5 ms·

School shootings in the USA have not been normalized at all. Our institutions and social degradation have caused these mass violence events. We've had an armed

School shootings in the USA have not been normalized at all. Our institutions and social degradation have caused these mass violence events. We've had an armed populace with very powerful guns for a long, long time. The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though. Most common drugs nowadays were already widely available back in the 70s.
- InSteady 3y ago
  And contrary to conservative / pro-gun talking points, most mass shooters are not mentally ill nor are they on psychotropic drugs. It's a circular kind of logic, "they must be insane to want to shoot a bunch of innocent kids" so therefore they are mentally ill by definition. That's not how mental illness works. By and large they are just sadistic nihilistic pieces of shit who want to live out violent fantasies for kicks before ending their garbage existence.
  - User23 3y ago
    The overwhelming majority of mass shooters are urban career criminals either actively engaging in some kind of crime or getting in stupid disputes over perceived disrespect. These stories pretty much only show up in local if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage. The troubled white boy shooting up his school gets a lot of national press, because it fits a narrative the political elite wants to push, but those media darling cases are an absolutely tiny minority of mass shooting events.
    - gillytech 3y ago
      The latter, the school boys, are nearly to a one on some kind of psychiatric drug.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        Even if that was true, which is not, what kind of scientology BS is this? There is absolutely no proof that psychiatric meds push teens to commit mass shootings.
        User23 3y ago
        What evidentiary standard would that “proof” have to meet to satisfy you? Is there one? If not then you’re just expressing a political belief and not a scientific one.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > What evidentiary standard would that “proof” have to meet to satisfy you? So, asking for proof of a so far unsubstantiated statement, is a "political belief" now? What did I miss?
        User23 3y ago
        > What did I miss? Evidentiary standards, it appears. You literally just admitted to not having any.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        Even if that was true, don’t you think it would be ironic if I just rather took the word of a random internet user at face value? Regardless, some evidence to back up the claim should be easy to provide. There are plenty of legitimate medical journals with publicly available content online, and at least one should be carrying a study on psychiatric drugs contributing to violent and erratic behavior. There should be also some sociological papers out there outlining the relationship between psychiatric treatment and homicidal tendencies. Yet nothing of these sorts has been provided, and here I am, being told that I don’t have “evidentiary standards” because I have asked for proof. The burden of which is on those who made the claim, by the way.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> The elevated violence is not date coincident with more guns. Psychotropic drugs are though. Most common drugs nowadays were already widely available back in the 70s.

InSteady 3y ago
And contrary to conservative / pro-gun talking points, most mass shooters are not mentally ill nor are they on psychotropic drugs. It's a circular kind of logic, "they must be insane to want to shoot a bunch of innocent kids" so therefore they are mentally ill by definition. That's not how mental illness works. By and large they are just sadistic nihilistic pieces of shit who want to live out violent fantasies for kicks before ending their garbage existence.
- User23 3y ago
  The overwhelming majority of mass shooters are urban career criminals either actively engaging in some kind of crime or getting in stupid disputes over perceived disrespect. These stories pretty much only show up in local if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage. The troubled white boy shooting up his school gets a lot of national press, because it fits a narrative the political elite wants to push, but those media darling cases are an absolutely tiny minority of mass shooting events.
  - gillytech 3y ago
    The latter, the school boys, are nearly to a one on some kind of psychiatric drug.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      Even if that was true, which is not, what kind of scientology BS is this? There is absolutely no proof that psychiatric meds push teens to commit mass shootings.
      - User23 3y ago
        What evidentiary standard would that “proof” have to meet to satisfy you? Is there one? If not then you’re just expressing a political belief and not a scientific one.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        > What evidentiary standard would that “proof” have to meet to satisfy you? So, asking for proof of a so far unsubstantiated statement, is a "political belief" now? What did I miss?
        User23 3y ago
        > What did I miss? Evidentiary standards, it appears. You literally just admitted to not having any.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        Even if that was true, don’t you think it would be ironic if I just rather took the word of a random internet user at face value? Regardless, some evidence to back up the claim should be easy to provide. There are plenty of legitimate medical journals with publicly available content online, and at least one should be carrying a study on psychiatric drugs contributing to violent and erratic behavior. There should be also some sociological papers out there outlining the relationship between psychiatric treatment and homicidal tendencies. Yet nothing of these sorts has been provided, and here I am, being told that I don’t have “evidentiary standards” because I have asked for proof. The burden of which is on those who made the claim, by the way.