CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are anti-depressants responsible for some mass shootings?
S.S.R.I.'s are prescribed to about 10% of Americans in order to suppress or elevate moods and emotions. Most notably for treating clinical depression. What other emotional responses are possible in some people? Suicide is listed as a possible side effect but not homicide.
Guns have always been around in America, but not until recently has mass shootings become common. This is largely do to the corrupt pharmaceutical industry handing out mind harming substances like candy.
This link points to a disturbing but fascinating database of the original printed news reports of suspected SSRI contributed violence. Butchering children, parents, friends and pets before occasionally setting a fire and committing suicide is recurrent. The question now is whether the pharmaceutical companies value profits over lives or evil acts are the intention by design.
The evidence seems to support a strong correlation between crazed lone nuts murdering and these brain altering concoctions. In no way would I downplay the very real condition of depression, however experiencing the gamut of emotions including sadness is no doubt preferable to homicidal rage. Considering the ample evidence linking S.S.R.I.'s to murders warrants a reevaluation of depression treatment.
Wait a second. I remember reading that he had Lewy body dementia and that was the cause of it, where are you finding that it was his actual medication that caused it?
I have little doubt that some some medications alter a person's mood, to what extent really depends on the chemistry of the individual, it's pretty touch and go for doctor's and patients.
I had to read up on what he had, it sounds more like it was the disease that did it than the cure. Either way it's really sad, he'd been fighting his demons for some time.
Considering the ample evidence linking S.S.R.I.'s to murders warrants a reevaluation of depression treatment.
I find it hilarious that you eagerly acknowledge "the ample evidence linking SSRIs to murders" and yet refuse to acknowledge the mountain of evidence linking guns to murders.
I find it hysterical that you will not acknowledge the mountains of evidence linking murderers to murders. Or the correlation between water and drownings. Your logic is flawed. I failed to mention THE most necessary reason to have a armed citizenry....to oppose a tyranical threat to our democracy. Those poor bastards in Britain have no options.
Oh no not this horseshit again .......I failed to mention THE most necessary reason to have a armed citizenry....to oppose a tyranical threat to our democracy. Those poor bastards in Britain have no options........
What the fuck chance do an untrained citizenry have against the might of the highly trained armed military ?
Maybe you should get baseball bats as you did say most attacks are with them so they must be pretty ....... effective š³
What the fuck chance do an untrained citizenry have against the might of the highly trained armed military ?
LOL. Oh Dermot, they make me laugh so much. They are just sooooooooo stupid. They have the highest incarceration rate in the entire world and they scream about how guns keep them free. Twenty five percent of the world's prison population lives in America. Brainwashed just doesn't even come close to describing what many Americans are.
š It's the last desperate excuse that's always thrown in when it comes to guns there's no arguing with them another 25 killed in Texas and everything but guns gets the blame .
Those prisions stats are truly high and pretty alarming
My last desperate excuse would be that I thoroughly enjoy target practice. You have it backwards, the 2nd ammendment is first and foremost a tool to defend against enemies foreign OR domestic. From my perspective, desperate excuses were necessary to justify citizens meekly surrendering their guns.
Agreed that despicable policies lead to a broken prison system.
My last desperate excuse would be that I thoroughly enjoy target practice
Which doesn't necessitate you owning a gun.
You have it backwards, the 2nd ammendment is first and foremost a tool to defend against enemies foreign OR domestic
Which means that if someone considers you their enemy, they can buy a gun and use it to fire a toxic lump of lead into your face. Provided you were acting aggressively at the time there's no problem because they were just "defending" themselves. Congratulations on defending your legal right to get shot in the face, you infuriating moron.
An untrained citizenry faced a highly trained armed military and that victory lead to the United States of America. Being armed is not a guarantee of defeating an enemy but the alternative is just surrender. Not to mention having well armed patriots willing to die to defend America, acts as a deterrent.
An untrained citizenry faced a highly trained armed military and that victory lead to the United States of America
True, but America was under overt military occupation from the British and you are talking about an internal civil war, which is very different. Allegiances are going to vary. You seem to have a fantasy that everybody is going to rally around the cause in the event of a civil war against the American government. The facts show that it isn't going to happen. For example, during the height of protests against the government's military involvement in Vietnam in the late 1960s, Nixon ordered the National Guard to control protesters. The protesters occupied some very solid moral ground, but that did not stop the National Guard opening fire and killing four of them.
