All But 2 Mass Shootings Since the 1950s Occurred in Gun Free Zones

[FBD]

http://buzzpo.com/2-mass-shootings-since-1950s-occurred-gun-free-zones/

All But 2 Mass Shootings Since the 1950s Occurred in Gun Free Zones

A professor from Purdue researched mass shooting from the 1950s on and discovered that only two of them occurred where guns are legal to be carried. This really blows apart the liberal’s argument that more guns means more mass shootings. Between 2004 and 2012, gun ownership increased by 61%. But since 2008, violent crimes decreased by 12.9%. Eric Dietz, Ph.D., the former director of Homeland Security for the state of Indiana and 22-year Army veteran, and now a professor at Purdue University, set out to find out how armed citizens could prevent deaths.

In order to examine the results, he chose to study the most common gun free zone in America, and also the place most mass shootings take place, (Outside of Chicago) public schools. Dietz outlined 4 scenarios and using statistical math, developed a model whereby he could estimate the results. He noted that since3 schools are gun free, they have to rely on the police, who on average take 10 – 12 minutes to respond to a live shooting. Given the fact that a mass shooter can kill a person every twenty seconds, the delay can costs a lot of lives.

Here are the four scenarios Dietz used in his study:

• Scenario 1: No access to control or security.
• Scenario 2: Resource officer
• Scenario 3: 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry
• Scenario 4: 5-10 percent of work force has concealed carry and a resource officer

In study number one, it was determined that the most crucial aspect is time. The more time a shooter has, the more people he can kill.

Moving on to the second scenario, that includes an armed resource officer, casualties dropped by a whopping 66.5% and response time was cut by 59.5%.

In the third scenario, with 5%-10% of the workforce armed, there is a decrease in fatalities of when 5% of the workforce is carrying concealed weapons of 6.8% and response time is reduced by 5.4%. When 10% of the workforce is armed causalities dropped by 23.2% and response time was slashed by 16.8%.

But the most amazing statistic is that when 5% of the workforce is armed AND they have a resource officer present, the fatality rate drops 69.2% and response time improved by 57.9%. With 10% armed and a resource officer, the fatality rate drops by 70.2% and response time by 62.7%.


Dietz says he still has some work to do. He wants to see if in cases where there is no active shooter present, would the guns being carried by school personnel lead to violence in the schools. Since many schools have armed guards already, with no incidences of violence, his report will not aid the gun grabbing liberals.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Impossible :lol:

[Hugh_Janus]

:facepalm:

[Hal-9000]

how about the one in the Colorado theater? (have I got that right?) ...was that a gun free zone?






see, if there were no guns allowed anywhere in my Utopian vision....we'd be reading about wiffle ball bat slayings instead of gun slayings :thumbsup:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

http://i.imgur.com/RB5fCXm.png

[Lambchop]

People brought guns into 'gun free zones' and hurt/killed others :wtf:

That's kinda like saying a guy with a peanut allergy had a bad reaction to peanut free chocolate. wtf :-k

Sounds like they are having trouble keeping the guns out.

[Hal-9000]

in hal's Utopia:

Civilians are not allowed to own or use guns. Only the military and law enforcement...one new law comes into being; You get so much as seen holding a gun, the cops get to plug you without delay or warning :tup:

Other civilians can call the new tip line - 1-800-ratoutyourneighbor...and a squad will arrive the the location, to first shoot, then throw grenades at the gun carrier

[Hal-9000]

People brought guns into 'gun free zones' and hurt/killed others :wtf:

That's kinda like saying a guy with a peanut allergy had a bad reaction to peanut free chocolate. wtf :-k

Sounds like they are having trouble keeping the guns out.


A gun free zone to me means that there are a bunch of blind 5 yr olds running around and I get to come in and take pot shots with lawn darts at any moving target...

a gun free zone can only work if it's being policed 24/7 and has entry and exit points with scanners and checks....which will never happen

[PorkChopSandwiches]

in hal's Utopia:

Civilians are not allowed to own or use guns. Only the military and law enforcement...one new law comes into being; You get so much as seen holding a gun, the cops get to plug you without delay or warning :tup:

Other civilians can call the new tip line - 1-800-ratoutyourneighbor...and a squad will arrive the the location, to first shoot, then throw grenades at the gun carrier

Wow! Thats just crazy talk

[Hal-9000]

There will be exactly 5 stories (with pictures) showing the cops mow down Joe Criminal carrying or using a gun in a hail of bullets...then people will think twice before puffing up and pulling out a piece to mug someone etc :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

In your fantasy, yes. In reality no

[Hal-9000]

:hitler:

You vill conform to the government and follow ze directions to ze letter!!!

[Hal-9000]

In your fantasy, yes. In reality no

Wouldn't you like to live a world where you weren't so afraid you have to own a gun and keep it in your home?

