Big Pharma and mass shootings

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Big Pharma and mass shootings

    Where are the questions?  Where is the outrage?  Where is the media?  I realize the article discusses guns not killing people etc., but that really isn't what I am looking at with this article as it also discusses the issue of drugs and how they might play an equal or greater role in recent mass shootings.  Why is it so much harder to find reporting on the mental illness/drug connection to these shootings (even when all of them seem to be reported as mentally ill)?  Is this something that should be looked into by the politicians and/or media? 

    (NaturalNews) In mass shootings involving guns and mind-altering medications, politicians immediately seek to blame guns but never the medication. Nearly every mass shooting that has taken place in America over the last two decades has a link to psychiatric medication, and it appears today's tragic event is headed in the same direction.

    According to ABC News, Adam Lanza, the alleged shooter, has been labeled as having "mental illness" and a "personality disorder." These are precisely the words typically heard in a person who is being "treated" with mind-altering psychiatric drugs.

    One of the most common side effects of psychiatric drugs is violent outbursts and thoughts of suicide.

    Note: The shooter was originally mid-identified as Ryan Lanza but has now been corrected to Adam Lanza.

    The Columbine High School shooters were, of course, on psychiatric drugs at the time they shot their classmates in 1999. Suicidal tendencies and violent, destructive thoughts are some of the admitted behavioral side effects of mind-altering prescription medications.

    No gun can, by itself, shoot anyone. It must be triggered by a person who makes a decision to use it. And while people like NY Mayor Bloomberg are predictably trying to exploit the deaths of these children to call for guns to be stripped from all law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong whatsoever, nobody calls formedication control.

    Why is that? After all, medication alters the mind that controls the finger that pulls the trigger. The saying that "guns kill people" is physically impossible. People kill other people, and as we all learned from watching the O.J. Simpson trial, you don't need a gun to commit murder.

    We should be outlawing psychiatric medications, not an inanimate piece of metal

    If there is to be any legitimate debate on so-called "gun control" in the aftermath of this shooting, the only idea that makes any sense at all would be to restrict gun purchases by people currently taking psychiatric medications. But even that restriction would of course be abused by the government to take guns away from perfectly healthy, law-abiding citizens who innocently seek treatment for mild depression and who honestly have no clue that psychiatric drugs can cause violent behavior.

    A far better solution here would be to outlaw psychiatric drugs that cause the violent behavior in the first place. After all, if you only outlaw guns but fail to eliminate the drugs that cause the violence, people dosed up on mind-altering meds will simply find alternate weapons to commit the same acts of violence. You don't think a crazy guy with a sword can hack up 20 or 30 kids in a school? A sword, a knife or even a pick axe can be just as deadly as a firearm.

    A guy with a chain saw can do all kinds of damage if he's out of his mind. Should we ban chain saws?

    I have thought for quite some time that people on medication are dangerous operating automobiles on public roads. If driving drunk is illegal, why isn't "driving on meds" illegal? Why are wildly medicated people allowed to operate heavy machinery?

    A high-ranking police officer in Tucson, Arizona once told me, on the record, that one-third of all automobile accidents in the city of Tucson were related to medicated drivers. That's an astonishing number, and if true, it would seem to indicate that medications are more dangerous than guns when it comes to the total daily body count.

    Do the math: medications are far more deadly than guns

    Medications kill roughly 100,000 Americans each year according to study statistics. The actual number is either 98,000 or 106,000 depending on which study you believe.

    For guns to be as deadly as medications, you'd have to see a Newton-style massacre happening ten times a day, every day of the year. Only then would "gun violence" even match up to the number of deaths caused by doctor-prescribed, FDA-approved medications.

    Why does America grieve for the children killed in Newton, but not for the medical victims killed by Big Pharma? Are the lives of people on medication not valuable compared to the lives of children in elementary school? Will Obama shed a tear for the victims of Big Pharma, or are his tears reserved only for politically expedient events that push his agenda of unconstitutional gun restrictions?

    If our goal us to stop the violence in America, we are completely dishonest if we do not consider the mental causes of violent behavior. And that starts with mind-altering psychiatric drugs which I believe have unleashed a drug-induced epidemic of violence across our nation.

    Obama, Bloomberg and others will point to guns and try to convince you that inanimate metal objects are the cause of this violence. But they lie by omission. No guns shoots itself. The trigger must be pulled by someone, and the mental state of that person is the primary cause of the resulting action. To ignore this fundamental chain of facts is brutally dishonest.

    Learn more:
  2. This post has been removed.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Firewind. Show Firewind's posts

    Re: Big Pharma and mass shootings

    Looks like a partial case for one group of measures that should be undertaken as part of plans to reduce or stop the massacres.

    To our Florida rep who delivered the article:  Will they stop the shootings?  What do you yourself think should be done?  Do you back everything and only what's in this article?

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Big Pharma and mass shootings

    One thing I've come to understand, as it makes sense, is that more guns, not less guns, less restrictions, not more restrictions makes sense.  Read this:,_Less_Crime

    I've given the wiki link as it covers pro's and cons. 

    It is not to say that there should not be restrictions, but the restrictions needs to be well thought out, and building on the medication argument, take into account the overly medicated state of young men in our society.

    Look, it is a collision or rights:  the rights of the mentally impaired against he rights of those who are not mentally impaired.  This collision is not solved in a meaningful way by disarming the legal, law abiding citizen.  Why do we focus on the law-abiding citizen?  Show me the mass shooting done by a sane person.  As crazy as this makes the left, the solution might be more armed people to act as a deterrent to the mentally impaired that government has mis identified or managed.

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: Big Pharma and mass shootings

    In response to Firewind's comment:

    Looks like a partial case for one group of measures that should be undertaken as part of plans to reduce or stop the massacres.

    To our Florida rep who delivered the article:  Will they stop the shootings?  What do you yourself think should be done?  Do you back everything and only what's in this article?


    Sure, you can absolutely have multi-layered problems.  Access to guns by people with mental illness and how drugs supposedly treating people dealing with mental illness is a problem.  It just bugs me that we don't get any reporting on the numerous layers, especially given that the layer being ignored is a bigger problem than the existence of guns in society.  Big Pharma making that $$$ and being connected to companies who own our media may have something to do with it... It's a shame.