Being armed is not a guarantee of defeating an enemy but the alternative is just surrender.
You are seeing exactly half of the full picture about the way gun law works. You can't arm yourself without simultaneously arming your enemy. If you buy a gun then so does he. You both get shot to death instead of the actual alternative, which is a fist fight.
"A well regulated Militia, being NECESSARY to the security of a FREE State, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed."
Enemies either foreign or domestic threatening the security of a free state necessitates an armed and effective defense. The armed forces and law enforcement fight and die in defense of our rights and every serviceman's civilian family, friends and community lessen the likelihood of a domestic enemy. Listen carefully to these words..."shall not be infringed" is the full picture. Thus, gun rights laws work because they are inalienable. A gun in my hand does not mean an armed enemy!! Perhaps the people allowed the rulers to confiscate guns. Final point----in the liberal fantasy world of tracking down and confiscating all legal guns only leave illegal ones. BTW, a fist fight against 20 enemies can kill you.
I find it hysterical that you will not acknowledge the mountains of evidence linking murderers to murders
So you intend to just make up lies instead of admitting you are wrong? How very American of you.
Your logic is flawed.
You do not understand what logic is. Logic is not beginning your reply by lying about what your opponent will or will not acknowledge. That's the opposite of logic.
to oppose a tyranical threat to our democracy
Ahahahahahahahahaha! Is this the"democracy" where people get a choice between right wing capitalism and hard right wing capitalism? That one? The one where you get a choice between an uber-rich billionaire crook and a slightly less rich millionaire crook? You are a joke. If I met you I would laugh in your face for being brainwashed by such utter infantile stupidity. You are making the same spectacular errors that every gun-obsessed American lunatic makes. Namely:-
1) That in developed nations in the 21st century, threats to democracy are likely to arise through force and not information control. Clearly nobody has ever taught you about the rise of Hitler.
2) That your revolver is any use against the government's intercontinental ballistic missiles, attack helicopters, cluster bombs, and military forces.
You are as stupid as it is possible to be. Go away.
Regardless of the legality of firearms in your area my debate topic was asking if anti-depressants contribute to mass shootings. Knives and clubs kill pretty good.
My pistol is my most prized and respected possession.
You know why? Because if a drug addled lunatic with a knife threatened my life, I am much more comfortable in my marksmanship than knife fight skills.
The hypocrite piously speaks again about how supposedly wonderful Europe is when some have bragged about almost erradicating special needs babies from their nation.
Have you ever heard of ethnic cleansing? In Europe they are trying for Down Syndrome cleansing of all Special Olympic children.
The ability to easily arm a lawful citizen has no bearing on criminals acquiring guns illegally. Incidentally, there has been recent knife attacks and more people are killed with baseball bats than guns.
I will never leave Texas partly because of a sense of security knowing many of my friends and neighbors are armed as well.
I will acknowledge that one can run away hoping to be quicker. Cowardly, reactionary act of desperation. Being armed and proactive in life and death situations preserves lives. While you go run and hide unable to protect loved ones, I'll shoot to kill anyone threatening my life or yours for that matter.
Cowardly to run away from a maniac with a knife but the epitome of bravery to ...... shoot him šššš
Well then again I live in a country where me or my loved ones don't run a gauntlet of of baseball wielding maniacs followed by marauding gangs of knife maniacs and fully supported by pill popping depressives carrying guns , you don't need weapons mate you need a fucking army ššššš
Confronting an assailant intent on murdering you or others isn't up for debate. I will aim for the largest target available, open fire until the threat is eliminated.
Baseball bats account for more deaths than guns. Not chewing hotdogs correctly will do you in. Noble doctors being negligent....death. I am certain of one thing....my .22 cal revolver is a tool to save lives.
Americans are hilarious and what makes it tragic is the fact it's unintended ; so tell me do you go to a tool shop and ask to look at the guns ?
Or maybe you say " Hey Bubba get me my " tool box" and hand me that gun so I can nail this sign up ? ....... maybe this is commonplace in the U S such is your collective confusion over simple terms .
Here is a " surprising " worldwide definition ( U S excluded ) of the word you hate to say as in ......
gun
É”Źn/Submit
noun
1.
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
synonyms: firearm, weapon; More
2.
informal
muscular arms; well-developed biceps muscles.
"it's encouraging to note that Schwarzenegger wasn't born with massive guns"
Confronting an assailant intent on murdering you or others isn't up for debate.
