We’ve always had an abundance of guns in this country. In the past 20 years there’s been no per capita increase in the amount of guns we have. And yet these killings, these mass killings have exploded. And we need to look at other reasons for that as well.
A potential reason, [the National Institutes of Health] has not studied the etiology or the causes of gun violence since 1996. And NIH needs to be studying them to see if there’s a connections to some of the SSRI and psychiatric drugs people are taking. Whether there’s connections to video games.
32 Responses
Always looking for the simple solutions.
An awful lot more has changed than video games and SSRI’s.
The value of a dollar, non-degree employment opportunities, single-parent households, owning a home, de-homogenization of American culture and values, popular celebrity of degenerates and criminals, to name a few.
Shire-man,
Good material.
The decoupling from a recognition of our Creator as referenced by our Founders. The proliferation of sexual abandon and pursuit of immediate gratification. The elevation and celebration of Self over all else. The remarkably easy slide from close knittedness within a community to isolation. The aversion to growth. Etc, etc.
Haz,
Yes. Faith and family strengthen us against the toxic spiritual assaults of this world. However, toxicity of the body can be overwhelming. This also needs to be countered.
The biggest contributing factors is a lack of parenting followed close behind by a government bureaucratic complex that punishes the parents who do discipline their children for unacceptable behavior. Fewer so called ‘time outs’ and more trips behind the woodshed would go a long way in bringing things under control.
not sure if you are being sarcastic? beating kids behind a woodshed to stop mass shootings?
“And yet these killings, these mass killings have exploded.”
Every mass shooter (mass shootings in schools are called ‘school shooting’ – they are still mass shooting) in the past 20 years has either been (within a week to a month of their heinous act) ‘self medicating’ with, or taking prescribed, SSRI and/or psychiatric drugs of some type or using some other type of psychoactive agent or had stopped taking a prescribed SSRI and/or psychiatric drug. This is already known. For example, the Nashville trans shooter was under care of a mental health professional and was prescribed an SSRI she stopped taking two weeks before her attack, but despite being prescribed this and other psychiatric drugs she still started planning her attack before she stopped taking the SSRI.
These mass shooting happen not because they can get a gun, they happen because of mental illness. And mental illness is what has ‘exploded’ in the last 20 years because the democrats have been ‘normalizing’ it by removing the remaining restraints on it by their insane ‘social justice focused reforms’ while at the same time the amount of mental health help still available has become more ‘liberal’ and embraces the insane ‘social justice focused reforms’ so just throw pills at people instead of actually treating and putting some of these people away from society choosing to not ‘stigmatize’ a person who tells them they want to kill (60% of the mass shooters in the last 20 years have told their mental health professionals out right they wanted to kill, were being driven to kill, and all their mental health professional did was ‘you poor misunderstood thing, here, take these pills’). In other words, instead of trying to address the mental illness the anti-gun are trying to use and exploit it as a means to control the Constitution.
The weakness in the ‘mental health professional’ field is being exposed. The truth is they can’t really treat violent mental illness like they pretend to be able to do. They don’t even knows what causes it.
There have been various studies pointing this out. One study that sort of summed it up was by Forensic psychiatrists James L. Knoll IV, MD, and George D. Annas, MD, MPH, of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse New York, both leading authorities on the mental health aspects of mass/school shooters, summed it up for the mental health community various studies on various aspects in terms of mass/school shooters. They concluded … Although mass shooters may not meet DSM-5 criteria for a recognized disorder, “they do have an ill-defined trouble of the mind for which the mental health field has no immediate, quick-acting ‘treatment,’” – in other words, mass/school shooters do have mental illness but not something clearly defined and for which the mental health community has no immediate quick-acting treatment, such treatment includes diagnosis so its a mental illness that has not yet been diagnosed.
