Rx drugs and firearms (LV shooting content)

[GMSweet]

TL;DR version:

Man shares on Facebook about wife having homicidal break on prescribed Cymbalta
Man links wife's experience to LV shooter, Westroads Mall Shooting, and Columbine
I share a few things pertinent to my limited experience
My question: Can we deflect "must do something" away from inanimate gun and link Rx psychotropics to suicides and mass shootings taking the leftists off guard by speaking to both mental health needs and firearm safety?
Option given to say "Shut up Matt! You're so far out of your lane..."


Full version:

This posting was shared with me on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-ringo/a-theory-on-las-vegas/10155111388257055/) this morning. I can not attest to the validity of the story/testimony, but it gave me pause in light of the recent events. All of us are likely grappling with the argument from leftist friends and family members that state "something must be done" with blame instantly being assigned to the inanimate object; the gun. I imagine as law-abiding citizens constantly having our God given, constitutionally enshrined rights under attack, we would also deflect the arguments back to the individual pulling the trigger, driving the truck, or improvising the explosive device.

I know the indoor range I visit has a basic waiver form that gets signed off at entry where you state you do not use illegal drugs. It doesn't include prescription drugs, anti-depressants, or anti-anxiety medications. Two months ago, a 23 year old man walked in, rented a gun, and committed suicide on the range. The range did everything correctly and local law enforcement was quick to praise the owner and staff for doing all the right things. I haven't heard much else about the case since to see if any further information was obtained from the family.

So, how do we have an honest conversation about mental health, the impact of prescription mind-altering drugs, and firearms? I've known a few people who were being prescribed various "flavors" of drugs, and none of them really liked what the way they felt on them. Varying states of anger, continued sadness if not depression, and generally the type of people I was glad to know they weren't firearms folks. I wonder if the NRA spent some time and money developing an ad campaign that spoke straightly to the firearms community and linked all of the prescription drug related data and told people to have the honest conversation with their doctors, families, and friends. It seems to me, that it might take the left by surprise if their arch enemy was all of a sudden shedding light on the mental health situation in this country and poking the big pharma bear at the same time. How many of the vets that commit suicide each day are on Rx meds? How about the "mass" shooters? I will never advocate for the removing of rights from a law abiding citizen, but what if a Dr. actually shared with a patient "What I'm prescribing you was taken by an individual who had a homicidal break. We can try something different if you would like, but while we dial the dosage in, if you have firearms, would you consider having a trusted friend hold on to them?" No need for the doctor to know the outcome, but a very distinct warning of the dangers.

Anyway, here's the article that was posted and I look forward to the discussion, even if it's just "Shut up Matt, you're so far out of your lane it's not funny!" I took some liberties with the formatting for clarity's sake, but it's very choppy. Sorry for the loing read, but I know some of you aren't Facebook'ers so I copied the post.


A Theory on Las Vegas
JOHN RINGO · WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017

I may be the only person in the 'pundit' world who can put what we know about the Las Vegas shooter in perspective because I've dealt with something similar before. My personal take, at this point, is 'homicidal psychotic break, rationale currently unknown, possible pharmacological.'

To debunk a few of the recent urban legends and prolapse some of the stupider arguments:

ISIS: Nothing in his electronic trail indicates any contact with ISIS despite their claims and some rumors. Nothing.
'There were multiple shooters/he was a patsy!': All the guns in the room were registered to Paddock. He was covered in GSR and even had burns on his hands from hot barrel/rounds.
'He was antifa killing Republicans!': Nothing in his electronic trail indicates the slightest political affiliation or interest. Nothing. There weren't even angry emails. He never posted comments. Rarely read political news. Nada.


Gambling debts! He was broke!

Paddock was a habitual hobby gambler who was the sort of person casinos hate. He would set a budget on his gambling and stick to it religiously. He also rarely lost big or won big and never let either one change his habits.

He was a perfectly normal, successful, retired accountant well-invested in real estate with very little or no recent change in demeanor or actions.

Perfectly normal guy and only a ‘loner’ to the extent he wasn’t terribly socially active. ‘Loner’ apparently means he didn’t frequent wild parties. If he had the narrative would be ‘wild party animal.’

