It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

Well played.I agree.




posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: benrl


We have to be careful, as Correlation does not equal causation.


Yes. People don't usually start taking any of these things without reason. Mental health issues and severe stress seem to be common factors as is extremists ideology in many instances.

Some mass shooters / spree killers from before the release of Prozac:

1927 Andrew Kehoe
1954 William Unek (various African nations)
1957 William Unek (google this guy, it's almost beyond belief)
1966 Charles Whitman
1973 Mark James Robert Essex
1976 Edward Charles Allaway
1982 Woo Bum-Kon (South Korea)
1983 Perry Smith
1985 Steven Brownlee
1986 Patrick Henry Sherrill
1988 Warren Murphy
1988 Richard Wade Farley
1988 Michael Stone (N. IRL)

A few since that I'm pretty sure weren't on SSRIs:

1991 George Hennard
1994 Baruch Goldstein (Israel though US-born)
1999 Mark O. Barton
1999 Ahmed Ibragimov (Russia)
2010 Omar Sheriff Thornton
2011 Anders Behring Breivik

There's good reason to believe that treatment is actually preventing murder:


Homicides during first-episode psychosis occurred at a rate of 1.59 homicides per 1000 (95% CI = 1.06-2.40), equivalent to 1 in 629 presentations. The annual rate of homicide after treatment for psychosis was 0.11 homicides per 1000 patients (95% CI = 0.07-0.16), equivalent to 1 homicide in 9090 patients with schizophrenia per year.

source


Similar studies in the United States using health management organization and Medicaid data came to the same conclusion, he said, whereas a study among the elderly in Ontario, Canada did find an increased suicidality with SSRIs. This, however, was also only the case in the first 90 days. Any risk of suicidal ideation or attempts usually occurs when patients first start the medication, so patients should be monitored closely for the first 3 months, Dr. Lam said. In fact, he referred to a recent 2006 study that showed the highest risk of suicide is seen in the period just before starting medication.

source


Fluoxetine and venlafaxine decreased suicidal thoughts and behavior for adult and geriatric patients. This protective effect is mediated by decreases in depressive symptoms with treatment. For youths, no significant effects of treatment on suicidal thoughts and behavior were found, although depression responded to treatment. No evidence of increased suicide risk was observed in youths receiving active medication.

source

I know this is going to be hugely unpopular and I hate to sound like I'm defending modern psychiatry's pushing of psychotropics on everyone but I also don't know that I'm quite ready to believe that SSRIs precipitate mass murder. This will probably be an even less popular statement but there's a lot more talk about this among the far right news sources and it seems there's a definite agenda there. Before anyone flips out, my own opinion is that mass/spree killing has been going on forever and there's no evidence that we're going to legislate it out of existence with new gun laws. I'm just concerned we're being thrown a red herring.
edit on 2014-5-7 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You are excluding the facts that most of the mass killings we are discussing are KIDS,or are young,you are referencing in some cases people who are older where the diseases have evolved,in the youth we are talking about people who DEFINATELY have not evolved into later phases of illness.

Lets be clear that Adults who have been alive long enough to project late cycle symptoms are not in the same group as young people who have not even been alive enough for the diseases to evolve in them.

Yes people have been killing each other forever ,so what?

Not to be cheeky but come on here,if mass murder is on your mind and you are planning it long term,you are not likely to use a gun to fo the crime,if mass killing is your intention you would chain the doors and burn everyone to the ground not go from room to room shooting people.

These people are acting out a ritual that they THINK carries significance,they are clinging to some twisted reality and it IS not solely based upon mass murder,the choices of methods say a lot about the thoughts behind the crimes.

Even if some of these people have written journals and letters,so what,many people write down their emotions so they DONT act on them,this means nothing.

These are IMPULSE crimes where there is some level of urgency attatched to the acts.

If these people simply wanted a body count they would use different methods,no these are crimes which carry many many paralells all of which help us figure out why it is happening.

These people are getting the wrong thoughts and an impulse reaction is catalysing and the medicines prevent them from releasing the thoughts.I assume that in the same way they help hang on to good thoughts long enought to kick you out of a depressive episode they can also help hang onto bad ones long enough to act them out,I bet you could even create a timeline showing this if you wanted to. The lag-time between the thoughts and the medications maintaining the thoughts and emotons artificially need to be charted,so we can see if there is a correllation between the thoughts and the actions.

I bet there is a correllation that will show that the drugs are 100% responsible and that the same data used to show the drugs work against depression could be used with equal if not greater veracity to prove the drugs are responsible for maintiaining the negative thoughts long enough to act out on them,negative thoughts we all have but let go of before we act on them.

