CONTROVERSIAL OPINION: You’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 23, 2015 2:24 AM GMT
    You’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

    (published in january)

    "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."

    "SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior."

    http://asheepnomore.net/2015/01/03/youll-never-guess-every-mass-shooting-common-isnt-weapons/
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 23, 2015 10:30 AM GMT
    metta8 saidYou’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

    (published in january)

    "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."

    "SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior."

    http://asheepnomore.net/2015/01/03/youll-never-guess-every-mass-shooting-common-isnt-weapons/


    This is a very "American" construct, and one of the oldest logical fallacies, to boot. In formal logic, it's called the "Converse Fallacy of the Accident" ("e dictum secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter"). Watch: AA has a saying:

    "I didn't get into trouble every time I was drinking; but every time I got into trouble, I'd been drinking."

    That's not a "logical" statement; it "appears" to be, but it's "inane", logically.

    The "logic" of the argument is not "Do SOME people who take these drugs do X?" (Yes: And some people who drink are not alcoholics, and don't get into trouble when they drink).

    That is, the "fallacy" is, "WHEN A happens (with SOME people), B happens. Therefore, B happens BECAUSE OF A". And that's a logical nonsense confusing "cause and EFFECT" and mere "Act B was sequential (not CONsequential) to Act A."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 1:02 PM GMT
    Phrased differently - every person who was involved in perpetrating a mass shooting was in some way mentally deranged/disturbed/off balance/not quite normal....so they were taking medication to try to fix that.

    Is the problem the medication, or the fact they were "differently-brained"?

    The above argument could also be an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy - A happened before B, therefore A caused B. Which, in most cases, is wrong.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 23, 2015 1:36 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidPhrased differently - every person who was involved in perpetrating a mass shooting was in some way mentally deranged/disturbed/off balance/not quite normal....so they were taking medication to try to fix that.

    Is the problem the medication, or the fact they were "differently-brained"?

    The above argument could also be an example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy - A happened before B, therefore A caused B. Which, in most cases, is wrong.


    That's right. All you have to do to make nonsense of the argument is: How many people were/are taking those drugs who did not/do not commit mass murder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 2:10 PM GMT
    Of course, it is *possible* that the medication is a factor in all of them ;)

    That's the problem with deductions by logic - the fact that something cannot be logically proven to be the cause does not mean it *isn't* or that it's not a *factor*

    Welcome to the real world - where nearly nothing is a perfect binary yes/no, true/false value icon_razz.gif

  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 23, 2015 2:38 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidOf course, it is *possible* that the medication is a factor in all of them ;)

    That's the problem with deductions by logic - the fact that something cannot be logically proven to be the cause does not mean it *isn't* or that it's not a *factor*

    Welcome to the real world - where nearly nothing is a perfect binary yes/no, true/false value icon_razz.gif



    There is no "problem" with logic, at all; you're confusing a "factor" with a "cause"; they're two entirely different things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 2:58 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    Doctor9 saidOf course, it is *possible* that the medication is a factor in all of them ;)

    That's the problem with deductions by logic - the fact that something cannot be logically proven to be the cause does not mean it *isn't* or that it's not a *factor*

    Welcome to the real world - where nearly nothing is a perfect binary yes/no, true/false value icon_razz.gif

    There is no "problem" with logic, at all; you're confusing a "factor" with a "cause"; they're two entirely different things.

    Consider when someone consumes "bath salts" and strips off their clothes, runs down the street and bites someone's face off. Now it's not very likely this person would have stripped naked and eaten a person's face off otherwise, as happened last year in Miami. Plus there are other cases like this.

    Therefore I wouldn't term bath salts a "factor" but rather a "causative" in these cases. What elevates an SSRI from a factor to a causative?

    I was prescribed various SSRIs by the VA for my epilepsy. The listed side-effects were kinda scary, from suicide to all kinds of anti-social behavior. How did they arrive at these conclusions, after clinical studies? Were these medical studies the result of false logic?

    BTW, I concluded I did not need SSRIs. I did not fall into the 60% of epileptics who are depressed, seeing no improvement with them. And the side effects of impotence and slowed thinking were not acceptable. As I said to my doctors: "I can't think of a better way to MAKE a man depressed than to make him impotent." LOL! So I stopped taking them. Nobody who knows me would ever call me depressed. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 23, 2015 3:03 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    metta8 saidYou’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

    (published in january)

    "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."

    "SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior."

    http://asheepnomore.net/2015/01/03/youll-never-guess-every-mass-shooting-common-isnt-weapons/



    And.... all of them were water drinkers too! icon_rolleyes.gif


    It seems clear we need laws to limit or ban access to water ...

  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 23, 2015 3:31 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    This is a very "American" construct, and one of the oldest logical fallacies, to boot. In formal logic, it's called the "Converse Fallacy of the Accident" ("e dictum secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter"). Watch: AA has a saying:

    "I didn't get into trouble every time I was drinking; but every time I got into trouble, I'd been drinking."