'Homicidal psychotic break means he couldn't have done the planning!'

Au contraire. Deep sigh. Been here, had someone in my life nearly do if not that than similar. With their permission I will now recount a story and show why everything about this makes a terrible sort of sense to me. The story is about my lovely and extremely loving wife, Miriam, and her descent to homicidal psychotic break due to a nasty drug interaction.

My wife has had the same doctor since she was a child. Old 'country' doctor who is the only person who has ever been able to handle Miriam's many oddities. A limited list:

My wife:


Has four kidneys and four ankles. (She ate the good twin.)
Was once listed as one of the top five Adult ADHD in the US and the only one who was clinically functional.
Has supremely bizarre drug interactions and thereby hangs this tale.
Miriam is a 'limited case pharmacological phenotype.' What does that mean? You know where on the warning label it says: 'in rare cases may cause you to grow two heads and fly to the moon'? Miriam is 'rare cases.' Every single time she tries a new prescription drug (fill in reason here) she is 'rare cases.'



This involves the 'in rare cases' effect of a drug called Cymbalta. Notably, as Cymbalta NOW states 'in rare cases may cause homicidal or suicidal psychotic break. Should not be prescribed to teenagers.' (Because it turns out in MOST cases WILL cause psychotic break in teenagers.)

Miriam was prescribed Cymbalta for 'depression' by her doctor in the early fall of 2007. I don't really remember if it seemed to work or not but she remained on it. I do recall that there as a shooting (by a teenager) that December in Nebraska in a mall. And I do recall Miriam's uncharacteristic comment.

'He only managed to kill five people in a crowded mall at Christmas time with a pistol and three magazines? He really needed to learn how to shoot.'

My wife is extremely loving and extremely Christian. Her normal response would have been 'That's terrible. God bless their souls and I hope he finds peace!' 'I could have done better' metaphorically was... not Miriam. I'll admit I didn't really notice it at the time.

Nor did I notice that over the course of the next several months (not sure when it started) we started to have a lot of 'off-brand' bleach around the house. Miriam is a lovely wife but cleaning is not her thing. But she also purchases in a very random manner. (Note the ADHD thing.) This did seem to be alot of bleach, though. I mentioned it a couple of times in jest. (We finally ran through all the bleach she bought in 2007-8 about a year ago. That much bleach.)
I didn't realize there were twenty-nine more gallon bottles in the trunk of her car.

I do recall during a rather bad time (possibly around below) that 'when she was gone' (and it had the feeling of 'soon') I wouldn't have to worry about the cats because 'they would be coming with her.' Miriam occasionally says odd things but that stood out. I'm more than aware of various forms of murder suicide and it was... discomforting. But... Miriam sometimes says odd things. (Used to. Far less these days for a variety of reasons. She's gotten SANER with menopause which is... just as bizarre as everything else.)

Things around Mother's Day got bad but they usually are. (Reasons I won't relate.) Then at a certain point I got a call from my loving wife (GF at the time) saying she was coming home from work, early, and we needed to go to Parkridge. I wasn't even sure what 'Parkridge' was.

Parkridge is one of the hospitals in the area but the specific one she mentioned was the psychiatric hospital.
I asked her on the drive over what was wrong. She didn't want to talk about it. For various 'privacy' reasons I wasn't well informed at the time. But I'll fill in the blanks for you in ways they weren't filled in for me.

She finally realized something was VERY wrong and checked herself in. Miriam had had a 'homicidal psychotic break' due to a side effect of Cymbalta. In most cases this is light and happens during the first couple of months or first month. NOW doctors are told to evaluate regularly in the first few months. THEN there was no warning. And NOBODY goes nine months. Except someone with ENORMOUS coping skills who has had to deal with madness that drove others insane on a daily basis her whole life.

(By the way, the teenager in the mall above? Guess what anti-depressant he was on? One guess and it rhymes with 'Sin Malta'. He’d been on it a few months, prescribed right around the same time as Miriam.)

So my loving wife coped. She controlled. As she slowly went ever-loving NUTS.