Yes there will be dosage factors,but at the end of the day of there is no way to guarantee that only one side of the two-way street we are all made of is directly affected then we cannot give these drugs to people.It seems to me that the doctors do not know how to isolate the Good and Bad thoughts and the medications will attatch themselves to both good and bad thoughts and extend them for longer than normal.


The body also trys to balance itself, so if you give it to much Good thought juice for lack of a better term ,more than it wants,eventually it will OVERPRODUCE bad thought juice,maybe this is what is happening,the mind and body are rejecting the medications impacts the only way they know how,by going to battle with the foreign force,in this case drugs which increase production of one or more of the brains key components.The body goes to war by overproducing the oppositecomponents as we should naturally assume it would do.These incidents of violence could be the brains natural defense mechanisms doing what they are suppossed to do and if that is the case then most of these drugs have been abysmal failures and we have all been duped.


You have sad thoughts so someone makes a drug that forces your brain to hold onto the few good thoughts you have for an artificially long time ,this drug does not have the ability to differentiate between SAD AND BAD,so basiclly everyone is playing russian roulette with someone taking these drugs,because if even once the drugs make the brain hold on to a BAD thought for as long as they are designed to make the brain hold onto a happy thought a bomb is about to go off.

There is no way Lawyers havent figured this out,it is money stopping curative actions.


If a Pharma lab cannot with 100% certainty prove that the drugs can and in fact do differentiate between SAD and BAD thoughts then they are 100% responsible for all of these criminal actions,by proxy of the fact that the drugs were even taken by these people at any time,for all we know once the drugs re-set your brain chemical production parameters there could very well be long term damage which continues even after use of the drug is stopped,so unless it can also be proven that there are no ong term permanent effects which continue after the drugs are stopped the drugs should not be given out.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Hi guys

Just wanted to throw my two cents in on this topic, as it's one I've had a similar experience with recently.

Disclaimer: I'm not claiming to present any scientific or documented data, this is just a true personal experience. The drug involved with my story is also not one of the typical drugs involved with this discussion.


I suffered a major injury about 2 years ago, and LO and behold I got seriously addicted to the painkillers norco and oxycodone. I was taking large amounts of them daily for about 1.5 years, increasing in dosage steadily.

I quit them cold turkey a few months ago, went thru withdrawals for a few days; after withdrawals is when things got interesting and relevant.

After the physical withdrawal symptoms passed and the drug was completely out of my system, I noticed that I became severely mentally unstable for 2-3 days. By "'mentally unstable" I mean that my mind was acting very strange; I was very emotional and things that I would normally consider minor took on heightened and complicated meanings in my mind. I also felt what some would describe as a messianic complex. I was also having very vivid dreams, and on at least one occasion I could not distinguish whether an event occurred in reality or in my dream.

The scariest part of all this was one night when I was trying to sleep; my mind was playing all kinds of tricks on me and I had a massive fear that if I fell asleep, I would "sleepwalk" and commit some terrible act. I did not sleep at all that night.

Everything stabilized after about 2 days; but the thing is, I am a grown man in his late 20s, and if withdrawing from these drugs could have the psychological effects it had on me, I can't imagine what effect the drugs could have on a much younger child.

Hopefully you guys were able to understand this tale, and any input or questions are welcome.

Cheers!



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: one4all


You are excluding the facts that most of the mass killings we are discussing are KIDS,or are young,you are referencing in some cases people who are older where the diseases have evolved,in the youth we are talking about people who DEFINATELY have not evolved into later phases of illness.

Lets be clear that Adults who have been alive long enough to project late cycle symptoms are not in the same group as young people who have not even been alive enough for the diseases to evolve in them


Charles Starkweather - 19

1874 Jesse Pomeroy - 14, killed and mutilated 3 younger children
1924 Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb - 19 & 18, kidnapped and murdered a 13 year-old
1961 Graham Young - 14, "Teacup Killer" poisoned family
1968 Mary Bell - 11, killed a 4 year-old and an 8 year-old
1968 Ernest Lee Grissom - 15, shot teacher and 13 year-old student
1971 Larry J. Harmon - 21, Gonzaga University shootings
1978 John Daniel Christian - 13, shot and killed teacher in front of class
1982 Kipland Kinkel - 15, killed parents, killed 2, wounded 25 in school cafeteria
1983 Cindy Collier and Shirley Wolf - 14 & 15, stabbed an elderly woman to death in her home
1985 James Alan Kearbey - 14, Goddard Junior High School shooter
1986 Kristofer Hans -14, Lewistown school shooter
1987 Nathan Ferris - 12, killed classmate and self
1993 Eric Smith - 13, killed a 4 year-old
1998 Joshua Phillips - 14, killed an 8 year-old girl


The body also trys to balance itself, so if you give it to much Good thought juice for lack of a better term ,more than it wants,eventually it will OVERPRODUCE bad thought juice,maybe this is what is happening,the mind and body are rejecting the medications impacts the only way they know how,by going to battle with the foreign force,in this case drugs which increase production of one or more of the brains key components


Oh, well I didn't realize you were going to be so technical.

