The selective, sensationalist bias of news media explains a lot of that. To investigate, one would need reliable statistics, as well as detailed history of each perpetrator. Another complication is that, despite our perceptions to the contrary, such mass killings are very rare events, in terms of the entire population, or even the entire…
The selective, sensationalist bias of news media explains a lot of that. To investigate, one would need reliable statistics, as well as detailed history of each perpetrator. Another complication is that, despite our perceptions to the contrary, such mass killings are very rare events, in terms of the entire population, or even the entire gun-owning population, or indeed even the entire SSRI-taking, gun-own population.
It's very risky to attempt to draw generalizations from very rare events. For example, one can accurately state that driving drunk dramatically increases the risk of injury or death to oneself or others. Yet it's a statistical fact that the vast majority of people who drove drunk yesterday got from Point A to B without incident. That's not an argument saying it's OK to drive when intixicoted, it's to note the difference between relative and absolute risk.
Ideally one should keep those factors in mind when considering, for example, reported cases of death or heart failure from Suddenly. I am by no means denying that something unusual is going on, rather to state that we shouldn't just jump to conclusions.
As our Midwestern doctor points out, there have been many violent acts by people on antidepressants also, so it's not a stretch to assume that drugs can alter behavior in a negative way. It would be interesting to say the least if we could find out what drugs or vaccines were used by these violent people. If any at all. I think you're correct also that the majority of impaired drivers do manage to arrive without any deadly accident, those statistics no one will ever know about.
The selective, sensationalist bias of news media explains a lot of that. To investigate, one would need reliable statistics, as well as detailed history of each perpetrator. Another complication is that, despite our perceptions to the contrary, such mass killings are very rare events, in terms of the entire population, or even the entire gun-owning population, or indeed even the entire SSRI-taking, gun-own population.
It's very risky to attempt to draw generalizations from very rare events. For example, one can accurately state that driving drunk dramatically increases the risk of injury or death to oneself or others. Yet it's a statistical fact that the vast majority of people who drove drunk yesterday got from Point A to B without incident. That's not an argument saying it's OK to drive when intixicoted, it's to note the difference between relative and absolute risk.
Ideally one should keep those factors in mind when considering, for example, reported cases of death or heart failure from Suddenly. I am by no means denying that something unusual is going on, rather to state that we shouldn't just jump to conclusions.
As our Midwestern doctor points out, there have been many violent acts by people on antidepressants also, so it's not a stretch to assume that drugs can alter behavior in a negative way. It would be interesting to say the least if we could find out what drugs or vaccines were used by these violent people. If any at all. I think you're correct also that the majority of impaired drivers do manage to arrive without any deadly accident, those statistics no one will ever know about.