[DemonGeminiX]

What if I like guns?

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Wouldn't you like to live a world where you weren't so afraid you have to own a gun and keep it in your home?

Im not afraid of my neighbors, Im afraid of my government

[Hal-9000]

Im not afraid of my neighbors, Im afraid of my government

Doesn't really matter where the fear comes from...crackhead down the street or evil government forces breaking in at night and stealing your...bran muffins?



what exactly do you fear that the government will do if you don't have a gun?

[Hal-9000]

What if I like guns?

We all have odd fetishes I guess....they laughed at me for wearing strapless evening gowns (for comfort, not vanity)

[Noilly Pratt]

We all have odd fetishes I guess....they laughed at me for wearing strapless evening gowns (for comfort, not vanity)

Klinger retired to Alberta?! :D

[Hal-9000]

showing your age there Noilly :lol:

[Loser]

what exactly do you fear that the government will do if you don't have a gun?

Do you really have to ask this question?

Germany.
North Korea.
Thailand.
Syria.

etc...

Nothing good has ever followed the outlawing of people to defend themselves.

[KevinD]

Wouldn't you like to live a world where you weren't so afraid you have to own a gun and keep it in your home?

Would I like to live in a world where people didn't kill others? Of course I would.
That said, there are places, yes, even in Canada, where for some to feel safe, they want a gun.
As always, the biggest difference between the USA, and other countries, is simply that the right to own a gun is guaranteed as per the 2nd amendment.
To me, yes, I have a few guns, but I don't need them to feel safe. I do however balk at anyone who wants to take that RIGHT away.

[FBD]

I'd still rather get shot than hacked with my katana

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I think your question has been answered

[Lambchop]

OK...

Armed citizens vs US government that has bombs at its disposal at various hidden locations with remote trigger mechanisms.

Who will win?

I'll put £50 on the side with hydrogen bombs

[FBD]

it depends, there's a lot more of us than there are of them, and the % of them willing to kill with reckless abandon I dont think would be that superlatively high.


wait until there's a supply chain failure and we'll see how it really is, and pretty quickly.

[Hal-9000]

I think your question has been answered

no, not really

We can't carry around concealed weapons here and have stringent laws, checks, waiting periods to register handguns and hunting rifles. Not once have I ever felt that the government is going to threaten me in any way. Using examples of North Korea and Thailand etc are not good counterpoints to this issue...they have other factors/history that affect how their government treats it's citizens.

I'm trying to understand exactly what a person like you would do if you had a gun...and your government did what again? Showed up at your doorstep and told you to do something you didn't like? Would you take out your handgun and shoot the law enforcement or military reps, or guys in dark glasses while screaming - You're violating my rights! :lol:

It's sad that a person would cite that example as being the primary reason for owning a gun, to 'protect' themselves from their own government while living in the USA. It's not that I don't agree with your right to question your leaders, it's the real world rationale that makes no sense to me. Do you really think that a bunch of citizens could organize themselves using personal weapons en masse, to defeat a military force dispatched by the government? If Obama wants to institute an 8 pm curfew along with random house checks on odd numbered days, you and your Colt 45 won't do much to stop it. If you organized 100000 other civilian gun owners to make a stand against your government, wouldn't the gov just respond with 300000 people in full kevlar and helmets holding automatic weapons and all sorts of nasty tear gas and stun grenades...and they would quell your opposition with relative ease?

Up here I would have a weapon to protect myself and my home from the crackhead down the street, rather than my own government because of the simple truth that if the government has law enforcement and the military on their side (and they do), me having a couple of handguns and a hunting rifle won't do much to change their intent.

[DemonGeminiX]

Personally I truly believe that if an event ever passed that the people would rise up against the government and the government authorized military action against its own citizens, I truly believe that you would see a very large military desertion joining the people against the government. The majority of them are not going to want to fight against their friends and families and they're probably going to agree in principle with the people rising up.

Not quite touching the issue, but I just wanted to put that out there.

[Hal-9000]

Personally I truly believe that if an event ever passed that the people would rise up against the government and the government authorized military action against its own citizens, I truly believe that you would see a very large military desertion joining the people against the government. The majority of them are not going to want to fight against their friends and families and they're probably going to agree in principle with the people rising up.

Not quite touching the issue, but I just wanted to put that out there.

That's the exact thing I'm envisioning.

I ask - Why do you need a gun? Response is inevitably - to protect myself from my government. I realize that is a portion of the second amendment of your constitution, but the phrase was written over 300 years ago, right after you guys separated from Jolly ol England, when the chance of government reprisal for the action of independence was...more prevalent and a different sort of immediacy? Is that fair?