    That's not a "logical" statement; it "appears" to be, but it's "inane", logically.

    The "logic" of the argument is not "Do SOME people who take these drugs do X?" (Yes: And some people who drink are not alcoholics, and don't get into trouble when they drink).

    That is, the "fallacy" is, "WHEN A happens (with SOME people), B happens. Therefore, B happens BECAUSE OF A". And that's a logical nonsense confusing "cause and EFFECT" and mere "Act B was sequential (not CONsequential) to Act A."


    ^^^^^
    You deserve big thanks for that Wrestler boy.

    I read the first words of the "article" and groaned... "Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years....."

    Mass shootings/killings didn't start in 1995.

    I checked the provided link to ammoland.com. It goes to a homepage with no direct link to any article on this subject.

    Then I checked the article link to asheepnomore.net. WHAT A JOKE! At the top of the page I clicked the New World Order Link and found articles on

    Transgender ‘Female’ MMA Fighter Does Some Serious Damage To Female Opponent

    VATICAN TO CALL FOR DEPOPULATION

    Bilderberg 2015: Implementation of the Artificial Intelligence Grid

    From this thread on psychotropic drugs being linked to mass killings we can make a stronger argument that people without bullshit filters will post anything that sounds good to them without any concern for its credibility.

  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Jun 23, 2015 5:57 PM GMT
    metta8 saidYou’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

    (published in january)

    "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."

    "SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior."

    http://asheepnomore.net/2015/01/03/youll-never-guess-every-mass-shooting-common-isnt-weapons/


    Although the evidence falls short of proof that the drugs are at fault, surely it is strong enough to indicate that further work is required. An alternative explanation is possible. It may be that people with mental problems that can cause violent behavior are usually on those drugs.
  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 23, 2015 6:01 PM GMT
    The article does make additional errors that have not been mentioned here yet. Some of the drugs listed are not SSRI drugs.
  • bobbobbob

    Posts: 2812

    Jun 23, 2015 6:23 PM GMT

    metta8 saidThe article does make additional errors that have not been mentioned here yet. Some of the drugs listed are not SSRI drugs.


    ^^^^
    And you used it as a source knowing that?

    That says a lot more about you than it does about the article.

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Jun 23, 2015 6:32 PM GMT
    Whatever...I just thought it would make an interesting discussion.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4864

    Jun 23, 2015 6:57 PM GMT
    metta8 saidWhatever...I just thought it would make an interesting discussion.


    It has made an interesting discussion.

    It would be close to impossible to find a news article which is totally error free; journalists tend to be somewhat careless.
  • Unnamed6

    Posts: 1141

    Jun 23, 2015 7:33 PM GMT
    WrestlerBoy said
    metta8 saidYou’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

    (published in january)

    "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."

    "SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior."

    http://asheepnomore.net/2015/01/03/youll-never-guess-every-mass-shooting-common-isnt-weapons/


    This is a very "American" construct, and one of the oldest logical fallacies, to boot. In formal logic, it's called the "Converse Fallacy of the Accident" ("e dictum secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter"). Watch: AA has a saying:

    "I didn't get into trouble every time I was drinking; but every time I got into trouble, I'd been drinking."

    That's not a "logical" statement; it "appears" to be, but it's "inane", logically.

    The "logic" of the argument is not "Do SOME people who take these drugs do X?" (Yes: And some people who drink are not alcoholics, and don't get into trouble when they drink).

    That is, the "fallacy" is, "WHEN A happens (with SOME people), B happens. Therefore, B happens BECAUSE OF A". And that's a logical nonsense confusing "cause and EFFECT" and mere "Act B was sequential (not CONsequential) to Act A."



    Note the usage of "share in common".
  • ASHDOD

    Posts: 1057

    Jun 23, 2015 8:21 PM GMT
    scientology propaganda maybe?
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 24, 2015 2:55 AM GMT
    Unnamed6 said
    WrestlerBoy said
    metta8 saidYou’ll Never Guess What Every Mass Shooting Has In Common, And It Isn’t Weapons

    (published in january)

    "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."

    "SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior."

    http://asheepnomore.net/2015/01/03/youll-never-guess-every-mass-shooting-common-isnt-weapons/


    This is a very "American" construct, and one of the oldest logical fallacies, to boot. In formal logic, it's called the "Converse Fallacy of the Accident" ("e dictum secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter"). Watch: AA has a saying:

    "I didn't get into trouble every time I was drinking; but every time I got into trouble, I'd been drinking."

    That's not a "logical" statement; it "appears" to be, but it's "inane", logically.

    The "logic" of the argument is not "Do SOME people who take these drugs do X?" (Yes: And some people who drink are not alcoholics, and don't get into trouble when they drink).

