Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

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 the rest of the article: http://libertycrier.com/nearly-every-mass-shooting-last-20-years-shares-one-thing-common-weapons/

6 thoughts on “Nearly Every Mass Shooting In The Last 20 Years Shares One Thing In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

  1. @Professor Hale – But there’s lots of people with mental health issues – diagnosed or not – that are not on such drugs.

    One would think that if the mental health issue itself were the root problem, you’d see a mix of mentally unstable people; some that had never been on drugs, some that were on them in the past, and some that were on them currently. Assuming this information being presented is factual: that would mean it indicates the drugs themselves being a major cause, not the mental illness they are meant to affect.

  2. Chicken or egg? People also blame anti-depresent drugs for higher suicide rates. But the fact is, most of those people were already suicidal, and that’s why they were on the drugs in the first place. Our current society is very tolerant of crazy people getting a little chemical help to take the edge off, so people don’t mind medicating their kids for all sorts of behavior problems. Most crazy are in treatment of some sort. No telling if it is the right treatment or effective treatment, but that is another discussion.

  3. Not really a chicken or egg argument, it’s an analysis of the data. The hypothesis that the health issue is the cause WOULD lead to a mix of shooters with such health issues that some never took such drugs and some did if the hypothesis were true. The hypothesis that it’s the drugs themselves WOULD mean that nearly all shooters would have had a connection with the drugs (current or past use) if that hypothesis were true. Assuming the assertions of this article are correct, the facts would only support 1 of the 2 hypotheses. That’s simple analysis and observation, not some philosophical causal dilemma.

  4. “One would think that if the mental health issue itself were the root problem, you’d see a mix of mentally unstable people.” How is it that wanting to mass-murder other people isn’t by default considered a mental health issue? How is there an “if”?

    And what do we say about all the people who take those drugs and don’t go on killing sprees? What, something like a 99.9999999999999% to .00000000000001%?

    Here’s a hypothesis: all those mass murderers had mental health issues that were obvious enough–either to themselves or to others–that they had attempted some form of treatment either presently or in the past.

    According to the CDC, 11% of adults (12/older) take an anti-depressant. So 11% of the population is just waiting to turn into mass murderers thanks to the drugs their on? What a bunch of bucking fullsht. That article is a giant steaming pile of the correlation = causation. It’s like saying gasoline is involved in every car accident so we should be looking at gasoline as the cause, not the driving.

Comments are closed.