The specific issue was she had 'an uncontrollable desire to do harm to those who do harm to others.' Notably, she'd built up a list of persons on the Megan's (sexual predators) List and had developed very carefully constructed kill plans for each. She was tracking them and targeting them carefully. She has an extensive background in forensics and was probably going to get away with it.

Now, people may look at the targets and go 'Well... Uhm... having a hard time with that being 'bad'.' But to be very clear, my wife had shifted, subtly and without warning, from sweet, Christian, Miriam to serial killer. And I do mean without ANY REAL WARNING.

I didn't know exactly what was going on at the time. I was approached by one of the staff after a few hours sitting in a hard chair out front.

'I understand you're an author?'

'Yes. What's going on? Is Miriam okay?' (We weren't married at the time. Yes, I married her AFTER this, people.)

'She's being evaluated. But I understand you work from home? Are there frequently?'

'Pretty much all the time.'

'We can release her if she is under 24 hour monitoring...'

I had to sign to get her out pledging I would maintain '24 hour monitoring.' (Yes, I had to sign an actual release taking responsibility for the actions of an adult. They wouldn't tell me FOR WHAT ACTIONS.)

Miriam covered the big stuff on the ride home. I didn't get lots of detail til... years later. Details such as: Manson-like she had started to get the other patients, and even staff, to agree that her plan totally made sense in her first group therapy session. That was the real reason they were sending her home. They were afraid she was infecting the patients and staff and would form a 'kill sexual predators' cult.

(I guess they thought I was immune or something.)

Issues with this went on and on for months as it slowly leached from her system.

But let me relate it to Las Vegas.

Most people think of 'homicidal break' as someone suddenly 'grabbing a letter opener and carving their way out of Cost Accountancy and into forensic history.' (H/t: the late Sir Terry Pratchett.)

That's not, generally, how it works. How much planning and preparation a person does depends upon how rapid the onset is (months in Miriam's case) and how good they are at planning and preparation. (Both Miriam and Paddock were planners. He was an accountant and multi-millionaire.)

So look at the story above and break it down:

Relatively normal person, perhaps a bit odd, has minor changes in behavior that no-one in their close circle really notices.

He/she is a methodical person with an agenda. Other people who've done mass kills simply did not do it right. He/she is going to do it right. He knows they hold concerts by the Mandalay. That's the perfect venue for the most kills.

Suddenly they're a mass killer for no apparent reason.

That was what WAS going to happen with my wife.

So, Paddock doesn't really surprise me. I've seen it before.

My guess is it will be doctors who figure it out. And if they do they'll find he either was having a bad drug reaction (in which case nobody will admit nothin’ just as they’ve never admitted it was Cymbalta that caused the Westroads Mall Shooting) or neurological degeneration of some sort. (A tumor caused the University of Texas ‘Bell Tower’ shooting.) If pharmacological, the drug doesn't even have to be a definitively 'psychotropic' drug. Many drugs these days from heart medicine to anti-malarials have some psychotropic effect.

(If this had anything to do with a drug reaction, any drug of any type, I hope the survivors sue the shit out of the drug manufacturer. Because most of these recent 'crazy' mass kills, going all the way back to the 'postal worker' epidemic (overdosage of Prozac) and Columbine (both kids were hopped to their gills on prescription anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs), have had SOMETHING to do with psychotropic drugs pushed by drug companies. Many of the murder/suicides of returning military personnel were closely linked to an anti-malarial. And nobody seems to be willing to speak truth to power on the subject. Just writing this post will probably get me sued.)
The only lesson to take from this is 'keep an eye on your loved ones especially if they have ANY changes in prescription.' Doesn’t matter if it’s heart medication. Keep an eye on their personality as well as health.
Homicidal break does not always happen quickly. Sometimes it creeps in like the fog on cats feet. It is only at the last that the cackle of madness is heard. By then it is too late.
May God rest all their souls and let them find peace.

(This is public. Please share.)

[OlongJohnson]

It's all speculation until it's communicated what drugs MBAH was prescribed or taking. There have been reports of being prescribed a small number of doses of valium. I am not a doctor or pharmacist, but I have not heard of that having the effects described above or that are associated with other SSRIs.