    That is, the "fallacy" is, "WHEN A happens (with SOME people), B happens. Therefore, B happens BECAUSE OF A". And that's a logical nonsense confusing "cause and EFFECT" and mere "Act B was sequential (not CONsequential) to Act A."



    Note the usage of "share in common".


    Yes, another logical inanity: "One thing all people with blue eyes share in common is that they have inherited the dominant gene that gives people blue eyes." The "sentence" makes perfect sense.
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 24, 2015 2:59 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    WrestlerBoy said
    Doctor9 saidOf course, it is *possible* that the medication is a factor in all of them ;)

    That's the problem with deductions by logic - the fact that something cannot be logically proven to be the cause does not mean it *isn't* or that it's not a *factor*

    Welcome to the real world - where nearly nothing is a perfect binary yes/no, true/false value icon_razz.gif

    There is no "problem" with logic, at all; you're confusing a "factor" with a "cause"; they're two entirely different things.

    Consider when someone consumes "bath salts" and strips off their clothes, runs down the street and bites someone's face off. Now it's not very likely this person would have stripped naked and eaten a person's face off otherwise, as happened last year in Miami. Plus there are other cases like this.

    Therefore I wouldn't term bath salts a "factor" but rather a "causative" in these cases. What elevates an SSRI from a factor to a causative?

    I was prescribed various SSRIs by the VA for my epilepsy. The listed side-effects were kinda scary, from suicide to all kinds of anti-social behavior. How did they arrive at these conclusions, after clinical studies? Were these medical studies the result of false logic?

    BTW, I concluded I did not need SSRIs. I did not fall into the 60% of epileptics who are depressed, seeing no improvement with them. And the side effects of impotence and slowed thinking were not acceptable. As I said to my doctors: "I can't think of a better way to MAKE a man depressed than to make him impotent." LOL! So I stopped taking them. Nobody who knows me would ever call me depressed. icon_biggrin.gif


    And you'd be wrong. Let me help you:
    "What was the CAUSE of death?"
    "Multiple head trauma. He was pushed off that 10th floor balcony to the ground."

    The "push" is a "factor" (which are never "causative" in logic). But the "push" is not the "cause" (of death; he might have landed in a tree on the way down and not been killed at all).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2015 3:57 PM GMT
    Without antidepressants there's a good chance that they would have killed themselves.
    They are also all young males.
    Maybe you should withhold antidepressants and guns from young males.
    I want to say white but Virginia Tech was an Asian guy, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2015 4:00 PM GMT
    grofte saidWithout antidepressants there's a good chance that they would have killed themselves.
    They are also all young males.
    Maybe you should withhold antidepressants and guns from young males.
    I want to say white but Virginia Tech was an Asian guy, right?


    Seung-Hui_Cho.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    The common denominator in past and recent school shootings, isn't caused by taking anti-depressants in and of it self; but rather who these individuals were prior to taking Rx.
    Moreover, I am curious of the past school shootings; were any of them females? Is it a question of liability; people need someone to blame for the wrong doer actions? I think there are many variables that are not accounted for and to make a leap saying one thing is the cause seems weak at best; statistically speaking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 24, 2015 10:03 PM GMT


    I do know what these shootings, REALLY have in common and its not these drugs, not drugs at all.

    I cant really say but the only clue I can give is its "business" icon_idea.gif
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3525

    Jun 24, 2015 10:42 PM GMT
    Im guessing another thing they have in common is that they possessed a penis that hadnt been sucked or sat on at all or in quite a while. Nobody that has sex daily really plans to go out and shoot a bunch of people. LOL>
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2015 3:51 AM GMT
    KyMaverick said
    Moreover, I am curious of the past school shootings; were any of them females? Is it a question of liability; people need someone to blame for the wrong doer actions? I think there are many variables' that are not accounted for...


    Thank you @metta8 for posting and others for interesting comments.
    Personally, I'd like to know like @KyMaerick mentioned. Maybe research has already been done and findings, published in journals.
  • tajsreve

    Posts: 418

    Jun 25, 2015 3:00 PM GMT
    There is way more involved in what caused the "snap" over to violent behavior than just predisposing factors i.e. diagnosis, prescribed medications, sex, major life and social changes. It is a combination of all those things and/or a sequence of events prior to the mental break down. However, that being said some SSRI's are known to exacerbate anger issues just like Steroids. It doesn't happen to everyone but it is a known side effect. It is also known that many medications are just fine when taken "as prescribed." Often times patients will begin to "feel better" and a decide on their own to terminate the medications abruptly. There are physiological reasons whey this is contraindicated. Patients with aggression issues who abruptly end their meds are more prone to "snap." So if a life changing incident happens while this person is going through the withdrawal period of said meds. Then the chances are very high. But hell if the right sequence of events happened to even the most stable of people they could have been doing the postal thing as well. cause and effect.