To address the scenario you mention, I'm sure there would be military and law enforcement who join the citizen's cause and say - Hell no, you can't do that! I'm not trying to make a joke but weaponized citizens in some cases would be an absolute joke due to their ineptitude and poor decision making when faced with all out warfare.

[DemonGeminiX]

That's the exact thing I'm envisioning.

I ask - Why do you need a gun? Response is inevitably - to protect myself from my government. I realize that is a portion of the second amendment of your constitution, but the phrase was written over 300 years ago, right after you guys separated from Jolly ol England, when the chance of government reprisal for the action of independence was...more prevalent and a different sort of immediacy? Is that fair?

To address the scenario you mention, I'm sure there would be military and law enforcement who join the citizen's cause and say - Hell no, you can't do that! I'm not trying to make a joke but weaponized citizens in some cases would be an absolute joke due to their ineptitude and poor decision making when faced with all out warfare.

How am I gonna answer this?

If I'm going to answer "Why do you need a gun?" I would say to protect myself, my home, and my family from criminal invasion. Police can't always get there in time. Because the law allows me the right to have guns and if I don't exercise my rights, I could very well lose my rights. And to keep government in line (this is the one you're having the problem with). The government is for the people, by the people, of the people. They're supposed to answer to us. The way it was set up was fear of a citizenry that will rebel when it's elected representatives become more tyrannical instead of what they're supposed to be, our servants, is supposed to keep these elected officials in line. That was the original point. To make sure that elected officials knew that they weren't above us and that we weren't their 'subjects'. They're representative of our interests, not their own, and when it came to pass that they crossed that line (like a lot of them are), when they've started to believe that they're entitled to rule rather than privileged to represent, that we have the power to remove them with force, and to replace them. The founding fathers knew this and approved of it. This is what they wanted for us. A page with some quotes:

http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html

I wouldn't necessarily assume that armed citizens would be a joke. Maybe some would be, but a lot of private citizens are former military, a lot of others have been around guns their entire lives and know their terrain better than a trained force not local to the area. And the will can overshadow any lack of experience given the right motivation.

[Loser]

no, not really

We can't carry around concealed weapons here and have stringent laws, checks, waiting periods to register handguns and hunting rifles. Not once have I ever felt that the government is going to threaten me in any way. Using examples of North Korea and Thailand etc are not good counterpoints to this issue...they have other factors/history that affect how their government treats it's citizens.

I'm trying to understand exactly what a person like you would do if you had a gun...and your government did what again? Showed up at your doorstep and told you to do something you didn't like? Would you take out your handgun and shoot the law enforcement or military reps, or guys in dark glasses while screaming - You're violating my rights! :lol:

It's sad that a person would cite that example as being the primary reason for owning a gun, to 'protect' themselves from their own government while living in the USA. It's not that I don't agree with your right to question your leaders, it's the real world rationale that makes no sense to me. Do you really think that a bunch of citizens could organize themselves using personal weapons en masse, to defeat a military force dispatched by the government? If Obama wants to institute an 8 pm curfew along with random house checks on odd numbered days, you and your Colt 45 won't do much to stop it. If you organized 100000 other civilian gun owners to make a stand against your government, wouldn't the gov just respond with 300000 people in full kevlar and helmets holding automatic weapons and all sorts of nasty tear gas and stun grenades...and they would quell your opposition with relative ease?

Up here I would have a weapon to protect myself and my home from the crackhead down the street, rather than my own government because of the simple truth that if the government has law enforcement and the military on their side (and they do), me having a couple of handguns and a hunting rifle won't do much to change their intent.

Hal, I bet the canadian government doesn't have laws on the books like Directive 3025.18.

That, in and of itself, is enough reason.

[Loser]

Scratching government bullshit aside.

I'm more worried that the vast majority of these "mass" shooters have been on some form of anti depressent or adhd med.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepres sants.html

Think maybe it was the meds fucking people up?

[RBP]

Scratching government bullshit aside.

I'm more worried that the vast majority of these "mass" shooters have been on some form of anti depressent or adhd med.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepres sants.html



Think maybe it was the meds fucking people up?


Or that they all had mental illness that required medication.

[RBP]

Do you really think that a bunch of citizens could organize themselves using personal weapons en masse, to defeat a military force dispatched by the government?

I assume your kidding. That is the basis for revolution. There would be no USA without armed civilian revolution. Let's see how many I can name off the top of my head. Aren't revolutions even included in the bible? Babylon?

France, Haiti, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Yugoslavia, all over Africa... actually most countries have probably had some form of violent citizen revolt against the government. Most recently Syria and Ukraine.

I am not saying they all worked or worked well historically, but the people taking up arms against government oppression is as old as government itself.

[Loser]

Or that they all had mental illness that required medication.

