20k foot view of school shooting

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Bingo.

I think rather than whether we should arm students or not, a more important question is: why does society create people willing to walk into a school and shoot 30 people before killing themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the guy was on antidepressants and britian banned anti depressants for children under 18 because of the risk of suickide/homocide, so I would make a bold hypothesis and say maybe,uh, drugs?

[JOHNY CA$H]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bingo.

I think rather than whether we should arm students or not, a more important question is: why does society create people willing to walk into a school and shoot 30 people before killing themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the guy was on antidepressants and britian banned anti depressants for children under 18 because of the risk of suickide/homocide, so I would make a bold hypothesis and say maybe,uh, drugs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? The answer is that simple? All the high school shootings were simply the result of drug use? But then why doesn't Amsterdam have the highest rate of school shootings per capita? Were all the shooters on some form of anti-depressants? Clearly, they all had mental issues. But that is part of a bigger picture. To chalk it up to drug use is too simplistic.

On another note, why the hell are we selling anti-depressants that make ppl homicidal?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
On another note, why the hell are we selling anti-depressants that make ppl homicidal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thread about SSRIs was locked - is this in acceptable subject to talk about here?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
Another thread about SSRIs was locked - is this in acceptable subject to talk about here?

[/ QUOTE ]
The locked thread was a little trollish. Also, whether a drug causes people to be homicidal isn't really a political topic. A more thoughtful post in SMP might be better.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another thread about SSRIs was locked - is this in acceptable subject to talk about here?

[/ QUOTE ]
The locked thread was a little trollish. Also, whether a drug causes people to be homicidal isn't really a political topic. A more thoughtful post in SMP might be better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is trollish, but it does illustrate a logical fallacy very, very well. People think that any A correlated with any B means that A causes B. However, it could also be that a cause X is causing both A and B, and that A and B have little or no causal relationship. For example, hard work and sound investing is likely to lead someone to an early, happy retirement and financial independence. It's also quite likely to lead someone to owning a gold watch. The correlation between rolex ownership and financial independence must be strong, but no one is going to become financially free owning a gold watch.

SSRI's don't cause homocidal mania. Depression does. And depression also makes SSRI consumption more likely, QED.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
SSRI's don't cause homocidal mania. Depression does. And depression also makes SSRI consumption more likely, QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) All or almost all of these shooters have been on SSRI.
2) The UK has legally banned SSRI for children under 18 because of the scientific evidence that it causes suicide/homocide.

You can draw your own conclusions.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SSRI's don't cause homocidal mania. Depression does. And depression also makes SSRI consumption more likely, QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) All or almost all of these shooters have been on SSRI.

[/ QUOTE ]

All or almost all of these shooters were wearing shoes.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
SSRI's don't cause homocidal mania. Depression does. And depression also makes SSRI consumption more likely, QED.

[/ QUOTE ]

HMK: It is true that there could be another factor responsible for both. It is also true that one could make the argument that SSRIs have done much more good, than bad and prevented many violent suicides and probably homicides. It is also true that the aggression/rage dysphoric mania that SSRIs can push some people into is well-documented, if rare. As with any strong substance that alters neurochemistry, there are always benefits and drawbacks. It is not the state's responsiblity to decide when people should be "allowed" to take SSRIs or not. It is, however, the responsbility of all those taking SSRIs and their friends, family, and mental health providers to be aware that SSRIs, in some people, especially those with a propensity towards bi-polar issues and anxiety or anger issues, can have strong adverse effects up to and including psychotic rage - especially in the first month of use, in multiple-SSRI combinations, or in dosage rampups.

we are still too far in the infancy of neuroscience and psychiatric pharmaceutical research to be able to predict which SSRIs and which people this will be likely in, and this is in no way a call for the banning of a class of pharmaceutical compounds that has done good and probably prevented a ton of violence, suicide especially.

(I agree that a full discussion of this would probably be better in SMP)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
we are still too far in the infancy of neuroscience and psychiatric pharmaceutical research to be able to predict which SSRIs and which people this will be likely in, and this is in no way a call for the banning of a class of pharmaceutical compounds that has done good and probably prevented a ton of violence, suicide especially.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why did britain ban them then?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
On another note, why the hell are we selling anti-depressants that make ppl homicidal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's we? Are you selling them? I'm not.

If you mean "pharmcos", well, the FDA gave them a thumbs up, what more could you want!?