This topic was fairly well publicized after Newtown. Google it, there are many links. Noveske published one of the first, if not the first, and most comprehensive lists, of killers who were on psychoactive drugs at the time of their acts. I haven't looked into his information sources. There have been many people who essentially repeated his list. I came across several articles that aimed to debunk the concern, but they generally took either a straw man approach, made an ad hominem attack on some source that had raised the question, or looked at all the good the drugs did for most people and the average results of clinical trials, while steadfastly ignoring the basic concern of "rare cases." It did not seem that, at least in the public sphere, those attempting to quash the hypothesis were addressing it in any serious or meaningful way.

Take that as the observations of a lay person who is highly proficient in reading the English language. I am not a doctor, and drugs are far outside my lane. I have not, and do not claim to be competent to review serious medical literature on the topic.

[GMSweet]

Take that as the observations of a lay person who is highly proficient in reading the English language. I am not a doctor, and drugs are far outside my lane. I have not, and do not claim to be competent to review serious medical literature on the topic.

Thanks for the response. I too am well out of my league, but always pay attention to the warnings listed on the ads. Mr. Ringo's telling of his wife's slip into a plan for serial murder caught me off guard.

The pockets and boards of big pharma would definitely want to downplay any links offered, but if there is a mental health aspect to have a light shined on it, I think the firearm community leading the charge might be helpful in showing our compassion.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[jrm]

Googling shows somewhere around one in six Americans take antidepressants or other psychiatric drug. Maybe in some rare occasions something like this happens but that is a ton of people and this is still a very rare occurrence. I’m not sure if you are trying to say individuals who take an antidepressant should be prohibited persons or what but I don’t think it makes anymore sense to disenfranchise 1 in 6 Americans from their second amendment rights than it does to take away everyone’s second amendment rights because of the actions of a very small minority. Also, if you are capable of long term elaborate planning during a psychotic break on these drugs we still have the issue that there are a lot of ways for determined human beings to do harm to their fellow man. I think if this is a factor it is kind of like blaming the gun to blame the drug. A lot of good comes from antidepressants I don’t think we can throw all of that out because a few people do bad things on them. People were doing bad things before antidepressants were being used as well. It might be that some problems just don’t really have a solution even if it really sucks that innocent people get killed and we wish there was a way to stop it.

[Hambo]

Googling shows somewhere around one in six Americans take antidepressants or other psychiatric drug. Maybe in some rare occasions something like this happens but that is a ton of people and this is still a very rare occurrence. I’m not sure if you are trying to say individuals who take an antidepressant should be prohibited persons or what but I don’t think it makes anymore sense to disenfranchise 1 in 6 Americans from their second amendment rights than it does to take away everyone’s second amendment rights because of the actions of a very small minority. Also, if you are capable of long term elaborate planning during a psychotic break on these drugs we still have the issue that there are a lot of ways for determined human beings to do harm to their fellow man. I think if this is a factor it is kind of like blaming the gun to blame the drug. A lot of good comes from antidepressants I don’t think we can throw all of that out because a few people do bad things on them. People were doing bad things before antidepressants were being used as well. It might be that some problems just don’t really have a solution even if it really sucks that innocent people get killed and we wish there was a way to stop it.

Two points that may or may not be relevant:

-A lot of people get antidepressants without visiting a shrink. In my anecdotal experience of people I know taking them, all got them from their MD. Would a psychiatrist say they need them? I have no idea.

-20% of Americans taking them no doubt includes a lot of people who don't own guns: teens, elderly, people who just don't own guns. So what is the percentage of gun owners who take antidepressants who go ballistic? Again, I have no idea, but it seems like it would be an important thing to know.

[JV_]

If being prescribed a drug means you could lose your guns, do more people go untreated?

[GMSweet]

I’m not sure if you are trying to say individuals who take an antidepressant should be prohibited persons or what but I don’t think it makes anymore sense to disenfranchise 1 in 6 Americans from their second amendment rights than it does to take away everyone’s second amendment rights because of the actions of a very small minority.