There's been numerous lawsuits against a certain anti depressant drug that has turned non violent people violent. As if it flipped some lightswitch. You honestly think something like that hasnt played a roll here?

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm not so sure about that, Loser...

[FBD]

no, not really

We can't carry around concealed weapons here and have stringent laws, checks, waiting periods to register handguns and hunting rifles. Not once have I ever felt that the government is going to threaten me in any way. Using examples of North Korea and Thailand etc are not good counterpoints to this issue...they have other factors/history that affect how their government treats it's citizens.

I'm trying to understand exactly what a person like you would do if you had a gun...and your government did what again? Showed up at your doorstep and told you to do something you didn't like? Would you take out your handgun and shoot the law enforcement or military reps, or guys in dark glasses while screaming - You're violating my rights! :lol:

It's sad that a person would cite that example as being the primary reason for owning a gun, to 'protect' themselves from their own government while living in the USA. It's not that I don't agree with your right to question your leaders, it's the real world rationale that makes no sense to me. Do you really think that a bunch of citizens could organize themselves using personal weapons en masse, to defeat a military force dispatched by the government? If Obama wants to institute an 8 pm curfew along with random house checks on odd numbered days, you and your Colt 45 won't do much to stop it. If you organized 100000 other civilian gun owners to make a stand against your government, wouldn't the gov just respond with 300000 people in full kevlar and helmets holding automatic weapons and all sorts of nasty tear gas and stun grenades...and they would quell your opposition with relative ease?

Up here I would have a weapon to protect myself and my home from the crackhead down the street, rather than my own government because of the simple truth that if the government has law enforcement and the military on their side (and they do), me having a couple of handguns and a hunting rifle won't do much to change their intent.
Word would get around pretty quickly that preposterous government tyranny was met with a shot to the fkn face, and it would deter a lot of jackboots from being all that jackey.

When tyranny comes and you know the government is the tyrannical force, small price to pay standing up for yourself, even if you lose your life in the process. Because when it gets bad enough, the entire citizenry is basically under assault from the government.


Or that they all had mental illness that required medication.
I think you need to go see how much money companies like pfizer make, who its owners are connected to, etc...

Why in the media do we NEVER hear about whatever medications people are on when they go batshit and murder?

Cui Bono

profit

and tyranny.

How is it that ADHD diagnoses are going through the roof, the % just keeps getting higher every year?

They'll enumerate the "societal costs" of adhd and shit in terms of work hours lost, hospital bills, my gosh, they are higher when we make sure to look for adhd....so that means...

get the kids the drugs

[Hal-9000]

I assume your kidding. That is the basis for revolution. There would be no USA without armed civilian revolution. Let's see how many I can name off the top of my head. Aren't revolutions even included in the bible? Babylon?

France, Haiti, Russia, Cuba, Iran, Yugoslavia, all over Africa... actually most countries have probably had some form of violent citizen revolt against the government. Most recently Syria and Ukraine.

I am not saying they all worked or worked well historically, but the people taking up arms against government oppression is as old as government itself.


No, reading numerous stories about average joe's shooting themselves, shooting their friends, shooting their dogs etc....I know it's a percentage but realistically, civilians against people with training in firearms and tactics seems like the revolution wouldn't last for long.

The portion that you've responded to is not answering the question, it's an effect of the what if. What I'm interested in is what could make a government so bad that when the majority of people asked here respond to the question - Why do you need a gun? - the common response seems to be - to protect myself from the government. I've read about revolutions and why people in other countries and situations and times in history....have needed to take up arms against their oppressors...just want to know why in 2014, Americans hang their hat on that response and what would inspire a revolution, as in, what fear do you have regarding your government's potential actions that would make you feel you need a gun for that reason...


:-k Interesting responses though...

[Hal-9000]

For me, the only reason I would want a gun is to protect my family and my home. The worry about fighting my government never plays into it. If my government did start taking action against me and I considered it a violation of my rights, pulling out the gun wouldn't be my first choice, or better put, probably not a choice at all.

[DemonGeminiX]

What would be your first choice, out of curiosity?

:-k

[Hal-9000]

For a gun? :-s


Dragunov SVD sniper rifle :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

:lol:

No, I meant what would you do if your government started violating your civil rights and started moving against you and your fellow Canadians? What course of action would you take first?

[RBP]

:lol:

No, I meant what would you do if your government started violating your civil rights and started moving against you and your fellow Canadians? What course of action would you take first?

Our government already has.

It's not that far fetched, really. And if (when?) the collapse happens, the first response would be martial law. At that point, I would not expect the government to able to protect me individually. They'll only care about overall control, not individual rights.

But no, to answer Hal's question, personal protection would be my response. But yes, there is the underlying benefit of preparedness as well.

[RBP]

Also, the idea that somehow North America (and Australia I suppose) is immune to the political, social strife, and war experienced everywhere else on the planet is, at best, naive.

