Really?? You used the term "contributing factor?"  Please show me where you said that.

I must be going blind.

Speaking of blind, did you miss the whole mass shootings are a public spectacle that is actually a suicidal action posts?  Why are you still intent on separating the two?

So first I said “causal” and then I said “causal or contributing.”  You’re saying that by widening the possible pool of evidence I could have seen from a smaller set (causal) to a larger set (causal OR contributing), that somehow invalidates my point rather than strengthening it?

I hope you’re not going blind; that would be tragic.

I separate the two because thousands of people in the U.S. commit suicide every year using firearms without killing or physically injuring anyone else in the process.

all that typing and you could have done the homework yourself instead of asking others to do it for you

I think if someone is making a claim that a thing (antidepressant use, in this case) is a causal or contributing factor to a behavior (mass murder with firearms), then the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.

I think if someone is making a claim that a thing (antidepressant use, in this case) is a causal or contributing factor to a behavior (mass murder with firearms), then the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.

are we in court? I don't see that in the forum rules. You could ask the moderators to make that a rule

are we in court? I don't see that in the forum rules. You could ask the moderators to make that a rule

Did I say it was a rule?

Did I say it was a rule?

you implied - you really are here just to argue aren't you

I think if someone is making a claim that a thing (antidepressant use, in this case) is a causal or contributing factor to a behavior (mass murder with firearms), then the burden of proof lies with the person making that claim.

How the heck is an average citizen supposed to do this? 

I’d like our politicians to get this question answered, instead of focusing on the gun. Any person with a slight ability to think logically and sensibly would be able to figure out that the tool is not the cause. And punishing those not responsible for the act is no solution.

People like you are the reason the hard questions don’t get asked. There is no studies because no one is making them do any. Until the problem is really reduced to its basic causes, there will never be any solution.

So first I said “causal” and then I said “causal or contributing.”  You’re saying that by widening the possible pool of evidence I could have seen from a smaller set (causal) to a larger set (causal OR contributing), that somehow invalidates my point rather than strengthening it?

I hope you’re not going blind; that would be tragic.

I separate the two because thousands of people in the U.S. commit suicide every year using firearms without killing or physically injuring anyone else in the process.

Please show me where I said that -- any of it.

You should change your handle to Scarecrow.  I'll let you figure that one out.

You specifically said the words "I said" and then proceeded to spout off something you never said.  THAT was what i said, not what you want to pretend i said.

And you wonder why ad hominems are hurled your way.  Geesh!   

...

I separate the two because thousands of people in the U.S. commit suicide every year using firearms without killing or physically injuring anyone else in the process.

So, in your world, a majority that doesn't exhibit a behavior negates any chance that a small subset has a more severe reaction to the side-effects or withdrawal of a class of drugs?  Drugs which are proven to have different efficacy and side effects on each individual?

Most felons never commit a violent crime, yet we prohibit all felons from possessing and buying firearms.  Based on your reasoning, this must be because all felons have committed, are committing or will commit violent crimes.

How the heck is an average citizen supposed to do this? 

I’d like our politicians to get this question answered, instead of focusing on the gun. Any person with a slight ability to think logically and sensibly would be able to figure out that the tool is not the cause. And punishing those not responsible for the act is no solution.

People like you are the reason the hard questions don’t get asked. There is no studies because no one is making them do any. Until the problem is really reduced to its basic causes, there will never be any solution.

Maybe by finding studies that provide evidence?

for someone that likes to nitpick other's posts so much, you would think that you would concentrate more on communicating clearly...

I may not have communicated clearly.

I’m not criticizing the study because they recommend more studies; I give credit to the authors for recognizing that their study is not dispositive.  I’m saying I think it would be a mistake to put too much weight on the results of this study, in part because the authors themselves recognize that their study is of limited value due to the methods they used.

I don’t have any reason to believe that “all good studies say this.” 

I don’t believe it’s irrelevant, because as I say above, I think it limits the amount of weight one should give to this study in forming an opinion of whether antidepressants cause or contribute to mass shootings.

So, in your world, a majority that doesn't exhibit a behavior negates any chance that a small subset has a more severe reaction to the side-effects or withdrawal of a class of drugs?  Drugs which are proven to have different efficacy and side effects on each individual?

Most felons never commit a violent crime, yet we prohibit all felons from possessing and buying firearms.  Based on your reasoning, this must be because all felons have committed, are committing or will commit violent crimes.

I may not have understood the point you were trying to make by bringing up the idea that mass shootings are a suicidal action.  The line of reasoning that I believe we’ve been discussing is whether antidepressant use, or abrupt cessation of use, increases the likelihood of a mass shooting.  As I see it, as far as suicidality is concerned, the line of reasoning has gone like this:

• Increased suicidality is a known side effect of some antidepressants
• Mass shootings are also suicidal acts
• Therefore, the suicidal nature of mass shootings means that the increased suicidality also contributes to the increased likelihood of mass shooting

In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings.

If that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and would appreciate clarification.

You seem to be saying that I have said that antidepressants DON’T or CANNOT cause or contribute to mass shootings.  I don’t believe I’ve said that.  It’s possible that they do.  I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to cause me to come to that conclusion.