Not at all; just the opposite. I've read reports and fears of labelling vets with PTSD and driving them away from care for fear of losing their 2A rights.

I do happen to believe that we are a very medicated society. Friends of mine whom I have been close enough to know they were on antidepressants or anti-anxiety pills they didn't like it, they didn't feel like themselves, and the switching between dosages really messed with their moods for days. Being close enough to them, I watched how others treated them who didn't know what they were going through now did they want to advertise their treatment. Men generally don't like to share that infomation.

So, can we highlight mental health needs and drag down the stigma of "hey I need help" or is it too personal of a matter? In this super-polarized society today, we may not be able to since the media needs the hype for revenue.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[fixer]

I know correlation doesn't mean causation but it is hard to completely ignore the increased prescription drug consumption and increased frequency of mass casualty events.

This article, without bias, shows the insane increase in prescription consumption in the US.

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6160e/6.html#Js6160e.6

Why does this matter?

New prescription drugs, although FDA approved, can have major side effects. There is no way a drug company can know all side effects for all people. They just know what they found in clinical trials.

If even 0.05% of people had their shit re-wired because of a prescription that could be the potential for a lot of mass casualty events.

I fully support more investigation into the Rx side of this equation instead of the hardware.

[GMSweet]

If being prescribed a drug means you could lose your guns, do more people go untreated?I would say yes. If I was told, here's your prescription, give me your guns, I would seek alternate opinions. That's why the Obamacare questions about "do you own firearms" as a mandatory for Dr's were so concerning. Firearms owner, entered into an EMR, Gov paying the bill and reading the details. Perhaps a bit tin foil, but with a politicized IRS, FBI, DOJ, and who knows what else, I could write a nice novel at least.

When I asked my former doctor about why he choose a specific medication and what side effects I might have, he brushed me off and gave no answer I liked. When I experienced a known side effect, he was convinced it wasn't. I've never been back to him.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[UNK]

If being prescribed a drug means you could lose your guns, do more people go untreated?
LittleLebowski

The left will do anything to separate people from guns. They want to classify any form of mental illness as reason to confiscate. Did you know grieving is considering mental illness? Im sure there is a complete list somewhere of all the things that can be considered mental illness. I bet you would be appalled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mental_disorders Now take a gun hating doctor who finds out you have guns. you will never get them back.
People who were going to kill like that are going to kill like that. Serial murders rapist drug addicts whatever it doesn't matter what meds they are on.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/nra-embraces-senate-mental-health-bill/ NRA Backed mental illness bill

[BillSWPA]

We need to be very careful where the mental health conversation goes. In NJ, a simple prescription for anti-anxiety medicine will disqualify one from getting a firearms purchaser ID card. If we are not careful, we can create a situation wherein people with minor issues, or even major issues, are afraid to seek help. This in turn could create even more problems.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GMSweet]

We need to be very careful where the mental health conversation goes. In NJ, a simple prescription for anti-anxiety medicine will disqualify one from getting a firearms purchaser ID card. If we are not careful, we can create a situation wherein people with minor issues, or even major issues, are afraid to seek help. This in turn could create even more problems.



Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkSo how do we flip that? How do we get people to understand the laws like the one you mentioned, may actually prevent people from getting help because they have to choose between their constitutional rights and their health?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

[BillSWPA]

So how do we flip that? How do we get people to understand the laws like the one you mentioned, may actually prevent people from getting help because they have to choose between their constitutional rights and their health?

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

A very good question, and one to which I am unlikely to be able to offer a complete answer, but from my own observations of multiple individuals with various mental health issues, here goes:

1) Enhance the confidentiality of physician-patient privilege as well as the confidentiality of medical records. Which mental health prescriptions an individual may receive should not, under any circumstances, be in any database that is searchable by anyone doing a background check for any reason. Nothing short of involuntary commitment should be findable, and depending on the compliance of the patient afterwards, there should even be limits on the extent to which this is discoverable. A doctor's obligation to report anything about a patient to anyone should be limited to a very good reason to believe the patient is about to do something very bad. Patients need to know that they can seek help without repercussions.