[Lambchop]

I think we need to recruit nuclear physicists and have H bombs built by non-governmental civilian organisations. Even then, it'd be difficult to determine if we had any government infiltrators in the organisation.

I personally don't see the US government having any issue bombing parts of the US if a war broke out. Continued power is very important to those who have thrived on it for decades.

They farm our data
They know where we are, what we are doing and what emotions we are feeling (thanks Facebook)
They can easily intercept food/water supply to fuck with us
They can recruit ally nations to help fight us
They can paint us as lawless criminals in western media to reduce any inquiries after they kill us.
They openly lie to us (NSA data farming exposed after denial, etc.)

I'm down for a civilian uprising but I just don't see it being successful using guns alone, especially when the opposition is a well established global power.

We may have numbers but they have unmanned weapon drones and global influence. They can swat us like flies from remote and hidden bunkers without breaking a sweat.

It's fucked up but this type of influence and power will only increase with time.

Edit: NSA, if you're reading this (who am I kidding, it's already on the database) we are just talking theoretical scenarios here.

[DemonGeminiX]

I guess you missed my theory regarding military desertion in the face of having to fight their friends and family...

[RBP]

I guess you missed my theory regarding military desertion in the face of having to fight their friends and family...

I did see that and you may be right. But I am not sure why our military is really that different. In other countries, the military seems to remain able to maintain order, take control, or fight those labeled as separatists or rebels.

[Loser]

I'm not so sure about that, Loser...

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/anti-depressants-linked-to-suicide-and-violence

Google the names for more information. I'm on mobile and lazy

[RBP]

There's been numerous lawsuits against a certain anti depressant drug that has turned non violent people violent. As if it flipped some lightswitch. You honestly think something like that hasnt played a roll here?




I think you need to go see how much money companies like pfizer make, who its owners are connected to, etc...

Why in the media do we NEVER hear about whatever medications people are on when they go batshit and murder?

Cui Bono

profit

and tyranny.

How is it that ADHD diagnoses are going through the roof, the % just keeps getting higher every year?

They'll enumerate the "societal costs" of adhd and shit in terms of work hours lost, hospital bills, my gosh, they are higher when we make sure to look for adhd....so that means...

get the kids the drugs

No, I am not saying that the drugs played no role. In some cases they have caused increased suicidality and homicidality. Antidepressants are labeled as potentially increasing suicidal thoughts in teenagers.

It's case by case. Was it the mental illness? Was it a side effect of the drugs? I am not sure that we can ever really determine that since most of the shooters die during the attacks.

I read that the shooter in the recent California case was diagnosed with a psychotic disorder and stopped taking his meds. So, really, who knows..

It is also true that the drugs have saved a lot of lives and probably prevented a lot of people from committing heinous crimes. As a society we make those judgement calls every day. The notion that there is no price on life is laughable. Of course there is. We are willing to accept that some people die from treatment including drug therapies. Hell, we are willing to accept that more people die in the name of increased fuel efficiency for that matter.

And yes, FBD, the rules governing corporate deception in marketing are a joke. By the time an "agreement" is reached, the damage is done. Those "agreements" are bribes. Admit no wrong doing and pay a tiny portion of your ill-gotten profit to the government and all is forgotten. Why anyone expect those payments to change anything is beyond me.

[Loser]

Let's look at it this way.

Look at the history of mass shootings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Look at the amount between 1950 to 1990.

Then look at the amounts between 1990 and now.

Notice how they damn near tripled?

When did the first major breakthrough SSRI come out? 1987 Fluoxetine"Prozac". Coincedence?


Ritalin- It was first licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1955 for treating what was then known as hyperactivity. Prescribed to patients beginning in 1960, the drug became heavily prescribed in the 1990s, when the diagnosis of ADHD itself became more widely accepted.


Paxil -Marketing of the drug began in 1992 by the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline. Generic formulations have been available since 2003 when the patent expired


Zoloft- It was introduced to the market by Pfizer in 1991

See where I'm going with this?

[Loser]

• Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold's medical records have never been made available to the public.

• Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather's girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

• Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

• Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

• Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

• Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

• Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

• Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

• A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

• Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

• A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

• Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

• TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

• Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

• James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

• Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

• Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

• Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

• Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

• Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic's file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

• Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

• Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

• Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

• Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

• Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family's Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

• Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara's parents said ".... the damn doctor wouldn't take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil...")

• Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth's father could not accept his son's death and killed himself.)

• Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family's detached garage.

• Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

• Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

• Woody __, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

• A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

• Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and "other drugs for the conditions."

• Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

• Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

• Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

• Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

• Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

Missing from list... 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds....

• What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21...... killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az?

• What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24..... killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado?

• What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or?

