- This topic has 1 reply, 10 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Unfortunately it is not in the best (financial) interest of the pharmaceutical companies to have this information publicized so I’m guessing it’s not easy to dig it up…
Did you take a look at [ http://ssristories.com/index.php ] ? It is disturbing.
Based on the facts so far, I’m not so sure this Binghamton looney could afford the legal drugs …
Scott
I did take a look at your link, Scott, and a number of things stand out. First, the anecdotes come from all over the world. So in considering this information (assuming it’s reliable), we must use a denominator of eight billion or so possible perpetrators. You can see that the incidence is actually pretty small. And it lists anecdotes covering a span of twenty-one years, so the rate is further reduced.
Also, many of the citations are of journal articles and news coverage such as a veterinarian who states that antidepressants are bad for dogs, so you cannot count every line as a reported incident. Sort the articles by the leftmost column and see how far down you need to go to find a murder. If you disregard the lines containing references to journal and news articles and veterinarians’ assertions, and if you further disregard the reports of minor behavior deviations (“teacher has sex with 15 year-old student”), and the reports of mere ideation, and then if you divide the actual untoward events in which these drugs may (may) have played a part by the 21 year span of the data, you’ll see that the actual annual incidence is quite small and probabaly statistically insignificant.
What’s more, nothing in the summary data points to causation but rather only to coincidence. I note that all the perpetrators from Scotland, for instance, have been exposed to haggis and have worn plaid, but does that constitute a causal link?
And still I’ve seen nothing convincing that the New York shooter (who is the subject of this thread) was actually on any of these medications. Have you? If not, then I respectfully suggest that in the future we all be careful about jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.
Perhaps he wasn’t medicated at all… perhaps he just bought into the American “dream” and found it was a nightmare from which he could not awake!
The recent letter and materials sent to a local news organization which was alledgedly sent by the shooter prior to his actions would indicated the guy had some real psychological problems for which he may or may not have been under treatment for. He seems to fit the classic delusional paranoia… untreated he was dangerous… if he was medicated and suddenly stopped taking his meds he was a timebomb waiting to explode.
Edited on Apr 08, 2009 11:24
Think about the total lack of logic here. We strictly control most drugs and make some absolutely illegal (marijuana for example), yet we do very little to control the sale of firearms.
You don’t see too many nuts running into a post office and slaughtering twenty innocent people with a bag of marijuana or a bottle of Vicodin. Maybe medications might put the idea into the head of a disturbed person, but he would absolutely need a gun and ammo to carry it out.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” -Benjamin Franklin
Not really though, and if they are bigger it is because of left wing zealots like your girl Nancy Pelosi that are trying to take away my constitutional right to bear arms.
sprite, you might like this article 🙂 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31406I am amazed how many think if you take away guns that murders will stop. Murdering someone is illegal. I live in an area that has a lot of meth problems. Meth is illegal. Your average American isnt the one out causing Mass Murders. Whether guns are illegal or not, they are going to murder. You have to be a nut job to kill others. They are crazy and love the attention they know will happen because of their actions. I think the drugs just put them over the brink.
It would be interesting to learn if the restriction on the availability of Sudafed or other sources of the raw materials for the meth labs have, in fact, reduced the production of the methamphetamines. If yes, it might provide some insight into how gun control might impact the incidence of gun-associated violence.
Here is a service announcement from Ted Nugent http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31380&s=rcmppublic
Ted Nugent is a nut job, plain and simple. And so is anyone else who has the same viral ideaology which places more value on personal property than on human life. He advertises his insanity and flaunts his weapons as if they were some sort of god given bodily appendage.
Nugent loves to kill animals for sport. He doesn’t do it to control imbalanced animal populations nor does he do it for food. He does it for fun. He keeps animals on his land just so he can go out and slaughter them for fun. I repeat, he is a nut job.
the first mass murder that i can remember was committed by that guy in texas at the clock tower. he was heavily medicated on psychostimulants and sedatives. all the mass murders going back to the 70s involved psychiatric drugs and as more and more people are heavily medicated in costa rica, you can expect to see similar incidents eventually. i am frankly shocked at the number of gringos in cr i´ve met who are taking 2, 3, or 4 different psycho meds. think about the other senseless murders-shootings — john lennon, again psych meds, prez reagan, again psych meds, pick any senseless incident and start investigating the drugs involved and you will almost always find antidepressants. they don´t carry a black box warning for homicide and suicide for no good reason.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