2) Doctors are under increasing pressure to spend more time in front of their computers and less time with patients, as they are also under pressure to see more patients in less time. This is not the way to prescribbe psychiatric medication. General practitioners should not be prescribing psychiatric medications, period. Psychiatrists should not be prescribing such medications based on nothing more than a blood test and a few minutes with the patient. The first visit should involve at least an hour of discussing patient symptoms, and at least the next several followup visits should involve at least 1/2 to 1 hour of discussing symptoms, so that prescriptions can be based on full information.

[camsdaddy]

I know a guy that was prescribed lexipro by his wife's gynecologist. They were at a visit and he mentioned being very anxious around the holidays. The doctor offered a script to get through the holidays and almost 14 years later he is still taking them.

[Phxcollier]

A very good question, and one to which I am unlikely to be able to offer a complete answer, but from my own observations of multiple individuals with various mental health issues, here goes:

1) Enhance the confidentiality of physician-patient privilege as well as the confidentiality of medical records. Which mental health prescriptions an individual may receive should not, under any circumstances, be in any database that is searchable by anyone doing a background check for any reason. Nothing short of involuntary commitment should be findable, and depending on the compliance of the patient afterwards, there should even be limits on the extent to which this is discoverable. A doctor's obligation to report anything about a patient to anyone should be limited to a very good reason to believe the patient is about to do something very bad. Patients need to know that they can seek help without repercussions.

2) Doctors are under increasing pressure to spend more time in front of their computers and less time with patients, as they are also under pressure to see more patients in less time. This is not the way to prescribbe psychiatric medication. General practitioners should not be prescribing psychiatric medications, period. Psychiatrists should not be prescribing such medications based on nothing more than a blood test and a few minutes with the patient. The first visit should involve at least an hour of discussing patient symptoms, and at least the next several followup visits should involve at least 1/2 to 1 hour of discussing symptoms, so that prescriptions can be based on full information.

Did anyone else notice how the protected healthcare information (phi) was reported on?

https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/the-strip/las-vegas-strip-shooter-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-in-june/

How did the newspaper get access to this data? You are supposed to be a healthcare professional to access it. So who gave the info to the paper? Suddenly if I live in NV all my prescription data is available to newspapers to use as they see fit?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. Just because some killers took the meds, doesn't mean that is predictive of killing. You need a research design of quality and not politically motivated. Gun folks want to shift blame and stereotype people who need mental health treatment.

2. Just because some killers own guns, owning guns isn't predictive of you being a killer.

3. If you try restrict gun ownership on simple treatment - that's God's gift to the gun banners and prevents folks from getting treatment. From a project I worked on, and others, it is clear that military and police don't seek need treatment because of stigma and threats to their job or service. Want to go there? Not me.

4. Most folks with mental health issues have a lower rate of violence than the general population except for some very, very specific subpopulations. Determine that with legal proceedings that have full rights for the person in question.

Shifting the blame isn't the strategy to protect a basic Constitutional right.

[Sensei]

A very good question, and one to which I am unlikely to be able to offer a complete answer, but from my own observations of multiple individuals with various mental health issues, here goes:

1) Enhance the confidentiality of physician-patient privilege as well as the confidentiality of medical records. Which mental health prescriptions an individual may receive should not, under any circumstances, be in any database that is searchable by anyone doing a background check for any reason. Nothing short of involuntary commitment should be findable, and depending on the compliance of the patient afterwards, there should even be limits on the extent to which this is discoverable. A doctor's obligation to report anything about a patient to anyone should be limited to a very good reason to believe the patient is about to do something very bad. Patients need to know that they can seek help without repercussions.

2) Doctors are under increasing pressure to spend more time in front of their computers and less time with patients, as they are also under pressure to see more patients in less time. This is not the way to prescribbe psychiatric medication. General practitioners should not be prescribing psychiatric medications, period. Psychiatrists should not be prescribing such medications based on nothing more than a blood test and a few minutes with the patient. The first visit should involve at least an hour of discussing patient symptoms, and at least the next several followup visits should involve at least 1/2 to 1 hour of discussing symptoms, so that prescriptions can be based on full information.