That isn't what we are debating. We are debating why you want to ARM THAT ASSAILANT WITH A LEGAL FIREARM!!!???
Baseball bats account for more deaths than guns.
LOL. You literally will believe anything, won't you? Did you know they have recently erased the word "gullibility" from the English dictionary? Look it up and see for yourself.
Is it true that blunt weapons (e.g. baseball bats) kill more people in the U.S. than rifles do?
Well, in 2014 the FBI listed 11,961 murders in the US. The majority of them, 8124, were murders committed by firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc). Blunt objects (which would include baseball bats) killed 435.
Most of the firearm murders, 5562, were by handguns - pistols and revolvers - while āonlyā 248 were by rifles.
The ability to easily arm a lawful citizen has no bearing on criminals acquiring guns illegally.
Omg this is so stupid. Criminals don't need to acquire guns illegally because YOUR COUNTRY HAS LEGALISED THEM. Provided they don't have a conviction at the point they purchase the weapon, they can buy a gun legally and then use it to murder a large group of innocent people, just like happens every goddamned week in your backwards nation. But yeah, it's absolutely fine because once they kill 30 people in cold blood we won't sell them any more guns. Except if they go to a roadshow or buy one online where they don't run the proper security checks.
Americans have just been brainwashed into the most stupid pro-gun arguments imaginable. Yeah, making rape illegal won't stop criminals raping people so let's make rape legal!!! You can kill people with a plastic spoon so we'd better arm the populace with RPGs!!!! Literally how do they convince you that there is an iota of common sense in this madness?
Firearm ownership wasn't legalized, it is a constitutional right given to citizens as part of the contract with our government. Of course the process of attaining a gun is flawed. How can one know what's in the hearts and minds of people? Your line of reasoning seems headed toward complete gun confiscation. God help us all if these brain washed simpleton gun grabbers had there way. You speak of common sense...gun confiscation would apply to lawful owners and leave illegally owned guns on the streets. Madness.
Yeah guns are illegal so they use knifes, hammers and cars: since the beginning of the year there have been about 35 terrorism acts (attempts+ ones that succeded)in France alone and nearly none of them involved a gun heres a list:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronologie desattentatsenFranceen2017
Yeah guns are illegal so they use knifes, hammers and cars
This is an indefensibly nonsensical argument because it can be applied to justify the legalisation of absolutely anything and everything. Well, if we don't give them tanks they are just going to shank each other with forks. Well, if we don't give everyone an attack helicopter they are just going to kill each other with cars. It is a complete fallacy because nobody actually believes the pretence it is made under: that banning guns would prevent all murders. That same false pretence is furthermore used to conclude that the best way of minimising murder is to give people better tools with which to commit murder.
This is an indefensibly nonsensical argument because it can be applied to justify the legalisation of absolutely anything and everything
Whoah. You finally pseudo-nailed one. We can kill people with guns, cars, knives, etc, but seeing we need all of these things, illegalizing them would be nonsensical.
Here, I'll give you some nomenclature-esque logic. Ya see, most guns are good people. Most guns are not terrorists. Therefore banning them is racism and bigotry...obviously...
Well, if we don't give them tanks they are just going to shank each other with forks
Another logical fallacy. Tanks aren't legal for citizens in any civilized nation anywhere on Earth. Guns are, for basic self defense against criminals who will have guns regardless of the law.
Guns can be used as self defense in order to ward off any threats made by others but that doesn't mean guns should be widely available to the people. In the past decade, there have been nearly hundreds of mass shooting and terrorist attacks across the country, with the Las Vegas, Columbine, and Texas church shootings being the most recent, killing more than 60 people in the process. As you can see here, crime actually increases when guns are made available to the public. You can see this trend in the number of homicides as a result of guns, with 11,208 homicides from them a year, 21,175 from suicide, 508 deaths as a result of neglected use of a firearm, and 281 from an "unintentional use of a firearm", all of them occurring on a yearly basis according to the National Bureau of Economic Research and The National Academies Press as well as a multitude of other sources from sites such as Vox and the BBC news channel. If you as me, I say that we should either ban guns for the public, inquire strict background checks, or ban all guns with the exception of small handguns for the public domain. Anti-depressants have little or nothing to do with mass shootings for that matter, in fact, most mass shootings occur as a result of years of neglect of the victim or radical ideologies that these people support or praise to the extreme, as well as some forms of mental illness. In order to prevent such things from happening, we simply have to help people with special needs that have the potential of doing such things, providing social and psychological help to these individuals, keep them away from weapons that can do harm, and other measures to prevent shooting from ever occurring.
