Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs, & Mass Shootings

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a mass murder occurs when at least four people are murdered, not including the shooter, over a relatively short period of time during a single incident. Over the last 30 years, the United States has seen a significant increase in mass shootings, which are becoming more frequent and more deadly.

Seemingly every time a mass shooting occurs, whether it’s at a synagogue in Pittsburgh or a nightclub in Orlando, the anti-gun media and politicians have a knee-jerk response – they blame the tragedy solely on the tool used, namely firearms, and focus all of their proposed “solutions” on more laws, ignoring that the murderer already broke numerous laws when they committed their atrocity.

Facts matter when addressing such an emotionally charged topic, and more gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem. Consider the following: The more gun control laws that are passed, the more mass murders have occurred.

Whether or not this is correlation or causation is debatable. What is not debatable is that this sick phenomenon of mass murderers targeting “gun-free zones,” where they know civilian carry isn’t available to law-abiding Americans, is happening. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, 97.8 percent of public shootings occur in “gun-free zones” – and “gun-free zones” are the epitome of the core philosophical tenant of gun control, that laws are all the defense one needs against violence.

Therefore, when the media and politicians focus their ire on guns, specifically what types of guns are used, such as AR-styles, carbines, semi-automatics, and “high capacity” handguns, in the wake of such tragedies the American public are being intentionally drawn into an emotionally charged debate about legal gun ownership (irrespective of whether the murderer’s gun was legally or illegally obtained). This debate leads them away from the elephant in the room and one of the real issues behind mass shootings – mental health and prescription drugs.

Ignoring what’s going on in the heads of these psychopaths not only allows mass shootings to continue, it leads to misguided gun control laws that violate the Second Amendment and negate the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens. As Jeff Snyder put it in The Washington Times:

“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.”

Violence, especially random violence, is a complex manifestation of various thoughts, feelings, and external factors. When a multivariate analysis of these factors is conducted, it becomes apparent that it’s not just mental health issues that are leading to such an increase. There may be an underlying substance which plays a role in a high percentage of these violent acts – the use of prescription antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

At first glance, it makes sense that those involved in mass shootings may be taking antidepressants, as they’re clearly suffering from some sort of mental health issue. But the issue with SSRIs runs much deeper than just a random mental health break. These drugs are a prescription for violent crimes, and that’s a story the anti-gun media and politicians don’t want to talk about.

Continue reading Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs, & Mass Shootings at Ammo.com.

Open This Content

Law Isn’t Violence?, Children’s Property, & Causes of Criminal Behavior (27m) – Editor’s Break 082

Editor’s Break 082 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: why the [mistaken] belief that “there should be a law” does not mean the threat of a gun to the face boggles his mind; children owning property and what rights a parent has if that property is stored in their house; the causes of criminal behavior in youth and adults alike; and more.

Listen to Editor’s Break 082 (27m, mp3, 64kbps)

Subscribe via RSS here, or in any podcast app by searching for “everything voluntary”.

Open This Content

The “Feeling People” Say It’s Time to Talk About Gun Laws

Yes, it is time to consider gun laws… and think of the innocent lives lost to them.

They all need to either be abolished or ignored. Permanently. And I really don’t care which. Either one would have the same positive effect.

Again, the recent massacre occurred, and was more deadly, in large part because of the existence of “gun free zones” and because of anti-gun policies that made it less likely that good people in the hotel could respond quickly to an evil loser.

As it happened, 72 minutes was considered “quick response” for people with guns to show up to stop the evil loser.

Every anti-gun “law” only affects the good people who don’t want to hurt innocent people; never the evil losers. It’s like giving them a hall pass to kill.

It’s time to end this evil loser-enabling “culture” once and for all. It’s time to make a truly polite society rise from the ashes.

Open This Content

If You Need Violence to Enforce Your Ideas…

…your ideas are worthless. Or so goes the meme I’ve seen recently on Facebook. Actually, I’ve seen it before, in the past, and I shared it, thinking it was clever. This time around, however, I had a different take.

Are all ideas that need violence to enforce them worthless? Perhaps. I’d say a strict pacifist would say so. But I’m not a strict pacifist.

It hit me rather quickly this go around. What are rights if not a claim that one may use violence to protect them? Is the idea of rights worthless? I suppose it depends on what you mean by rights. They can be rather broad, after all.

Rights are a mental and social construct. People claim rights because they desire via an appeal, primarily to reason, to protect themselves and their resources. We all do it. Even when we argue that rights don’t exist, we do so using resources that we’ve claimed and would defend with… you guessed it: violence. And that’s what rights are, made manifest in reality.

The purpose of this meme was not to question rights, properly conceived. It was to question the practice of advocating that criminals governments pass laws to force innocent people behaving non-aggressively to live within arbitrary guidelines.

People who say things like, “There should be a law!” don’t seem to have a clue what law is. Law is not a set of club rules we all agree to follow so that we can play together in the tree house. Law is the death penalty for setting up an unlicensed lemonade stand.

And that’s not hyperbole. What good is law if not enforced, and what good is enforcement if it won’t escalate, and what is the end point of escalation? Death by decree.

Many ideas that require the violence of law to enforce are indeed worthless. Worse than worthless. They’re murderous. Each of us must decide which type of murder we’re willing to support, the kind that occurs in defense of our lives and liberties, or the kind that occurs because our neighbor’s grass is too high, he collects rain water, and he prefers torrenting new movies to paying high theatre prices.

Open This Content