The news reports that the dude offed himself.

It seems that they found the Maine Shooter dead in the woods with 2 gun shot wounds to the head.  Article was posted and a short time later retracted but not before it was captured.

Time stamp:  17:49

https://rumble.com/v3shz8j-ep.-3199b-trumpit-cant-be-much-longerone-year-is-a-very-longtimemartial-law.html

It seems that they found the Maine Shooter dead in the woods with 2 gun shot wounds to the head.  Article was posted and a short time later retracted but not before it was captured.

Time stamp:  17:49

https://rumble.com/v3shz8j-ep.-3199b-trumpit-cant-be-much-longerone-year-is-a-very-longtimemartial-law.html

They found him with 2 GUNS -- not gunshots -- in a container used by the recycling plant he used to work at across the street from where he was found.

Internet journalism -- worst game of "Telephone" ever.

If only we knew how many active shooters were on anti depressants...

Do you think there would be fewer shootings if there were fewer anti depressants?

Do you think there would be fewer shootings if there were fewer anti depressants?

Unknown, but there is a high % that do both. But can 1 assume that any active shooter who wasn't diagnosed with a mental problem vs those who are, and not on anti depres.  But also have to factor in undiagnosed mental problems, like hearing voices kind problems as murdering a lot of people is psycho in general.

Appears this guy doesn't have any special training from what's been announced.  Not in a combat role in the military and not a military firearms instructor.

I'm surprised the military couldn't keep him confined for treatment longer with the violent threats he made earlier.  Fortunately he offed himself.  I thought a guy like him would keep going.

  I thought a guy like him would keep going.

It's cause he's not the guy...

He was some kind of petroleum fuel specialist.

Not sure but that MOS doesn't seem to fall in with the combat MOS so I suspect his military skills are average.

Unless he trained above and beyond what his MOS calls for.

So news was wrong when they said he was a firearms instructor?  Or maybe "they" changed his MOS so the military doesn't look bad...

Unknown, but there is a high % that do both. But can 1 assume that any active shooter who wasn't diagnosed with a mental problem vs those who are, and not on anti depres.  But also have to factor in undiagnosed mental problems, like hearing voices kind problems as murdering a lot of people is psycho in general.

Prescribing antidepressants isn't a cut and dried process.  There are a very large number of them on the market, and it takes time to find the one that does what it needs to in every individual based on their body chemistry.  It is pure trial and error science.

The side effects then become the issue.

Antidepressants are a popular treatment choice for depression. Although
antidepressants may not cure depression, they can reduce symptoms.
The first antidepressant you try may work fine. But if it doesn't relieve your
symptoms or it causes side effects that bother you, you may need to try
another.

Most antidepressants are generally safe, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) requires that all antidepressants carry black box warnings, the strictest
warnings for prescriptions. In some cases, children, teenagers and young adults
under 25 may have an increase in suicidal thoughts or behavior when taking
antidepressants, especially in the first few weeks after starting or when the dose
is changed.

Anyone taking an antidepressant should be watched closely for worsening
depression or unusual behavior. If you or someone you know has suicidal
thoughts when taking an antidepressant, immediately contact your health
care provider or get emergency help.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/antidepressants/art-20046273

Just because all patients taking antidepressants do not commit mass murder is not a reason to dismiss them as an underlying cause.  if most mass shooters take these or other psychotropic drugs to treat mental illness, then the side effects are a potential, and often likely, factor -- especially if the mental illness symptoms are not being effectively controlled.

The drugs are not the lone cause.  Instead, they are an indicator that the person has mental problems, and the chances of adverse side effects, including suicidal thoughts and thoughts of harming other, exist.

Will reducing the number of antidepressants reduce mass shootings?  It's possible, but it's also possible untreated mentally ill people will also be a threat.

The only way to know is to confine them for the first 2-3 weeks after starting a new prescription to see what effects it is having.  If that's not working, change to another one.  At the very least, you aren't exposing society to someone with mental illnesses taking a drug that isn't working.  At best, you've isolated someone who might be experiencing suicidal thoughts or a wish to shoot up a mall because the voices wouldn't stop.

Pretending it's a case of "drug or no drug" is ignorant and counterproductive.  We know what the potential risks of prescribing these drugs are, yet we send them home to return to work and school without any idea what the side effects might be.

"in my opinion"

It's cause he's not the guy...

"in my opinion"

You're starting have many same opinions as me.  Do you need a tinfoil hat membership application?

Do you think there would be fewer shootings if there were fewer anti depressants?

When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.

Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.

When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.

Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.

Yep.  And these "gifts" these asshats have the audacity to give us keeps on giving......

When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.

Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.

I think the fad angle better explains mass shooters than does the emergence of anti-depressant drugs.

There was a phase, I think it was in the 80s, where serial killings spike but they later decreased back down to normal levels and there were many signs it was a fad wave. Mass shootings also have many signs they are a fad type of thing.

