius and everyone else an idiot.

I don't intend to insult anyone except the doctors that fit that mold. I have known many fine doctors and PAs in my life. I've also had the misfortune of meeting some who are exactly like those I mentioned above.

[rotor]

I agree completely about too many people may be going on Prozac or Zoloft or whatever anti-depressant is going around. But these are not the anti-psychotic drugs. The really crazy need to be on drugs and, in my opinion, because they are not on treatment we are seeing these problems. We see it in the homeless (bums) that can not be forced to take the medicines they really need and perhaps in some of these teens. All I know is that since we no longer have the sanitariums ( the snake pits) that we had when I was younger we now have these crazy people on the street and, if they take their drugs they function, but if not watch out.

We all know of kids from good families that just are NOT normal and need something to help them. You know though it is not just humans, I have had many dogs in my lifetime and I have had some that needed to be on meds as well. There is just something in the DNA that makes them different.

[JALLEN]

People these days seem to be allergic to shame. Hardly anybody is ashamed of anything anymore.

One common denominator according to one article I saw on another forum is that all or almost all were socialists, or sympathetic that way.

That's a mental disorder.

[MechAg94]

I don't think I would advocate suing anyone, but the prescription drug issue ought to get more scrutiny. At least it deserves a lot more scrutiny than guns.

[WildBill]

I don't think I would advocate suing anyone, but the prescription drug issue ought to get more scrutiny. At least it deserves a lot more scrutiny than guns.

Prescription drugs are already scrutinized, regulated and controlled by Congress, the FDA, DEA and the AMA. There is so much money at stake that the congress, drug companies and doctors don't want to rock the boat too much. As Carl Sagan might have said: "Billions and Billions".

[MechAg94]

I don't think I would advocate suing anyone, but the prescription drug issue ought to get more scrutiny. At least it deserves a lot more scrutiny than guns.

Prescription drugs are already scrutinized, controlled and regulated by the congress, the FDA, DEA and the AMA. There is so much money at stake that the congress, drug companies and doctors don't want to rock the boat too much. As Carl Sagan might have said: "Billions and Billions".

I wasn't thinking of legal scrutiny. I agree there is plenty of that already. I think I would like to see more media discussion and research into these psychological issues.

I remember some years back the really angry talk radio stuff when someone would accuse Ritilin parents of drugging their kids to improve their behavior. Statistics sort of show that a whole lot of them were, but they would get dang near violent if anyone suggested they were drugging their kid. Supposedly a number of schools were recommending the drugs. I don't know how much of that is still going on.

[WildBill]

I don't think I would advocate suing anyone, but the prescription drug issue ought to get more scrutiny. At least it deserves a lot more scrutiny than guns.

Prescription drugs are already scrutinized, controlled and regulated by the congress, the FDA, DEA and the AMA. There is so much money at stake that the congress, drug companies and doctors don't want to rock the boat too much. As Carl Sagan might have said: "Billions and Billions".

I wasn't thinking of legal scrutiny. I agree there is plenty of that already. I think I would like to see more media discussion and research into these psychological issues.

I remember some years back the really angry talk radio stuff when someone would accuse Ritilin parents of drugging their kids to improve their behavior. Statistics sort of show that a whole lot of them were, but they would get dang near violent if anyone suggested they were drugging their kid. Supposedly a number of schools were recommending the drugs. I don't know how much of that is still going on.

That is my point. The same doctors and drug companies who are making money from prescribing the drugs also fund the research.

[anygunanywhere]

It's a complicated issue.

No it isn't.

Mass shootings always occur in gun free zones.

Pretty simple.

Anygunanywhere

[g-man]

Common denominator is that these mass shooters are Caucasian. Just like a few on here pointed out that the K.O. game was done by blacks....Maybe its a parenting issue??? Anybody else agree?

[mojo84]

It's a complicated issue.

No it isn't.

Mass shootings always occur in gun free zones.

Pretty simple.

Anygunanywhere

So, if gun free zones were eliminated, there'd be no more shooting sprees?

I disagree that it is that simple and black and white. I think eliminating gun free zones would reduce the number of casualties and fatalities per shooting.

[Jaguar]

Common denominator is that these mass shooters are Caucasian. Just like a few on here pointed out that the K.O. game was done by blacks....Maybe its a parenting issue??? Anybody else agree?

Absolutely agree, as long as we agree to overlook Omar S. Thornton, Maurice Clemmons, Charles Lee Thornton, William D. Baker, Arthur Wise, Clifton McCree, Nathan Dunlap, Colin Ferguson, the DC Snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, and Nidal Malik Hasan. Yep, only white guys.

ETA, oh yeah I forgot Aaron Alexis. (Of course to the media he is a "Texan.")

[anygunanywhere]

It's a complicated issue.

No it isn't.

Mass shootings always occur in gun free zones.

Pretty simple.

Anygunanywhere

So, if gun free zones were eliminated, there'd be no more shooting sprees?

I disagree that it is that simple and black and white. I think eliminating gun free zones would reduce the number of casualties and fatalities per shooting.

We will probably never find out if this is true or not.

Regardless, no effort to control mental illness, eliminate gun free zones, whatever, will eliminate evil.

Anygunanywhere