EDIT:

Here we go, just scroll through this list of school shootings.

Wikipedia - List of School Shootings in the US

Apparently something else can cause an overproduction of bad thought brain juice because it looks like a pretty steady history of kids going to school and shooting other kids and themselves going back to the 1850's.
edit on 2014-5-7 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Did you know?!:

The last 20 massive fires in the U.S. have ALL been associated with..FIRE FIGHTERS! And believe it or not, there is a direct correlation--the bigger the fire, the more fire fighters are found there!

Ergo--fire fighters must be a main cause of fires, right?



Sorry but I'm sure you get the point I'm making that perhaps people who commit these horrible acts all had severe mental illnesses, which is of course why they were being trying to be treated for them.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
What the OP's list showed was that having mental health problems serious enough to need medication is linked to violent behavior. Not news.

However the thread was worth a look for theantediluvian's list of killers. Being a wrong'un is not a modern ailment.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: benrl

You're classifying Riddlin as a hard drug?

I stopped reading the OP after that, sorry.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
I have said this in another thread before.

These drugs are taken all over the world not just in the US, so connecting them to shootings or killing sprees should happen everywhere in the same rate as in the US, that is not happening.

So no, there are no sideeffect from these drugs that causes people to go on a killing spree but most likely these shooters are allready lost and therefore taking the drugs.

This


Just because other countries use these drugs too doesnt mean the rate of shootings should be the same. You have to take into account population levels and gun laws. A country with less people with have less shootings and a country with strict gun laws may have less shootings but higher knife crime and assaults.

In my opinion whether the drugs have any influence or not I believe they are no good. Getting to the route of the problem instead of drugging the depression out of someone would be my option.

But the correlation in the OP certainly suggests that these mind altering drugs are present during a lot of mass killings. That should warrant further investigation.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: StallionDuck

But as it's not a problem in other countrys as there are no killing sprees like in the US the problem isen't the drugs, it's the person and his ability to get a weapon of choise, in these cases a gun, now go figure where the problem really is


But the drugs make that person think and feel differently. In most cases they dont actually work.

And the ability to get a gun is irrelevant as someone who wants to commit a crime with a gun is hardly going to pay attention to the gun laws is he? And if he cant get a gun but so desperately wants to kill then he is going to do it some other way. The problem isnt the guns.
Imagine if someone tries to shoot up a movie theatre and several people in that theatre have guns because the laws are relaxed, the killer wont get as far and more people would probably survive.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: benrl
So the person who commits a mass shooting is not a 100% law abiding calm citizen. Well what a freaking suprise DUH!!!

The difference between the US and over here in the UK is that the people who go off the rails don't have access to guns.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: benrl
I'm stoked not to see the names of James Holmes or Adam Lanza on this list, for obvious reasons (hint hint). This makes the story much more valid and one open for serious debate.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: benrl
So the person who commits a mass shooting is not a 100% law abiding calm citizen. Well what a freaking suprise DUH!!!

The difference between the US and over here in the UK is that the people who go off the rails don't have access to guns.



But Neither do the victims who come face to face with criminals who do have a gun. And while guns are illegal here in the UK people still can get hold of one if they really want to.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: poiSoN466

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Mianeye

I dunno. I would think that it's availability that makes it much easier.

Person contemplates suicide... Knows where a knife is. Decides to take out as many as possible with him because of the hate building from the drugs or the withdrawls... Can't find a gun... Slits wrist.

I don't think weapons are really that easy to come by. Weapons like guns that is. Here.. Everyone has one or knows someone with multiples. That parts really easy.


So your solution is for everybody that has a suicidal thought, you stick them in a room with padded walls instead of helping them? I'm not really sure disarmament is the solution here.



Ehm... Where did you pull that from my response? I said nothing of the sort what so ever... troll much?




No? I'm just not sure what your solution is. You're essentially saying that disarmament of any weapons is the key here. So realistically either two things need to happen.

1. A home with an emotionally/mentally unstable person needs to be cleansed of all harmful objects in any way shape or form.

2. These people are thrown in padded rooms, cuz let's be honest. People have killed themselves in prison by bashing their head against a wall repeatedly.

I mean you say weapons aren't that easy to come by, but almost every household has knives, scissors, rope, baseball bats, frying pans, washer/dryers (amps DO kill people), etc etc...