1) The standard for involuntary commitment in most states is a condition that is an immediate threat to self or others, or impairment that prevents someone from carrying on basic functions such as providing shelter, clothing, etc. I would submit that there are plenty of people who do not (or have not) met the criteria for involuntary commitment, but also lack the capacity to safely handle a firearm. This is a very hard nut to crack as I bet there would be little consensus on this forum as to what level of functionality is acceptable.

2) There are simply not enough psychiatrist in the US to handle the behavioral heath issues in America. Primary care providers are filling a gap that ain't going away - ever. This is especially true for the uninsured teetering on the edge of functionality.

3) As for the original question, there insufficient medical evidence to link SSRIs to violence and far less evidence to tie them to mass murder. The best designed studies suggest that SSRIs cause a slight increase in suicide when first implemented, but overall decrease acts of violence.

4) The real issue in mental / behavioral health has nothing to do with mass murder. In the time it took me to type this post, 10 people died from an overdose. Most got started down that road with a prescription opiate or benzo...

[RevolverRob]

1. Just because some killers took the meds, doesn't mean that is predictive of killing. You need a research design of quality and not politically motivated. Gun folks want to shift blame and stereotype people who need mental health treatment.

2. Just because some killers own guns, owning guns isn't predictive of you being a killer.

3. If you try restrict gun ownership on simple treatment - that's God's gift to the gun banners and prevents folks from getting treatment. From a project I worked on, and others, it is clear that military and police don't seek need treatment because of stigma and threats to their job or service. Want to go there? Not me.

4. Most folks with mental health issues have a lower rate of violence than the general population except for some very, very specific subpopulations. Determine that with legal proceedings that have full rights for the person in question.

Shifting the blame isn't the strategy to protect a basic Constitutional right.


1) The standard for involuntary commitment in most states is a condition that is an immediate threat to self or others, or impairment that prevents someone from carrying on basic functions such as providing shelter, clothing, etc. I would submit that there are plenty of people who do not (or have not) met the criteria for involuntary commitment, but also lack the capacity to safely handle a firearm. This is a very hard nut to crack as I bet there would be little consensus on this forum as to what level of functionality is acceptable.

2) There are simply not enough psychiatrist in the US to handle the behavioral heath issues in America. Primary care providers are filling a gap that ain't going away - ever. This is especially true for the uninsured teetering on the edge of functionality.

3) As for the original question, there insufficient medical evidence to link SSRIs to violence and far less evidence to tie them to mass murder. The best designed studies suggest that SSRIs cause a slight increase in suicide when first implemented, but overall decrease acts of violence.

4) The real issue in mental / behavioral health has nothing to do with mass murder. In the time it took me to type this post, 10 people died from an overdose. Most got started down that road with a prescription opiate or benzo...

Glenn and Sensei provide the most comprehensive responses.

The short answer is - no legal prescription drug should ever have an effect on your ability to exercise any constitutional right, full stop.

If we want to remove someone's constitutional rights because of mental health issues, it needs to follow due process, like any criminal proceeding would. And that means, to some degree we have to wait until the people who may be a problem are a problem. We do need to allow people a greater degree of access to mental health care and encourage treatment, but not stigmatizing it.

Discussions that suggest "X, Y, or Z drug makes people kill." Are irresponsible when not backed by factual data and analysis. Thus far, no one has presented strong factual evidence that common prescriptions are actually linked to increased violence. The provided link to prescription drug increase is actually pretty lame. We can't actually say, "Prescription drug increases, indicate that disorders are more common now than the past." Because the statistics do not account for 1) Population growth. 2) FDA approval of prescription medications when there previously was not one. 3) The plethora of "snake oil" type medicines that people sought and used in the past. In short, I don't trust any stats that say something like, "Relative to 1961 we have millions more people on RX drugs than before." Yea...and we have millions more people and millions more RX drugs to treat a range of problems; proportionally speaking do we have more or not? And the answer is, "Well we don't know." Because we have no good data from the past. - Which means that if you want to address these issues - we have to fund the studies to address them, until then, you're spitting into the wind.