• What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepres sants.html#ixzz345qdEwGE



I'm sure there were a lot more.

[RBP]

I understand where you are going with this yes.

I also see a wiki list with 100 more incidents since Columbine than you have on the med list below it. And correlation doesn't equal causation. I am neither dismissing nor accepting the correlation because we just don't know.

[RBP]

No, reading numerous stories about average joe's shooting themselves, shooting their friends, shooting their dogs etc....I know it's a percentage but realistically, civilians against people with training in firearms and tactics seems like the revolution wouldn't last for long.

The portion that you've responded to is not answering the question, it's an effect of the what if. What I'm interested in is what could make a government so bad that when the majority of people asked here respond to the question - Why do you need a gun? - the common response seems to be - to protect myself from the government. I've read about revolutions and why people in other countries and situations and times in history....have needed to take up arms against their oppressors...just want to know why in 2014, Americans hang their hat on that response and what would inspire a revolution, as in, what fear do you have regarding your government's potential actions that would make you feel you need a gun for that reason...


:-k Interesting responses though...


http://i.imgur.com/i6KAQNV.jpg

(stolen from AT's post in political cartoons)

[Loser]

No, reading numerous stories about average joe's shooting themselves, shooting their friends, shooting their dogs etc....I know it's a percentage but realistically, civilians against people with training in firearms and tactics seems like the revolution wouldn't last for long.

The portion that you've responded to is not answering the question, it's an effect of the what if. What I'm interested in is what could make a government so bad that when the majority of people asked here respond to the question - Why do you need a gun? - the common response seems to be - to protect myself from the government. I've read about revolutions and why people in other countries and situations and times in history....have needed to take up arms against their oppressors...just want to know why in 2014, Americans hang their hat on that response and what would inspire a revolution, as in, what fear do you have regarding your government's potential actions that would make you feel you need a gun for that reason...


:-k Interesting responses though...


Realisticly, gun violence is down almost 50% since it's peak in the 1990's. It's only showing more prevelant now because news media has an agenda.

This fact has been proven time and time again through statistical data.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[FBD]

I understand where you are going with this yes.

I also see a wiki list with 100 more incidents since Columbine than you have on the med list below it. And correlation doesn't equal causation. I am neither dismissing nor accepting the correlation because we just don't know.

How much correlation does one need to establish causation?

I dont know about you, but anyone I've known that's taken this shit, seeing what its done to them, I can easily see the extrapolation to being that fed up with things that you just say fuckit, its time to snap here. This one chick on paxil I knew said she wanted to fuck so badly but it was all mental and her body wouldnt fuggin respond and that's just the tip of the iceberg that drove this girl half nuts, thankfully a decent home life kept her from going too crazy. A lot of these drugs flatline your affect completely to the point you feel no passion for anything, like the body's yang of passion for doing things is gone but the underlying notion in the psyche still exists, then that doubly fucks with you.

Loser is right about these correlations....in the absence of any other correlation, it makes a bit more of a case for causation, no? I dont see any other correlations that stick out like a sore thumb like the antidepressants do.

[RBP]

How much correlation does one need to establish causation?

Something more then anecdotal supposition would be helpful.

By the way...smoking does not cause cancer, repetitive motion does not cause carpal tunnel, and being male does not make you more likely to be suicidal.

[DemonGeminiX]

By the way...smoking does not cause cancer...

:-s

Excuse me?

[FBD]

Cancer is a complex thing and relates to the body's ability to replicate on a cellular level, and smoking is highly correlated,

people that do the repetitive motion with nothing to correct it get carpal tunnel,

and lol....

Anecdotal supposition? What does correlation begin with, but putting common factors together.

Why dont you see statistical studies done about this? ;)

right....too bad all we have is just old wives' tales :razz:

[DemonGeminiX]

Actually, the chemicals found in cigarettes and cigars have been scientifically established as highly carcinogenic. I hate to break the news to you all, but smoking does cause cancer, and not just lung cancer... as well as other avoidable ailments and diseases.

If y'all want to believe otherwise to justify your lifestyles, then have at it. But you're dead wrong.

And before y'all say "back it up", there's info all over the place about it. Go find it for yourselves.

[RBP]

:-s

Excuse me?

It doesn't. A causal relationship has never been established. The government decided that using "causes" was better PR than "is correlated with".

[FBD]

at what point does "highly correlated with" move over into plain ol "causes"

nobody said one is a guarantee of the other. just like there's no guarantee these antidepressant mind numb-ers will make you go kill someone...but there is that whole "set some bad stuff up on the stage" bit of it...and like everything else its up to the myriad individual circumstances.

[RBP]

Actually, the chemicals found in cigarettes and cigars have been scientifically established as highly carcinogenic. I hate to break the news to you all, but smoking does cause cancer, and not just lung cancer... as well as other avoidable ailments and diseases.