I'm not attempting to troll, I'm trying to understand what you are offering for a solution since you say "availability" is much more of a reason why suicides/genocides happen. In my opinion the above two options would be the only two solutions if that was the true cause of everything discussed. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
Is it not possible that this is a coincidence? Let me explain. Obviously if they were taking medication then there was already some problem. So couldn't it be argued that the underlying condition was already present, and the person could have done something just as bad regardless of being on the medication? Perhaps the similarities in the drugs being administered points to their underlying conditions being somewhat similar, and thus treated in the same manner. But, perhaps the problems were larger than they first appeared.

I am not saying this is the answer, rather I am proposing the possibility. I do believe that one of the big differences in society today and society 50 years ago has to do with the mass prescribing of new "mood stabilizing" drugs, among other types as well. It should probably scare people to learn that doctors really don't know how most of these medications actually work, the ones affecting the chemistry of the brain I mean. They can observe what the medication does to the patients in a study or something, but as far as "why" the medication works, an explanation is often lacking.

Then there is the possibility that certain people, due to a certain biological condition, cannot tolerate certain medications. I've been on Zoloft for something like 7 years or so, and have never had any problems. And that goes for the majority as well. So it is hard to make a case that the medications are doing it when the majority of those taking the medicine don't have such problems.



I think that this is a good point. However, I find it very suspicious that even though these people had issues prior to taking any medication, it was only shortly after they started taking the medication that things took the turn for the worst. I mean, here's my issue with it. If you have any sort of mental disorder, or ADHD or anything that requires any of these medications, chances are, you have had the illness for quite a while before you were diagnosed with it. So why is it only after these people are taking the drugs that this spiral downwards? I'm not saying that these drugs are the CAUSE, but I'm certainly not saying they are helping either. As someone mentioned earlier, what works for one person, doesn't work for another. We are all human beings and we're all complex individuals and made completely different from one another. There's no possible way there is a universal solution for everybody.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: eloheim
Did you know?!:

The last 20 massive fires in the U.S. have ALL been associated with..FIRE FIGHTERS! And believe it or not, there is a direct correlation--the bigger the fire, the more fire fighters are found there!

Ergo--fire fighters must be a main cause of fires, right?



Sorry but I'm sure you get the point I'm making that perhaps people who commit these horrible acts all had severe mental illnesses, which is of course why they were being trying to be treated for them.


Your point is honorable, and noted. However, they are trying to be TREATED for them. They aren't trying to be cured. The majority of these cases have a lot of underlying issues that can honestly be cured without medication. The issue is profit and greed. Certain people profit majorly off of prescribed medications that are used to "treat" and mask the issue, not cure it.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: benrl

Wow... thats a pretty long list... S&F!!

However, unfortunately, i doubt it will help change anything!



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I wouldn't be quick to come to a conclusion...

First...since people who commit mass shootings are "psychologically not all there" anyway, I am not surprised that many of them were on some kind of medication, seeing that 80% of Americans take them anyway.

Are those drugs really CAUSING them to commit those crimes, or is this just an excuse? The killer sitting in prison now and blaming SSRIs for him committing the killings....understand that I am not necessarily buying that.

Also...for those criminals who survived (didn't kill themselves) and then later on got a lawyer who defended them..I can see "the bad drugs" being an excellent excuse ANY lawyer will jump on right away in their defenses.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much against those drugs. I have seen how European doctors strongly refuse to prescribe meds like Paxil etc....drugs which American doctors literally hand out like candy since they're seen like "cure-them-all" pills for all kinds of "conditions". But I don't buy they're the primary cause why people commit shootings.



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
I wouldn't be quick to come to a conclusion...

First...since people who commit mass shootings are "psychologically not all there" anyway, I am not surprised that many of them were on some kind of medication, seeing that 80% of Americans take them anyway.

Are those drugs really CAUSING them to commit those crimes, or is this just an excuse? The killer sitting in prison now and blaming SSRIs for him committing the killings....understand that I am not necessarily buying that.

Also...for those criminals who survived (didn't kill themselves) and then later on got a lawyer who defended them..I can see "the bad drugs" being an excellent excuse ANY lawyer will jump on right away in their defenses.

Don't get me wrong, I am very much against those drugs. I have seen how European doctors strongly refuse to prescribe meds like Paxil etc....drugs which American doctors literally hand out like candy since they're seen like "cure-them-all" pills for all kinds of "conditions". But I don't buy they're the primary cause why people commit shootings.


I would agree with them not being the primary concern, but can we say for sure that they aren't a factor? Who's to say that they aren't contributing to the cause instead of helping?



posted on May, 7 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
You can look at this two ways, either the anti depressants are causing the issue or these people were already on the verge and the anti depressants didn't help. I would say without having their medical data on why they were put on the treatment its just a jumping to conclusions.
a reply to: benrl



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join