I dunno what causes people to shoot up the place.. It COULD be medication, or it COULD be that your regular un-medicated NUT wants guns, and we don't have a law that stops them..
It stands to reason that a person suffering from the kinds of emotional disorders that mass shooters may suffer from would be on medication to try to address it. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
True. But when someone experiences the kind of destructive emotions needed for mass shooters, and itās out of the ordinary, they typically let people know. Often the mentally ill people who engage in mass violence are off their meds, and are prescribed meds for just that sort of thing.
Precisely. The violent destructive behavior is most prevalent following a change in dosage or stopping the drug abruptly without a gradual lowering of dosage. Keep in mind these class of drugs alter biochemicals in an incredibly complex system.
Suicidal thoughts are a specific outcome that is not the same as mass destruction thoughts. Iām not saying that medication should be ruled out, but Iām not sure the numbers support the hypothesis. There are lots of people on medication, and not a lot of mass shootings. A lot of these people report feeling suicidal, but not killing themselves. Who has reported feeling mass destructivy but havenāt followed through? If it there was a causal relationship, I would expect some reports of people getting help before doing the unthinkable.
I have the impression that if a person is susceptible to violent thoughts it would manifest into some kind of psychotic episode. A person without the means to act out their thoughts would then return to the normal state of mind. The external link I posted has dozens of accounts of murders coinciding with a dosage change. Many involve weapons other than guns.
Your link doesnāt state whether they were prescribed or in compliance with their prescription.
But again, you know how we know that side effect may include suicidal thoughts? Because people talk about it rather than doing it. You know why we donāt know if side effects are murderous thoughts? Because we donāt have people talking about it instead of doing it.
When crazy people, who need to be on meds, who sometimes are and sometimes are not on their meds, kill people, it is unreasonable to assume it was the meds and not the crazy that made them do it. At least without evidence, which is lacking here.
I am baffled by your assertion that a lack of evidence exists in the link between violent behavior and S.S.R.R.I's. Hundreds upon hundreds of thoroughly documented accounts are listed and backed by scientific studies. To refute the idea that mental illness not the meds were responsible is a study showing patients discharged from a psychiactric facility were only slightly more prone to violence as opposed to a 43% increased likelihood of violence in medicated individuals under 25yrs old. 2 compelling anecdotes....the only case of a murder conviction in an amish community and a young kid killing his beloved pet and a 12 yr old doing a armed robbery rampage stick out to me.
To date I have seen no evidence supporting your position. This includes the above post. If you could link to the study I will be able to check the methodology and determine the veracity of the conclusion.
A person can find almost anything on the internet, especially if they look for sources specifically biased in their favor. I was hoping for a somewhat more rigorous study. I found one called āSelective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Violent Crime: A Cohort Studyā:
āFrom Swedish national registers we extracted information on 856,493 individuals who were prescribed SSRIs, and subsequent violent crimes during 2006 through 2009.ā
They found the overall associated with SSRIās and violent crime conviction to be a 1% absolute risk. This seems to increase slightly for people aged 15 to 24 where the absolute risk is 3%, but begins to drop again until, aft 45 years the absolute risk is.3%. I would argue that this difference is due to the absolute risk of violent crime already associated with age. Which is likely why the paper calls for more studies.
With risks of violent crime associated with SSRIs being so low, the study concluded that āAlthough selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely prescribed, associations with violence are uncertain.ā
I'm glad that SSRI's aren't swimming around in my mind, otherwise I might not have the ability to feel anger towards a special kind of evil. A corporation that has a profit margin determined by pain, suffering and death. Vaccine, SSRI's and GMO peddlers share a business model that profits from unnecessary dangerous chemicals. Pulling off this fraud would require a compromised scientific community, a complicit government and a paid off media. SSRIstories.com is an extensive and honest compilation of violent crimes committed by people on anti-depressants. Granted, it is completely circumstantial, but the similar horrific and vicious murder of the children and parents ending in suicide is compelling.
All organizations dedicated to the betterment of mankind, especially in the areas of health emergencies, have profits/government budgets dependent on the detriment of mankind. The fact that human detriment creates a particular demand is no cause, in and of itself, to suspect economic sectors of creating said detriment. Detriments were there in the first place. The fact that they are now reduced on the aggregate contradicts your perspective, which has significant emotional appeal but little statistical substance.