I may not have understood the point you were trying to make by bringing up the idea that mass shootings are a suicidal action.  The line of reasoning that I believe we’ve been discussing is whether antidepressant use, or abrupt cessation of use, increases the likelihood of a mass shooting.  As I see it, as far as suicidality is concerned, the line of reasoning has gone like this:

• Increased suicidality is a known side effect of some antidepressants
• Mass shootings are also suicidal acts
• Therefore, the suicidal nature of mass shootings means that the increased suicidality also contributes to the increased likelihood of mass shooting

In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings.

If that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and would appreciate clarification.

You seem to be saying that I have said that antidepressants DON’T or CANNOT cause or contribute to mass shootings.  I don’t believe I’ve said that.  It’s possible that they do.  I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to cause me to come to that conclusion.

well then go look for it

well then go look for it

Asked and answered.

do you have any reason to believe that all good studies don't say this?

please show me where they "themselves recognize that their study is of limited value"

I may not have communicated clearly.

I’m not criticizing the study because they recommend more studies; I give credit to the authors for recognizing that their study is not dispositive.  I’m saying I think it would be a mistake to put too much weight on the results of this study, in part because the authors themselves recognize that their study is of limited value due to the methods they used.

I don’t have any reason to believe that “all good studies say this.”

I don’t believe it’s irrelevant, because as I say above, I think it limits the amount of weight one should give to this study in forming an opinion of whether antidepressants cause or contribute to mass shootings.

do you have any reason to believe that all good studies don't say this?

please show me where they "themselves recognize that their study is of limited value"

So you’re telling me there’s not even one “good” study that doesn’t include that language?  Please give me an exhaustive list of all “good” studies so I can “do my own research.” 

The indication that the recognize their study isn’t the final word on the subject is that they said further studies using different methodology are needed.

https://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii-looking-at-expanding-psychedelic-therapies/article_cd31454e-793b-11ee-8ca9-bffd57a77635.html

"With more people experiencing trauma, we need to provide as many options as we can, to deal with PTSD, depression, and anxiety," added Hartsock.

Mani feels ketamine worked wonders for her, and Dr. Cook says Hawaii patients find it easier to accept the idea of psychedelic therapy than another important island group.

"It is harder to convince my doctor colleagues and lawmakers, because there is a cultural fear and cultural baggage. But once people delve into them, the healing becomes so personal that baggage becomes irrelevant," added Dr. Cook.

After informal meetings, Hawaii's Breakthrough Therapies Task Force will come up with recommendations before the legislative session.

Which means in a few months, lawmakers could end up voting on whether to expand psychedelic therapy in the islands.

Far out man!

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

How the heck is an average citizen supposed to do this? 

If we cannot do this (support an assertion) then perhaps we shouldn't make such claims.

i don't think you understand what "doing your own research" means...

So you’re telling me there’s not even one “good” study that doesn’t include that language?  Please give me an exhaustive list of all “good” studies so I can “do my own research.” 

The indication that the recognize their study isn’t the final word on the subject is that they said further studies using different methodology are needed.

I may not have understood the point you were trying to make by bringing up the idea that mass shootings are a suicidal action.  The line of reasoning that I believe we’ve been discussing is whether antidepressant use, or abrupt cessation of use, increases the likelihood of a mass shooting.  As I see it, as far as suicidality is concerned, the line of reasoning has gone like this:

• Increased suicidality is a known side effect of some antidepressants
• Mass shootings are also suicidal acts
• Therefore, the suicidal nature of mass shootings means that the increased suicidality also contributes to the increased likelihood of mass shooting

In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings.

If that’s not the point you were trying to make, then I misunderstood and would appreciate clarification.

You seem to be saying that I have said that antidepressants DON’T or CANNOT cause or contribute to mass shootings.  I don’t believe I’ve said that.  It’s possible that they do.  I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to cause me to come to that conclusion.

...
According to the Violence Project website, 31% of mass shooters were suicidal prior to the attack, 40% became suicidal during the attack, and 59% died on the scene.

Again, separating suicidal tendencies from an increase in violent thoughts is not supported by the evidence.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/

Is it really your belief that someone with new suicidal thoughts is possibly experiencing side effects from the psychotropic drugs,
but it's not JUST AS LIKELY that someone with thoughts of mass murder or other acts of violence are also experiencing drug side effects?

Mass shootings are public spectacles of violence intended as final acts. Whether it’s
self-inflicted, or comes at the hands of police officers, or after life in prison, a mass
shooting is a form of suicide. Traditional preventive measures like increased armed
security or harsh criminal sentences will do little to stop them.

You said "In my mind, that is contradicted by the fact that most suicides don’t involve mass shootings."

What, precisely, is the percentage needed to go from "most don't have this behavior, so the theory has no basis," to "a portion of people in a given group are committing suicide at rates higher than the general population, so there may be some validity to the theory that X is a factor in those individual outcomes?"

Not all drug addicts commit crimes to be able to buy drugs, therefore the premise that drug addiction is an underlying factor in increased crime is "contradictory."

Not all serial killers were abused as children, therefore the premise that severe child abuse may be an underlying factor in developing serial killers is "contradictory."

Not everyone who watches porn -- particularly that which depicts rape  and S&M -- go on to become rapists, therefore the premise that rapists may have been influenced by videos and images depicting such acts is "contradictory."

Another analogy would be, "Not everyone who goes to Ivey League Schools become rich and successful, therefore the theory that attending such a school is a factor in how some graduates became rich and successful is contradictory."

i don't think you understand what "doing your own research" means...

Ok.