If y'all want to believe otherwise to justify your lifestyles, then have at it. But you're dead wrong.

And before y'all say "back it up", there's info all over the place about it. Go find it for yourselves.

Yes, I made it up just to "justify my lifestyle". :roll:

I love you DGX but that was ridiculous and uncalled for. I am using the history of the surgeon general reports as the basis.

[DemonGeminiX]

It doesn't. A causal relationship has never been established. The government decided that using "causes" was better PR than "is correlated with".

Bullshit.

Look man, we're friends and I respect you and all that. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you what to believe or tell you how to live your life. You're an intelligent man, you can believe whatever you want. All I'm gonna say is let's keep in touch and you go ahead and keep on sucking on those paper dicks and we'll see how you're feeling in 20-25 years.

[RBP]

at what point does "highly correlated with" move over into plain ol "causes"

nobody said one is a guarantee of the other. just like there's no guarantee these antidepressant mind numb-ers will make you go kill someone...but there is that whole "set some bad stuff up on the stage" bit of it...and like everything else its up to the myriad individual circumstances.

Exactly. So before we reach a conclusion we need those individual data points. The fact that people who were shooters had mental health issues, and the fact the people with mental health issues are medicated, does not therefore mean that the medication was the proximate cause of the shooting.

We track alcohol and car accidents the same poor way. They do not try to determine is alcohol was at all related to an auto accident. They don't care. Any alcohol in the system makes it a "alcohol-related" accident.

[RBP]

Bullshit.

Look man, we're friends and I respect you and all that. I'm not gonna sit here and tell you what to believe or tell you how to live your life. You're an intelligent man, you can believe whatever you want. All I'm gonna say is let's keep in touch and you go ahead and keep on sucking on those paper dicks and we'll see how you're feeling in 20-25 years.

Surgeon General. full stop.

Why you are making this a personal (and ignorantly rude) crusade I have no idea.

[DemonGeminiX]

Yes, I made it up just to "justify my lifestyle". :roll:

I love you DGX but that was ridiculous and uncalled for. I am using the history of the surgeon general reports as the basis.

RBP, I have family members, life long smokers, that have died horrible deaths from cancer and emphysema. Other family members, never touched a cigarette in their life, living large in perfect health beyond the ages of those who died.

When talking to doctors today, every doctor I've asked has said, "It has been scientifically proven. Quitting smoking today will greatly improve your quality of life. Continue to smoke, and you're setting yourself up for a world of hurt... cancer, emphysema, and a whole host of other problems that can happen because of the chemicals found in cigarettes."

It's not just fear-mongering. It's real, man.

[RBP]

RBP, I have family members, life long smokers, that have died horrible deaths from cancer and emphysema. Other family members, never touched a cigarette in their life, living large in perfect health beyond the ages of those who died.

When talking to doctors today, every doctor I've asked has said, "It has been scientifically proven. Quitting smoking today will greatly improve your quality of life. Continue to smoke, and you're setting yourself up for a world of hurt... cancer, emphysema, and a whole host of other problems that can happen because of the chemicals found in cigarettes."

It's not just fear-mongering. It's real, man.

Sorry to hear about your family members, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

This discussion is about statistical data and causation relative to psychotropic medications and gun violence. I made an illustrative point of other non-causal relationships.

[FBD]

Exactly. So before we reach a conclusion we need those individual data points. The fact that people who were shooters had mental health issues, and the fact the people with mental health issues are medicated, does not therefore mean that the medication was the proximate cause of the shooting.

We track alcohol and car accidents the same poor way. They do not try to determine is alcohol was at all related to an auto accident. They don't care. Any alcohol in the system makes it a "alcohol-related" accident.
"They dont care" is not really an acceptable excuse for lack of statistical rigor - the takeaway from that statement is that those doing the statistics will only use it to say what they want to say and nothing more. Since pharmaceuticals are a booku billions per year industry, there are very large monied interests that have "skin in the game" (or money on the wheel if you want to take a more cynical view) ...

If all of a sudden alcohol was invented, and all of a sudden we started seeing an exponential spike in car crashes - well, no, maybe its just the fault of the driver ed system and not necessarily the alcohol? Really that is an analogue of what you are asserting, rbp. (I know in reality we can take BAC and determine, but what if that evidence was not easily available, the connection not already established, like in our case here)

We agree that the mental health landscape is a complex one...but to look at this stuff, and see that over half of med'd up kids have been diagnosed by age 6, you see an exponential spike in the # of kids they have on these drugs...

you're trying to say the damn near exponential rise in mass killing events is just a fluke, it has little or nothing to do with the preposterous amounts of these drugs they are forcing onto kids?

:-s

imho you have to consciously and wantonly stick your head in the sand to avoid the conclusion...