But…I will give RFK Jr a little credit here. He has at least been astute enough to know the problem cause for these mass shootings is not because guns exist like the rest of anti-gun so falsely claim. He at least has an idea there is something else there. Although members of the still-sane part of the mental health community, the democrats own studies and research, the NIH and CDC, and the 2A community and those doctors within the 2A community, and even the mass shooters them selves, have been telling them for the last four decades….its mental, even the creators of the ‘safer communities act’ came right out and said it they know 100% of these mass shooters are violently mentally ill. The mass shooters sometimes even writing it down for ‘authority’ like teachers and law enforcement before they kill….screaming out on writing ‘HELP ME! I WANT TO KILL’ with that very last bit of resistance they have to resist the impulse driving them to kill just before being over over run by the mental illness driving them to kill.
.40,
Yes. But why?
Toxicity. Poisoning.
The ingredients in processed foods.
Micro-plastics in our tissue, including brain tissue, lymphatic system, internal organs.
The estrogenic impacts of plastics disrupt the endocrine system.
Genetically modified foods.
Glyphosate and other poisons everywhere.
Overmedication (which you have cited, above).
Brains do not work well when poisons and toxins disrupt the neural pathways.
Detox pathways become clogged, so the body does not properly cleanse itself.
Pile on all of that which Shire-Man cited, above.
We are a physically ill, poisoned people. Send a thank you card to the FDA. Another to Pharma. Another to Kelloggs and McDonalds et al.
are you saying that if the government simply bans fast food, plastic, roundup, and prescription drugs mass shootings will stop? it’s an intriguing idea. how would it work?
Fppf,
I am saying that toxicity causes mental health issues.
If you are unfamiliar with how environmental toxins, food toxins, and medical toxins accumulate in the body and disrupt metabolism and neural function, you may want to do some research.
If you are unfamiliar with how erosion of the gut biome negatively impacts brain function, you may want to do some research.
If you are unfamiliar with how artificial and genetically modified food ingredients debilitate the immune system, impede neural function, and are related to learning disabilities, you may want to look elsewhere for your health information.
Or, you can relax, believe the industry and government propaganda, and have another Big Mac and wash it down with a high-fructose, artificially flavored beverage of your choosing.
Life is choices.
I blame communists wrecking the traditional culture. The garbage taught in schools has to be one of the major reasons. Our nation is dying because of communist influence. McCarthy was right.
Bingo. End of discussion.
Prozac had a bad reputation 20 years ago; yet it helped a lot of people. Patients on their own getting off the medication was most likely the problem for some.
Medicine for mental illness can be the source of problems when abandoned without a doctor’s guidance just like stopping a statin drug can cause a rise in cholesterol which will lead to health issues.
Of course, the difference is a patient getting off a SSRI without their doctor’s guidance can lead to a disaster for the patient and unfortunately others.
Where as a patient getting off a statin will only cause problems for the patient and therein lies the difference.
I have met a lot of people who think they know more and are smarter than their doctors. My question to them is: then why do you bother seeing a doctor?
Patient heel thyself, if you are so enlightened.
Regardless those who do mass shootings are mentally ill and in dire need of help. Those who think they will be ok by quitting a medication are the dangerous ones. The mental illness may not have been diagnosed but the problems the patient has can clearly be recognized by listening to the patient. Of course listening is a waste of time, if the doctor is not really hearing what their patients are saying and or taking no action when the patients bares their souls.
The perennial problem with psych meds.
“I feel better so I don’t need them anymore” followed by being too shizo to start taking them again.
Without some guardian to shove pills down their throats this is the inevitable end.
My theory on anti-depressants and gun violence is that the meds aren’t causing the violence. It’s just that the meds don’t work as advertised. Shocker, right? These people have issues. They’re told to go to this “qualified” person for help. The “qualified” person gives the patient these meds because “science.” Lots of money gets made. No one gets better. People die. When are people going to figure out that these doctors and meds don’t work as advertised? If they did, we would have eradicated anxiety and depression by now, yet it keeps increasing along with the increase in the meds. Hmm… Yeah let’s keep doing the thing that provably doesn’t work. (Caveat below.)
