Is Social Media the Cause Active Shooters

[bbbass]

How old are the school shooters?

Doesn't change my mind.

Just because THEY say so, doesn't make it fact.

 

[wjv]

I'm always amazed by the high number of wounded survivors vs those killed in these shootings. Especially it seems, when the shooter is a teen. I'm guessing (seriously: just guessing - could be wrong) that the high number of survivors is due to:

- inexperience as a shooter - Not really familiar with shooting a firearm, or hunting so they really don't know how to use a firearm to inflect max damage.

- believes the media hype that guns like a AR15 is a powerful rifle - One shot can kill a elephant. . etc. Hence they shoot someone once and the person goes down, and they just move on to the next victim thinking that the person is dead. They probably also learned a lot of what they know about guns from video games.

Now I'm just speaking in generalities. I'm sure that someone can come up with examples that had different results, but even that outdoor concert shooting in Vegas has less than a 13% fatality rate.

Just random thoughts here. Feel free to disagree. I won't be offended if you do.

 

[wjv]

I tend to agree that the mass media has inflamed the situation. Because that's their business, grabbing the latest hot headline and getting it onto TV as soon and as big as possible. Then keeping it there ad nauseum. Like the Minneapolis police trial, day after endless day on CNN, practically no other coverage. And let's not forget everyone has a camera these days, nothing goes unnoticed nor unreported, then often blown out of proportion.

It also does not help when the media and the anti-gun groups use a definition of "mass shooting" that is ridiculously stupid just so they can claim that there are a huge number of mass shooting in the USA every year.

Ask the average person what the term "mass shooting" means and I'm guessing that a huge majority will tell you it's when some jackazz walks into a school, restaurant, church or mall and starts shooting everyone in sight. NOT when Bubba shoots his baby momma and her two kids because they were arguing over how to split the meth they just bought.

 

[Xaevian]

NOT when Bubba shoots his baby momma and her two kids because they were arguing over how to split the meth they just bought.

Or about the dentist bill...

 

[Hueco]

Haven't you seen the SSRI commercials that say "if you experience suicidal thoughts, stop taking blank and call your Dr"?

Seems like common sense that if there are millions of people taking these things, it's inevitable that some are experiencing this side effect and perhaps a small fraction of those people don't take the advice to stop taking it. And maybe a small fraction of those people decide to take others with them.

MIght be worth looking in to.

If I told you that all suicidal people gravitate toward red shoes...would you then blame red shoes for their suicide?

No. Of course not.

Those in need of some serious help are the subset of individuals taking SSRI's. A teen who is committing a murder/suicide by way of a mass shooting, I'd say, is in need of some serious help. Kinda maybe sorta makes sense that that person may be on an SSRI (or another mood altering drug for that matter).

You haven't established anything about the drug's relationship to mass shootings or suicide. In fact, there is study data showing evidence that SSRI use in a population *lowers* the number of suicides from that expected...thus, their use - get this - saved lives.

But, yea, sure, let's just demonize objects for the feels. What did you want to blame again? The gun? Oh, wait, no, that wasn't you. The drug? Ah, sure, yep...let's blame the drug.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

no i dont think social media is the cause. i dont know what i would say is THE cause but im sure there are many reasons why individuals choose to do it. mental illness, attention issues(either lack there of or being the next news headline for "fame"), maybe a loss of reality or loss of value regarding human life from FPS video games?

i really dont know

 

[slimmer13]

If I told you that all suicidal people gravitate toward red shoes...would you then blame red shoes for their suicide?

No. Of course not.

Those in need of some serious help are the subset of individuals taking SSRI's. A teen who is committing a murder/suicide by way of a mass shooting, I'd say, is in need of some serious help. Kinda maybe sorta makes sense that that person may be on an SSRI (or another mood altering drug for that matter).

You haven't established anything about the drug's relationship to mass shootings or suicide. In fact, there is study data showing evidence that SSRI use in a population *lowers* the number of suicides from that expected...thus, their use - get this - saved lives.

But, yea, sure, let's just demonize objects for the feels. What did you want to blame again? The gun? Oh, wait, no, that wasn't you. The drug? Ah, sure, yep...let's blame the drug.

I'm not talking about the effects as a whole. SSRIs are positive for the vast majority of those that take them. I'm talking about a well known and documented side effect in a tiny percentage of people where it exacerbates their negative feelings. That's not really debatable.

And when we are talking about millions and millions of people taking these, the number of people that might suffer this side effect could be significant.

Seems like a reasonable thing to look in to.

 

[Ridge Walker]

IMO social media plays a part. These groups organize via social media, ie what time/where/etc. And they do enjoy boasting of their misdeeds and gripes on Twatter.

Soooo, if that is the case we should outlaw social media, no?

 

[baker3gun]

...You can provide links all day long, I won't be convinced.

Your apparent perspective is pro-psychotropic therapy.

Your professed stance is anti-evidence.

pubmed is free dude. You can learn if you want.

The obvious tendency among unmanaged patients is to abandon therapy.
The obvious method for managing mental illness in America is no management.

The unknowns regarding psychotropic therapy are numerous, especially long-term.

Why would anyone think that brain-function-altering drug therapy has no side effects, or can be halted without effect, or doesn't create reliance, or doesn't alter function?

