Last edited Sat Dec 27, 2014, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

who have been on psychiatric drugs and those who were supposed to be on their prescribed drugs but weren't taking them. It's a general mental health issue.

when they were doing their investigation.

Going off SSRI drugs suddenly, especially, can cause intense problems, some people going into rages, and it's pretty immediate, happening within a couple of days to a week. Cold turkey is the way those drugs will pose a danger to others.

Others, like those taken by ADHD and ADD patients, can cause them to wig out if they take overdoses.

All have the potential to react badly with street drugs, including alcohol.

Instead of just saying "the killer was on psychiatric drugs," it would be far better to note how those drugs were being taken, or not being taken. It would be much more illuminating as to whether or not they were a factor in mass murder.

That people who are prescribed psych meds have psych problems?

The "person on anti-depressants does crazy thing" story, whether it be suicide or some other act, is a particular go-to theme for Scientologists, who have some kind of problem with psychological treatment in general.

However, the fact that people who are prescribed psych meds have psych problems is an outstandingly unexceptional and mundane fact.

Furthermore, one of the known hazards of anti-depressant medication is that it often relieves "enough" of the depression to allow patients enough motivation to act on ideas that they may not have otherwise. This is especially true with people who are suffering from depression with suicidal ideation. When depressed, they may have thought of committing suicide, but couldn't get up enough motivation to do so. The most dangerous time for such individuals is when the depression initially subsides.

many more mass murders there would be without people having psychiatric medications.

It's protecting group identity and pushing responsibility from a group member onto another group that must be hated as much as possible.

Must say that the entire FSU shooting passed under my radar. When it happened wife was out of town, I was Mr. Mom, deadlines and drama at work, while prepping for a two-day camping trip with kid and Scouts. Yet when I read the OP I knew what I'd learn about the shooter at FSU upon googling his name.

Inter-group dynamics and boundary protection is the name of the game. Many play it masterfully. Then again, some are relative neophytes and only appear to be masters. Just pay attention to the asymmetries in how to evaluate group membership, evidence, etc., etc. It's hard to get past confirmation bias when critical thinking isn't a tool to aid understanding but a weapon to be used only against others.

Oh, I know, doctors and big pharma are bad. The answer to everything.

the point of this article.

.... but I think I follow you.

It's not a one-to-one "people who need to be on meds but don't take them can do bad things" correlation, it's also that people who are on meds that do funky shit to your brain can do bad things BECAUSE OF THE MEDS ... that ultimately, we don't fully know the side effects (short and long term) of all the chemical crap that's been fed to us at the drop of a hat over the past 30 years.

It's been said that Chantix causes mood swings and 'mean streaks' in people trying to quit smoking. Well, if that's the case then why can't shit like Vicodin, Paxil, Ambien - and the hundreds of other mood/behavior alterers on the market - do similar, or worse?

some of the complex psy. drugs do seem to have many major side effects (some reported on our USA labels) side effects even from stopping taking the medications to abruptly.

yes, I read the article and went to the medical referenced sites to read more about this issue.

....this is what happens. And it will continue to happen, as long as this twisted set of priorities is allowed to stay in place.

of the rate of mass shootings in this country prior to the 1968 changes in gun laws. You know, back when people could buy high-capacity semi-auto rifles (yes, they existed then) with no background check, under assumed names, through the US mail, with anonymous money orders (or COD).


(and if 15 rounds is not shooty enough for you, the “accessories” box on the right has 30-round ones for sale!)

And hey, if high-capacity semi-autos aren't your thing, just think of the smile on your deranged face when the postman delivers this as you prepare for a shooting spree...with an anti-tank rifle!



(extra irony points for one being sold out of New York and the other out of California...)

And when you document the huge numbers of massacres then as compared to now, it should be a solid way for you to demonstrate the validity of your assumptions on the subject and shut up those annoying pro-gun folks once and for all.

Take your grave dancing some place where it will be appreciated. Christ knows there's no shortage of such venues, these days.

DU'er are with notable exceptions like you, reasonably intelligent people who can tell when someone is using bluster to avoid having to back up their assertions with you know, facts.

You seem to be claiming a correlative and causal link between the ease of firearm availability and frequency of mass shootings. Well, gun laws are public knowledge, the CDC, DoJ and FBI databases are available on the web, so you can do your own research on the frequency of mass killings as relates to ease of firearm availability. I've actually done this research and could give you the results, but you seem like the sort of person who blindly trusts someone else's word for something only if it matches something you already believed was true.

