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 feel like I’ve said it a number of times already, but I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake.

I’m not saying it’s impossible for antidepressants to increase the likelihood that someone taking them, or who has abruptly stopped taking them, will commit a mass shooting.  I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient reliable evidence to cause me to draw that conclusion.  You may think differently than that, and that’s ok.  I think diversity of opinion is good; again, you may think otherwise. 

I feel like I’ve said it a number of times already, but I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake.

I’m not saying it’s impossible for antidepressants to increase the likelihood that someone taking them, or who has abruptly stopped taking them, will commit a mass shooting.  I’m saying I haven’t seen sufficient reliable evidence to cause me to draw that conclusion.  You may think differently than that, and that’s ok.  I think diversity of opinion is good; again, you may think otherwise. 

"I refuse to form an opinion based on existing data on suicidal side effects of certain drugs even though the decision to do nothing means more mass shootings / suicides will occur."

That's all you had to say.

"I refuse to form an opinion based on existing data on suicidal side effects of certain drugs even though the decision to do nothing means more mass shootings / suicides will occur."

That's all you had to say.

I’d try to count up all the times you’ve misrepresented my position, but it’d take too long and I have to work tomorrow.

I’d try to count up all the times you’ve misrepresented my position, but it’d take too long and I have to work tomorrow.

Obviously you haven't been reading the posts you wrote misrepresenting what I said.

Not surprising, since you seem to not read most posts -- only the ones you want to bicker with.

Obviously you haven't been reading the posts you wrote misrepresenting what I said.

Not surprising, since you seem to not read most posts -- only the ones you want to bicker with.

I didn’t think I had misrepresented anything you said; if I did, it wasn’t intentional and I apologize for the error.

Whether intentionally or not, you have consistently misrepresented my position, and rarely posted a reply without taking a snarky ad hominem shot at me.  I’ve mostly ignored those because honestly, they don’t really bother me.  I do wonder what motivates you to attack personally instead of engaging in a civil manner, though, but only because I’m interested in what makes people tick.

Have a pleasant Sunday evening!

I didn’t think I had misrepresented anything you said; if I did, it wasn’t intentional and I apologize for the error.

Whether intentionally or not, you have consistently misrepresented my position, and rarely posted a reply without taking a snarky ad hominem shot at me.  I’ve mostly ignored those because honestly, they don’t really bother me.  I do wonder what motivates you to attack personally instead of engaging in a civil manner, though, but only because I’m interested in what makes people tick.

Have a pleasant Sunday evening!

Seems like snarky is what it takes to get your attention, since any posts in which I offer copious amounts of valuable information appear (in my estimation) too long for you to bother reading,  Then you go on to make comments that my posts already contradicted with a variety of sources.

So, if you think I'm attacking you personally, it's only because you don't want to have an honest discussion.  Your standards for everyone else's information (peer reviewed in more than one study, etc.) seem to only apply to us -- not you.  Rather than shooting down every position just because you personally don't agree based on no additional information gets redundant.  It also makes you appear to be shooting down anything that doesn't meet your standards even though you can't refute the information at all.

Maybe your standards need to change?  Instead of arguing against anything that doesn't come with a certificate of truth and verified absolutism, do some research of your own to see where these posts you disagree with lead you.  You might actually realize that not everything you don't trust is not actually incorrect.

Seems like snarky is what it takes to get your attention, since any posts in which I offer copious amounts of valuable information appear (in my estimation) too long for you to bother reading,  Then you go on to make comments that my posts already contradicted with a variety of sources.

So, if you think I'm attacking you personally, it's only because you don't want to have an honest discussion.  Your standards for everyone else's information (peer reviewed in more than one study, etc.) seem to only apply to us -- not you.  Rather than shooting down every position just because you personally don't agree based on no additional information gets redundant.  It also makes you appear to be shooting down anything that doesn't meet your standards even though you can't refute the information at all.

