4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe latter, the school boys, are nearly to a one on some kind of psychiatric drug.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoEven 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 agoWhat 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 agoEven 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.
- User23 3y agoWhy would I or anyone else make the effort of finding evidence for you when you’re not even willing to state the standard of evidence that you would accept? That sounds like a total waste of time since you’re effectively indicating that you have no objective standard and that you will reject any evidence that doesn’t satisfy your preconceived notions.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoI guess some people have the right to make shit up and not back it, and the rest of us mere mortals are supposed to take it at face value. Hilarious.