It may be that certain anti-depressant/anti-anxiety meds could be used in a very targeted, temporary manner. Yet, from what I’ve seen, people are using it as somewhat of a cure, if you consider never going off of a medication a cure. It should only be used as a temporary crutch while you’re working on the actual issue(s). Regular MDs are prescribing these left and right. I know people who take them. It was never prescribed by a psychiatrist.
Re gaming: If the newer, more graphic, video games were the cause of increased gun violence, then we would be reading about mass school shootings several times a day. These people are (intentionally?) looking in the wrong places.
@Hush
“Of course listening is a waste of time, if the doctor is not really hearing what their patients are saying and or taking no action when the patients bares their souls.”
I think this is part of the problem. Most doctors work in a fast-paced assembly line production designed to make the most money. They want to give a quick diagnosis, and a prescription for some pills that will supposedly fix your problem. Like I said above, it looks like most people are getting these scripts from an MD other than a psychiatrist.
At least someone wants to understand the causes. I believe it’s in our best interest to elect RFK, either of the other guys are too volatile right now. We need a centrist!
In our best interest as in the “gun community” or as in the country? He wants to ban ARs, which practically speaking means he wants to ban semi-auto rifles. He’s also for throwing “climate-deniers” and polluters into prison.
He isn’t a centrist. He only seems that way because he’s a 1990s Democrat. That’s how much things have shifted.
“At least someone wants to understand the causes.”
Meds and video games? Try again. He doesn’t seem to understand much.
And no, JFK wouldn’t have been a Republican or a “centrist” if he was around today. I don’t know why people say that. People are forgetting that he was in power in the 50s and early 60s. Times have changed. How many modern Kennedys are Republicans? RFK’s own relatives are mad at him because they want the senile puppet to remain in power. They only care about Democrats being in power.
RFK is very old school because he’s willing to call out the big corporations. The modern Democrats only call them out with a wink and a nod to fool the sheep. The big corporations support Democrats. Big Pharma and Wall Street support Democrats over Republicans. Wall Street has been supporting Democrats since at least 2008. People seem to forget that Occupy Wall Street happened under Obama’s watch. And what did he do about it? He distracted the country with identity politics, mostly concerning race. He gave those kids something else to be mad about that wouldn’t hurt the Democrats. Dividing the country would only work in their favor.
Prove all this with his words!
“If we can get a consensus on it, if Republicans and Democrats agree to it and it passes Congress, I would sign it,” he said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4072813-rfk-jr-argues-gun-control-cannot-meaningfully-reduce-gun-violence/
He said that after admitting that it wouldn’t help gun violence (banning ARs). That actually makes him MUCH worse than the ignorant gun grabbers.
Despite Kennedy’s recent claims of standing against government censorship, he has in the past called for conservative opponents of top-down responses to climate change to be jailed. During an interview at the 2014 People’s Climate March, he said that “treasonous” billionaire businessmen Charles and David Koch “should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.” In the same interview, Kennedy said that he “wish[ed] there was a law you could punish them [politicians who disagreed with him] under.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/flashback-rfk-jr-once-called-for-jailing-climate-deniers-punishing-political-opponents/ar-AA1e2hqA
He later clarified his stance, stating that individuals enjoy the the right to free speech (he said he wished there was a law to jail politicians who disagreed with him – one assumes he would sign that into law as well), but organizations and businesses do not. He literally wrote an article talking about going after corporations and think tanks that said things he didn’t like.
In his article “Jailing Climate Deniers” over at EcoWatch, prominent environmental activist Robert Kennedy, Jr., magnanimously allows that individual Americans—even misguided souls who question the scientific consensus on man-made global warming—have a First Amendment right to speak their piece. Corporations and think tanks, however, are another matter. Kennedy argues that such organizations do not enjoy free speech protections and therefore can and should be targeted for death by activist state attorneys general.
https://reason.com/2014/10/01/activist-robert-kennedy-jr-denies-he-wan/
Notice how Democrats (including RFK) love to utilize their activist state attorneys general. They weaponized the state and federal DOJ to go after their presidential opponent, as well as any opponent of the Regime. Please point out the “centrist” and “non-volatile” parts for us, Phillip.