There is such a thing as normal human brain function.
What do you call a human who has abnormal brain function?
What do you call a human who has chemically-altered brain function?
More importantly, what do you do with these people? Sit back and hope that the 1 in 100,000 doesn't shoot your family in a theatre or church?

A fraction of the population will always be afflicted by mental illness.
A society either manages that population, or tolerates its impact.

The fraction of a population that is afflicted by mental illness increases when the population develops a taste for mind-altering recreational chemicals.
Maybe no one wants to hear that, but that doesn't make it untrue.

If you can't speak from a position of evidence-based knowledge, from what position do you speak?
Irrational personal opinion?
I thought that was the bastion of the left.

Check yourself man. Neither logic nor evidence support your assertions.

 

[Hueco]

The fraction of a population that is afflicted by mental illness increases when the population develops a taste for mind-altering recreational chemicals.

I'm curious if you are thinking of any studies for this assertion. I'm aware of marijuana's ability to trigger psychosis in a susceptible portion of the population...but I'm wondering if you have more evidence or are thinking of some other method or interaction between substance and illness?

 

[baker3gun]

Hello Hueco, I use NCBI.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

Every results page has a dropdown menu and a search bar at the top.
One option in the dropdown menu is pubmed. I've never ventured much past that portal. It's huge. Massive.

My suggestion to anyone is this:
Don't search for confirmation. Search for information.
Don't read 3 abstracts.
Read 100 papers.

Starting from google, you can search something simple like "cocaine and mental health".
The 4th result is an ncbi link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181074/

"methamphetamine and mental illness" - the 8th and 9th results are ncbi:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5027896/

"marijuana and mental illness" - the 6th result is ncbi:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6913867/

etc

These entry points are entry points.
They open the door to the cumulative knowledge of scientists worldwide, but you have to walk through that door to know the truth.

I don't have anything against bbass or any other NWF member.

My beef is with American society and our propensity to make self-governance decisions on the basis of emotion and opinion rather than reason and fact.

Knowledge and truth is freely available.

 

[bbbass]

Soooo, if that is the case we should outlaw social media, no?

Is that what you would do???

 

[bbbass]

Your apparent perspective is pro-psychotropic therapy.

That is quite an illogical assumption seemingly based on a biased perception of what I wrote.

Your professed stance is anti-evidence.

I think you misunderstand out of ignorance of the history that slimmer and I have discussing this topic. We go back years on this. Hey, he took his best shot and for me it was a FAIL, and I pointed out my reasoning for thinking so. When I wrote that no links he could provide would convince me, it was because of the history of failing to PROVE me wrong. Providing reports that parrot claims of officials or supposedly important knowledgeable sources doesn't do it, sorry. That's not anti-evidence that's anti-BS and saying "where's the ACTUAL evidence"?

pubmed is free dude

Don't call me dude. Hard to have a real conversation when one party is being a jerk.

What do you call a human who has abnormal brain function?

baker3gundude (payback is a beotch)

What do you call a human who has chemically-altered brain function?

Everybody on the planet.

Have you ever smoked, do you ever have an adult beverage, how do you feel after a great Thanksgiving dinner???

Don't read 3 abstracts.
Read 100 papers.

This I can agree on.

If you can't speak from a position of evidence-based knowledge, from what position do you speak?
Irrational personal opinion?
I thought that was the bastion of the left.

What part of what I originally wrote do you think is not from evidence-based knowledge? And further, if I gave an OPINION, irrational in your opinion or not, I haven't seen anybody PROVE me wrong.

And, if you are going to use dick battle techniques, printed in bold, we won't be having a conversation/discussion. Do you really think that is going to get anybody to consider your point of view or any "evidence" that you might provide? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Thanx for jumping in, but your post is a non-starter, a conversation killer.

Check yourself man. Neither logic nor evidence support your assertions.

You check yourself. If we are going to start telling others what to do, I have a suggestion for YOU that I can't print here because of rules.

Your post doesn't even reflect my one assertion. Better go back and read my OP on the subject. What was my assertion? After your rant, do you even know???

I have nothing against you personally, but I don't like the superior attitude that your post displays. Nor the assumptions you make, nor the libtard battle tactics that are used to WIN vs trying to change minds.

 

[Ridge Walker]

Is that what you would do???

Nooooo it's not. It was a sideline smarta$$ crack. I was making a comparison. Blaming social media for anything makes as much sense as blaming guns for the high murder rate in Chicago.

 

[bbbass]

Nooooo it's not. It was a sideline smarta$$ crack. I was making a comparison. Blaming social media for anything makes as much sense as blaming guns for the high murder rate in Chicago.

Ok, got it. And agree.

What I want to see happen to social media, is them starting to treat every post/poster the same. Their "rules" and "community standards" are applied unevenly. It's glaringly apparent that it depends on the politics. I'd like to see FB get rid of the "Fact Chuckers" they hired from Nationalist China, USA Toady, and Commie News Network. I want to read that Jack Dempsey developed 4th stage lung cancer. I'd like them to stop banning conservative posts/posters of the opposite ideology merely for saying things they don't like while they use their "community standards" as an excuse. I'd like their section 230 status rescinded. I'd also like to see them investigated for anti-trust activities. Not that I am in love with that gov weapon, but if anybody deserves it, social media does. IMO. Just sayin'...