[DemonGeminiX]

You said smoking does not cause cancer. It does. It's not just statistical correlation. It's proven. A lead to B lead to C lead to D...

I'm not saying everyone that ever lights up a cigarette is going to die horribly in a hospital bed. Some people will never be effected by it. They're a lucky minority. But a lot of those people that died and were smokers, doctors can go back now and say, "yeah, this is the hallmark evidence of what these chemicals that are found in cigarettes actually do to your lungs/pancreas/whatever." They can look at these markers and say for certain, "This is what happened: Cancer. Smoking. End of." Doctors can do that now. Doctors can look at your lungs now and say, "You're a smoker. Your lungs are in really bad shape. It was the smoking."

It's real.

[RBP]

"They dont care" is not really an acceptable excuse for lack of statistical rigor - the takeaway from that statement is that those doing the statistics will only use it to say what they want to say and nothing more. Since pharmaceuticals are a booku billions per year industry, there are very large monied interests that have "skin in the game" (or money on the wheel if you want to take a more cynical view) ...

If all of a sudden alcohol was invented, and all of a sudden we started seeing an exponential spike in car crashes - well, no, maybe its just the fault of the driver ed system and not necessarily the alcohol? Really that is an analogue of what you are asserting, rbp. (I know in reality we can take BAC and determine, but what if that evidence was not easily available, the connection not already established, like in our case here)

We agree that the mental health landscape is a complex one...but to look at this stuff, and see that over half of med'd up kids have been diagnosed by age 6, you see an exponential spike in the # of kids they have on these drugs...

you're trying to say the damn near exponential rise in mass killing events is just a fluke, it has little or nothing to do with the preposterous amounts of these drugs they are forcing onto kids?

:-s

imho you have to consciously and wantonly stick your head in the sand to avoid the conclusion...

You don't even have statistical data to support a correlation, let alone causation. So, yes, at this point, it is supposition. My head is not in the sand, I just prefer to have data before making conclusions.


You said smoking does not cause cancer. It does. It's not just statistical correlation. It's proven. A lead to B lead to C lead to D...

I'm not saying everyone that ever lights up a cigarette is going to die horribly in a hospital bed. Some people will never be effected by it. They're a lucky minority. But a lot of those people that died and were smokers, doctors can go back now and say, "yeah, this is the hallmark evidence of what these chemicals that are found in cigarettes actually do to your lungs/pancreas/whatever." They can look at these markers and say for certain, "This is what happened: Cancer. Smoking. End of." Doctors can do that now. Doctors can look at your lungs now and say, "You're a smoker. Your lungs are in really bad shape. It was the smoking."

It's real.

According to the reports of the Surgeon General of the United States, it does not. Some time within the last 10 years, the statistical inference became "fact" - yes, by design. But you don't care about that history or the statistical data, so I think we're done here. I do not disagree that smoking is bad and increases risk for disease.

Eric Holder (and the full history of affirmative action) uses the same statistical basis for concluding that racial discrimination exists. In racial politics it's called "adverse impact."

[FBD]

:lol: this is like arguing with deep on healthcare....what was all that stuff loser posted, then?

[Hal-9000]

:lol:

No, I meant what would you do if your government started violating your civil rights and started moving against you and your fellow Canadians? What course of action would you take first?


oh :lol:.....letting my true colors show here...


I would say my first step would be to use the internet and social media to arrange a large meeting, face to face. People often use the net to make declarations, talk about rallying together, make online donations...I would strive to get a large number of people together in an area...and speak. The location no doubt would have to be kept secret somehow from the powers that be....but once that hurdle is overcome, then the discussion would move into the - What actions are we going to take and with what tools? If the government behavior was so bad that we had to arm ourselves and organize a physical rebellion, then that would be mandate 1.

[RBP]

:lol: this is like arguing with deep on healthcare....what was all that stuff loser posted, then?

Again, I ask for statistical data and get attacked as being the unreasonable one? If you guys want to fly off the handle and rant based on anecdotal information, feel free. You're American and you have that right.

FBD, if you can provide reasoned scientific analysis that shows a causal relationship, I would gladly get on your bandwagon.

[RBP]

Lifetime male incidence rate of lung cancer: 7.62%
Lifetime male incidence rate of prostate cancer: 15.33%

European and Canadian studies have placed the non-smoking male lung cancer rate at between 0.2% and 1.3%. The same studies placed the male heavy smoker lung cancer rates at between 17.2% and 24.4%. Increased risk indeed.

I bet every school shooter also owns a cell phone, has internet access, and plays video games. All three have the same accelerated use rates during the same time period stated for the accelerated use of psychotropic drugs. I wouldn't suggest any of those three as causal without scientific studies, so why would I assume the drugs are responsible?