My comment was moderated. I bet it’s because I used more than one link. Also, when I view the posted comment, it doesn’t show any paragraph spacing. Dan, please allow comment editing. I would have fixed any issues. I’m going to break it into separate comments so we don’t have to wait.
“If we can get a consensus on it, if Republicans and Democrats agree to it and it passes Congress, I would sign it,” he said.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4072813-rfk-jr-argues-gun-control-cannot-meaningfully-reduce-gun-violence/
He said that after admitting that it wouldn’t help gun violence. That actually makes him much worse than the ignorant gun grabbers.
Why did you choose to ignore this?
“and I’m not going to take people’s guns away”
“Why did you choose to ignore this?”
I didn’t ignore anything. I gave you a link for the full context. Most (never go full Beto) gun grabbers say they support the Second Amendment, and that they aren’t going to take your guns. You should know this by now because you read these blogs! Then they say we need to ban “assault weapons” because they weren’t meant to be included in the Second Amendment. “No one will take your hunting rifle.”
After stating that he wouldn’t take guns, and it wouldn’t help gun violence if he did take them, he LITERALLY said that he WOULD take ARs, “If we can get a consensus on it, if Republicans and Democrats agree to it and it passes Congress, I WOULD SIGN IT.”
There you have it. He is on the record saying he would ban ARs. You’re ignoring the facts because you’re a dishonest person who can’t admit when you’re wrong. Enjoy life with your head in the sand, if that makes you feel better.
Despite Kennedy’s recent claims of standing against government censorship, he has in the past called for conservative opponents of top-down responses to climate change to be jailed. During an interview at the 2014 People’s Climate March, he said that “treasonous” billionaire businessmen Charles and David Koch “should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.” In the same interview, Kennedy said that he “wish[ed] there was a law you could punish them [politicians who disagreed with him] under.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/flashback-rfk-jr-once-called-for-jailing-climate-deniers-punishing-political-opponents/ar-AA1e2hqA
He called the Koch Brothers “war criminals” when referring to “three hots and a cot” but you ignore that context
“but you ignore that context”
How do you figure? I don’t think you understand the context. He literally called them war criminals because of the war they supposedly waged against the environment!
He later clarified his stance, stating that individuals enjoy the the right to free speech (he said he wished there was a law to jail politicians who disagreed with him – one assumes he would sign that into law as well), but organizations and businesses do not. He literally wrote an article talking about going after corporations and think tanks that said things he didn’t like.
In his article “Jailing Climate Deniers” over at EcoWatch, prominent environmental activist Robert Kennedy, Jr., magnanimously allows that individual Americans—even misguided souls who question the scientific consensus on man-made global warming—have a First Amendment right to speak their piece. Corporations and think tanks, however, are another matter. Kennedy argues that such organizations do not enjoy free speech protections and therefore can and should be targeted for death by activist state attorneys general.
https://reason.com/2014/10/01/activist-robert-kennedy-jr-denies-he-wan/
Notice how Democrats love to utilize their activist state attorneys general. They weaponized the state and federal DOJ to go after their presidential opponent, as well as any opponent of the Regime. Please point out the “centrist” and “non-volatile” parts for us, Phillip.
None of your quotes prove your claims. Quit being an idiot.
RFK Jr. Is simply a better choice this time.
Biden wants the country to change drastically. He cares nothing for small government(Trump grew it too)
The left will destroy everything if Trump is re-elected and he’s already guilty of being a gun grabber.
I’d prefer Michael Rectenwald but you can’t get 270 with 10% of the vote…..
“None of your quotes prove your claims.”
That is literally the opposite of reality. Stay in the cave, Phillip. Life is simple there.