A big benefit of looking this up for yourself is that instead of looking like an ultra-religious warrior immune to reason or fact and intolerant of anything outside his narrow-minded worldview (what's the word I'm looking for...oh yeah, "paladin&quot , you would be able to make a factual, reasoned argument to support your view and rebut mine. If the data supported that conclusion, of course. And as a bonus, any new visitors to DU who have not seen your past posts would get the favorable (though illusory) impression that you were a tolerant and polite person who had a rational and consistent liberal worldview.

Or you could embarrass yourself by blustering some more to dodge the issue, your choice.

Lighten up and let your Christmas dinner settle through. My original comments regarding gun availability vs. mental health services will remain unchanged, regardless of how much "research" you gin up, or however many personal insults you fling my way. And don't expect me or any other reasonable person to get upset about how the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK put a kink in mail-order gun sales, either. End of discussion.

And Paladin's bluster and evasion in noted.

ETA: Also telling that he lobbed the first insult, then proceeded to whine about being insulted.

not an unusual correlation. you would expect people in this much distress to do something about it. psych drugs would be the obvious thing to try.
so?

this proves NOTHING. and makes no point worth making.

eta- quite the bs website, too.

most without guns involved.

Better lock me up, even though I'm really only a danger to my couch and bags of chocolate cookies. I also don't have guns.

Nothing there should be given any credence, period.

http://www.scientology.org/how-we-help/citizens-commission-on-human-rights.html

Regardless of the particulars of each shooting, there is a common denominator to these mass killings in as much as the psychiatric drugs they have been taking or withdrawing from are documented by 22 international drug regulatory warnings to cause mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation. Moreover, between 2004 and 2012, there have been 14,773 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system on psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects, including 1,531 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 3,287 cases of mania and 8,219 cases of aggression. The FDA admits that less than 1% of side effects are reported to them, so these numbers represent only a fraction of the incidents where psychiatric drugs have been tied to acts of violence and homicide.

Take a few minutes and go do some research. To put it simply, no nothing that comes out of cchr even remotely approaches anything in the vicinity of facts.

International agencies used by other first world countries. Perhaps you see advertisements from that cult on whatever device you use to access the internet?

No worries, I had noticed on my own that the majority of these 'mass shooters' seemed to be on these drugs with major side effects. I didn't even know about the thousands of reports of suicides and other violent side effects about less lethal problems.

Come to think of it, the pilot who went weird , tried to crash the plane.(co-pilot had to trick him to lock him out of the cockpit) was on these drugs. Another major airlines plane steward, started screaming about 'bombs on the plane'- also was on these drugs. I don't think we have ever had situations like that on major airlines, where airline crew had some kind of major physiological episode in flight.

However I would not entirely want to rule out that people who are under psych tx might have to have a higher bar as far as proving they are safe to own guns.

Currently, if I am not mistaken, you are only barred from firearm ownership if you were involuntarily hospitalized at some point or another.

I would think maybe it would be better if people under psych treatment had to get a note from their doctor saying they are ok or something.

When you have a seizure there is a ban on driving until you are seizure free for a period of time. Perhaps the same thing with guns.

We could start with Social Security Disability. If you are mentally disabled under their criteria that means that you are mentally unable to deal with working. Perhaps people allowed for disability on a mental basis should be entered into the NICS with some sort of a channel where they can be removed with info from their doctor.

I know of a psychiatrist around here and probably for insurance purposes but on his records he actually notes that he reccomends removing firearms from the house.

to allow family members to get a judge to take a family member's guns away.
a very smart bill. i assume it died w the session, but hopefully will come up again in the new leg.

And her husband was in the mental hospital. He was paranoid and pretty violent.

They took all his guns but when he got out he had hidden one like in the wall or something.

Came downstairs she saw him and got the hell out but she was hit 3 or 4 times getting away.

She lived though.

One problem I think is truly crazy violent people are often attracted to guns (I own guns and shoot all the time so I'm not stereotyping) and if they haven't gone off yet they have no record and area allowed to buy. Also all the crazy, paranoid violent people I have known WITH a record just bought one out of the local ad bulletin or a flea market off a non dealer.

but at the very least, there should be a bell somewhere that says- hey, this dude bought 30 guns this month.
either he is a dealer or a hoarder of guns. either way, a check is called for.

what I mean is when some states wanted to drug test before they provided a food support benefit.- That 'required drug test' was struck down by the higher courts.

Although there are some very powerful 'lobbies' in America who do manage to change the laws & prevent Doctors from fully helping people. example-

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/30/1317592/-NRA-Wins-Over-Free-Speech-Florida-Doctors-Silenced-On-Guns-By-Court#

I do not think banning guns or restricting them in any way (except what's legal at the Federal level) is an answer to this 'drug side effect' problem.

taking their meds in the prescribed manner?