Maybe your standards need to change?  Instead of arguing against anything that doesn't come with a certificate of truth and verified absolutism, do some research of your own to see where these posts you disagree with lead you.  You might actually realize that not everything you don't trust is not actually incorrect.

How would you know you can’t get my attention without snarky ad hominems?  You haven’t tried.

I think you’re still not understanding what I’m saying about the data that’s been linked here; I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct.  I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis.

Have a great night!

swooooosh
someone still doesn't realize that there was more than one study presented...

How would you know you can’t get my attention without snarky ad hominems?  You haven’t tried.

I think you’re still not understanding what I’m saying about the data that’s been linked here; I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct.  I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis.

Have a great night!

How would you know you can’t get my attention without snarky ad hominems?  You haven’t tried.

I think you’re still not understanding what I’m saying about the data that’s been linked here; I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct.  I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis.

Have a great night!

"I’m not saying the one actual study proffered is not correct.  I’m saying it takes no position on causation, and therefore doesn’t do much to support the hypothesis."

Once again, you are using your own standard (doesn't show causation) to dismiss the study.  And since there are multiple studies posted, maybe you should be specific about which study you are referring to -- just so you're clear.

I understood your post every time you repeated it.  What i don't understand is why you think ANY study that involves human behavior would include a high degree of confidence that any one variable would be labeled 'the' cause.

Name another study that tries to explain any type of human behavior and which is able to isolate a single substance that causes said action.

If you can, I'd be impressed.  If not, maybe your standard is impossible to attain for any study.

There's also the issue of access to studies.  Try to look up studies on before/after rates of stuff like assault, breakins, etc on gun ban in Australia.  VERY hard to get the real information, at least without someone's "analysis" (opinion) interjected.  Looked into this a lot a while back, and that included when I had good friends in Australia's version of 2a movement.  Just because one can't find studies, doesn't mean they don't exist.  For Australia, they did exist, but were often buried.  Or also lots of "experts" lined up to dispute the data, and that's before arguing the conclusions. 

There's also the issue of access to studies.  Try to look up studies on before/after rates of stuff like assault, breakins, etc on gun ban in Australia.  VERY hard to get the real information, at least without someone's "analysis" (opinion) interjected.  Looked into this a lot a while back, and that included when I had good friends in Australia's version of 2a movement.  Just because one can't find studies, doesn't mean they don't exist.  For Australia, they did exist, but were often buried.  Or also lots of "experts" lined up to dispute the data, and that's before arguing the conclusions.

This is 1 major factor that a study can be modified to lean a certain way.  I mean look at how the left uses children gun deaths and go from ages 1-19. 

I don't think anyone here has the time to read thousands of pages of studies to show X or Y.  Instead logic is used and any studies are skimmed through, unless major points are pointed out that shows the logic is incorrect.  Google-fu is guud enuff.

This is 1 major factor that a study can be modified to lean a certain way.  I mean look at how the left uses children gun deaths and go from ages 1-19. 

I don't think anyone here has the time to read thousands of pages of studies to show X or Y.  Instead logic is used and any studies are skimmed through, unless major points are pointed out that shows the logic is incorrect.  Google-fu is guud enuff.

Then there's the "paid-for" results that didn't pan out as hoped.

There have been many studies uncovered for a variety of things which were paid for by a particular company, advocacy group, business sector, etc.  If the results of the study either fail to support the wishes of the sponsor or worse contradict that desired outcome, the sponsor -- as the owner of the study and its results, has the right to not make those findings public.  However, there is liability in those decisions, as a known adverse effect of a product which was covered up represents obvious liability issues.

I always look at the money used for a study. I can't count how many "studies" said eggs and milk are essential for good health -- all sponsored by the dairy industry.

This is 1 major factor that a study can be modified to lean a certain way.  I mean look at how the left uses children gun deaths and go from ages 1-19. 