Anti-depressants could play a role but I haven't seen any evidence that really shows it plays any significant role.

Appears this guy doesn't have any special training from what's been announced.  Not in a combat role in the military and not a military firearms instructor.

I'm surprised the military couldn't keep him confined for treatment longer with the violent threats he made earlier.  Fortunately he offed himself.  I thought a guy like him would keep going.

It is complicated. Psychologists and counselors have to say something if they believe the patient is immediately dangerous but have to keep quiet if the patient expresses dangerous thoughts but does not appear that they will act upon them in the near future.

All we get are headlines and short mentions of what he was in the hospital for. We don't know everything he said to doctors to evaluate whether he was an immediate risk or he was just verbalizing fleeting thoughts that came to his mind.

When anti depressant drugs were nonexistent, and mentally deranged people were locked up and treated, seems there were a lot less of such incidents.

Thank you big pharma, ACLU, and politicians for giving us such great gifts.

You have to draw pictures for some people.

it's not about drug treatment vs. no drugs.  It's about treatment -- period.

When the choice is between "confinement until treatment works (drugs, therapy, etc.)" vs. "let them live their lives free while being treated with pharmaceuticals," the result is obvious -- one respects the right of the public at large to be safe, and the other respects the rights of the patients to be walking around free while relying on the drugs to make them safe.

The government has decided that anyone being diagnosed and treated for a mental illness is ineligible to own firearms, yet they are not too dangerous to drive, use pointy objects, etc.   If this category of people is too dangerous to trust with firearms, then (again and again) they are too dangerous to allow out in public.

Debating any other aspects is a waste of time.  Do what's necessary, and the mass shootings will stop.  Leave mental illness to the pill pushers, and nothing will change.

But, the layman will continue to boil the problem down to a single aspect -- drug treatment.

I think the fad angle better explains mass shooters than does the emergence of anti-depressant drugs.

There was a phase, I think it was in the 80s, where serial killings spike but they later decreased back down to normal levels and there were many signs it was a fad wave. Mass shootings also have many signs they are a fad type of thing.

Anti-depressants could play a role but I haven't seen any evidence that really shows it plays any significant role.

Haven’t seen evidence?  It’s right there on the long list of side effects on the label of these drugs.

Haven’t seen evidence?  It’s right there on the long list of side effects on the label of these drugs.

Can you link to a label?  The ones I’ve seen don’t say anything about risk of violent behavior toward others, just increased suicidality.

Labels are not going to include anything the government doesn't require, and without adequate studies reporting the drugs can/may cause violent behavior, you should look beyond the FDA's viewpoint.

This is from a Swedish study:

Using large national registries, over 850,000 individuals were identified who were
prescribed an SSRI medication. The authors then quantified the cumulative dose
of SSRIs and divided subjects into groups of low, moderate, and high. From other
registries, arrest and conviction records were examined and compared to the
medication histories.

The main finding of the study, and the one that received the most press, was that
for both males and females between the ages of 15 and 24 only, there was a statistically
significant increase in the rate of violent crime during the period someone was taking
the medication compared to the intervals when they weren’t. The “hazard ratio” for the
15-24 age group was 1.4 which roughly translates into a 40% increased likelihood.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201509/antidepressants-and-violence-link-in-search-cause

There are many other studies -- some wth similar results, and others failing to find a link between the drugs and violence.

We are talking about a class of drugs, not a single formulae. When someone is beginning treatment using these drugs, the doctor basically becomes a Rx dispensing optometrist. 

Gives you a prescription.  "Is your mood better, or worse?"

If worse or no improvement, they try a different prescription.  "Is your mood better than before this prescription, or worse."

The doctor is 100% reliant on the patient to express how they feel to know if something is working.  Also, since the various drugs being prescribed work in some people and not in others, it's reasonable to assume the same drug in 2 patients can make one better and the other turn to thoughts of suicide or hurting others.

Studies are the same way.  not only is measurement difficult, but the same drug take by one random sample may have different side effects than when taken by another sample.  Unlike most drugs, psychotropics have a wide range of effects on the human brain.  Tylenol might work on most of us, but psychotropic effectiveness varies widely.

I think there are plenty of warnings if you do some research.  They just haven't been forced on the drug makers to be printed on a label -- yet.

Some folks have put a lot of work in compiling this information for us, but the gov't isn't about to blow the whistle on Big Pharma -- think of the lawsuits if their drugs are directly linked to school shootings and other acts of extreme violence.

https://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/

Can you link to a label?  The ones I’ve seen don’t say anything about risk of violent behavior toward others, just increased suicidality.

If one would have a tendency want to do harm to themselves, logically, depending on the personality, it stands to figure they might also wouldn’t have any problem doing harm to others.

If such drugs are causing such tendencies you really think the companies making billions legally peddling this garbage would voluntarily divulge such statistics.

I think not.

They don’t give two shits about the real issues. Nor does government, when there is an agenda being pushed. Peon pawns will be sacrificed until the goal is met.