"Upfront: The argument is not antidepressants cause violence but there seems to be an interesting connection where a significant amount of actors in national incidents were using antidepressants.

I think there is a chicken/egg question I keep circling around (and forgive me if I am insensitive to mental health issue with my wording) - were the incidents related to mental health or the treatment of the mental health?

I'm still digging through this and the sites I'm seeing this on have not yet been checked for validity - but, this is a side of the argument I've really given much thought until now. "

This is you, right?

You said

"but there seems to be an interesting connection where a significant amount of actors in national incidents were using antidepressants."

I'm saying that I would guess use of these meds is very common, so you can't really make an argument or an assumption because most mass shooters are on these meds- because the use of these meds isn't that unique.

I would guess the majority of the population is on something. So odds are, if you take 20 mass shooters...most of them will be on something. Because my guess it that if you take 20 random people, most of them are on something.




I didn't respond in great detail because, frankly, I think this is another BS "argument" to distract people from, or downplay, the main issue.

And that is toxic white males and their easy access to guns.


So, go ahead go down the rabbit hole...I'm not sure what the point is.

This reminds me of the arguments on pool fatalities, driving and texting, did the shooters own violent movies, listen to rap music, etc.

All to keep us from talking about the actual issue.


Posting this is only mildly better than posting statistics on car fatalities and sh!t though, if you ask me.