I don't think anyone here has the time to read thousands of pages of studies to show X or Y.  Instead logic is used and any studies are skimmed through, unless major points are pointed out that shows the logic is incorrect.  Google-fu is guud enuff.

Yup (mostly).  It's important to know the context of A) what was asked and B) who it was asked to and how those folks were "selected".  If one digs, Australia is a terrible case study on overall affects of gun ban.  Yeah, rates of gun suicide is down, but is suicide overall? 

That's where having friends who were essentially a national level HIFICO for Australia helped.  They had folks who scrubbed the "thousands of pages".  They got nothing but time. . .

Then there's the "paid-for" results that didn't pan out as hoped.

There have been many studies uncovered for a variety of things which were paid for by a particular company, advocacy group, business sector, etc.  If the results of the study either fail to support the wishes of the sponsor or worse contradict that desired outcome, the sponsor -- as the owner of the study and its results, has the right to not make those findings public.  However, there is liability in those decisions, as a known adverse effect of a product which was covered up represents obvious liability issues.

I always look at the money used for a study. I can't count how many "studies" said eggs and milk are essential for good health -- all sponsored by the dairy industry.

Or even studies that gleaned info from "select sources".  Depends what those "select sources" are, and who is gleaning the data.  But yes, in the Australia example, there were many "Gov't funded" studies that were buried because the data didnt show what was being looked for.  Well guess what?  They had their own version of Snowden, and info was shared. . .

Yup (mostly).  It's important to know the context of A) what was asked and B) who it was asked to and how those folks were "selected".  If one digs, Australia is a terrible case study on overall affects of gun ban.  Yeah, rates of gun suicide is down, but is suicide overall? 

That's where having friends who were essentially a national level HIFICO for Australia helped.  They had folks who scrubbed the "thousands of pages".  They got nothing but time. . .

Dan Bongino had a vid recently where he talked about an old interview he did with an Australian reporter who brough up the ban there. Dan said gun crime is up, I can't remember if he said murder or just crime/violence.  He then showed the reporter the source and the reporter was amazed.

Dan Bongino had a vid recently where he talked about an old interview he did with an Australian reporter who brough up the ban there. Dan said gun crime is up, I can't remember if he said murder or just crime/violence.  He then showed the reporter the source and the reporter was amazed.

Depending on the timeframe for the article he used, I once read a very prominent publication's report saying the same thing:  gun crime is up even after the ban.

What the headline omitted, but the article expounded on, was the crimes that increased were possession violations.  Basically shootings were already on the decline before the ban, and that trend continued unaffected by the ban.  But people being charged and convicted of "gun crimes" increased greatly because the new laws made previously lawful possessors of firearms criminals without them having committed a single act of violence.

A great example of a government criminalizong otherwise law-abiding citizens with legislation that did nothing to solve "gun violence" and mass shootings.

Depending on the timeframe for the article he used, I once read a very prominent publication's report saying the same thing:  gun crime is up even after the ban.

What the headline omitted, but the article expounded on, was the crimes that increased were possession violations.  Basically shootings were already on the decline before the ban, and that trend continued unaffected by the ban.  But people being charged and convicted of "gun crimes" increased greatly because the new laws made previously lawful possessors of firearms criminals without them having committed a single act of violence.

A great example of a government criminalizong otherwise law-abiding citizens with legislation that did nothing to solve "gun violence" and mass shootings.

His IG post on 10/27. 60 Mins Australia flew to him to talk about "gun control". Dan says it doesn't work as there are more guns now than before the buy back.

Dan Bongino had a vid recently where he talked about an old interview he did with an Australian reporter who brough up the ban there. Dan said gun crime is up, I can't remember if he said murder or just crime/violence.  He then showed the reporter the source and the reporter was amazed.

I'll try to dig up the studies.  IIRC, it showed stuff like home invasions, armed robbery, assault, etc in 6 month intervals after the gun ban. 

i'll just leave this here...