Secret Service Report on Mass Attacks out now

[Heyjoe]

Still seems odd to have the secret service providing these stats in such a public manner. To my recollection, I have never seen or heard of said organisation publishing research material of any kind.

Thank you!

 

[Cavedweller]

Why is the secret service compiling this data?

Since they state they are interested in assessing a person's potential for violence, I'm guessing that the Secret Service is using mass shooters as proxies for potential assassins. This would give them a larger study population, since those who actually attempt assassinations are relatively rare. They get hundreds if not thousands of threats against protected individuals every year, which must be investigated. How do you separate the crackpots from those who might actually carry out a threat? If I am correct, they would prioritize enforcement efforts against those individuals who fit the profile of someone who would actually carry out a violent act (personal grievance, history of criminal charges, mental health symptoms, and/or illicit substance use or abuse, at least one significant stressor within the last five years, indications of financial instability, concerning communications and/or elicited concern).

It would be interesting to know how many of the subjects had begun, discontinued, or had changes to prescriptions for psychotropic drugs. As usual, crickets.

 

[ferret427]

Since the group in this report is so small (28 people) vs the overall number of people prescribed medication for various issues (millions of people), it would be nice for you to provide specific names of the drugs you are referring to, so that someone could research who was on what when something happened.

A sample of 28 out of, say, off the top of my head, 10,000,000 people means that if all of them were on the same meds that the other factors listed in the report are far more likely to be contributing factors to their behavior than the meds they were on.

Keep in mind, that doctors do not generally prescribe medication to their patients that are likely to increase the odds that they might become psychotic; just the opposite (if nothing else, to avoid being held liable for their patients' actions let alone being dedicated to treating their maladies).

I am not saying your ideas are unfounded, I am suggesting that their significance to the problem at hand is more akin to the notion that vaccines cause widespread autism vs the observed results of vaccination and their benefits to our population as a whole.

 

[Cavedweller]

Since the group in this report is so small (28 people) vs the overall number of people prescribed medication for various issues (millions of people), it would be nice for you to provide specific names of the drugs you are referring to, so that someone could research who was on what when something happened.

A sample of 28 out of, say, off the top of my head, 10,000,000 people means that if all of them were on the same meds that the other factors listed in the report are far more likely to be contributing factors to their behavior than the meds they were on.

Keep in mind, that doctors do not generally prescribe medication to their patients that are likely to increase the odds that they might become psychotic; just the opposite (if nothing else, to avoid being held liable for their patients' actions let alone being dedicated to treating their maladies).

I am not saying your ideas are unfounded, I am suggesting that their significance to the problem at hand is more akin to the notion that vaccines cause widespread autism vs the observed results of vaccination and their benefits to our population as a whole.

I am not saying any specific drug is involved, nor am I saying it is necessarily a contributing factor. I just think it is worth looking at. Obviously, not everyone taking them would be affected this way, just as not everyone experiences other side effects. But could certain people be affected? Who knows till it's studied?

 

[CountryGent]

I just read through it and it confirms my perception that the overwhelming majority of these nutbags had shown signs of an impending act and/or "hit the system" (law enforcement interaction, incarceration, mental health system, known substance abuse issues, etc.) prior to it going down. "Wonderful" mentality of government incompetence = law-abiding citizens lose their rights.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I am not saying any specific drug is involved, nor am I saying it is necessarily a contributing factor. I just think it is worth looking at. Obviously, not everyone taking them would be affected this way, just as not everyone experiences other side effects. But could certain people be affected? Who knows till it's studied?

Ask, and ye shall receive

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...4......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.lsrahdxugak

 

[Lazyfaire]

I just see drugs as somewhat a non-starter in this. Not saying that some haven't taken the drugs. But I think most were just downright angry for one reason or another. Wife beater who gets papered, someone gets fired or replaced by someone younger, guy gets dumped/cheated on by his girlfriend. High stress stressors. Drunks and druggies kill each other every day, but mass killers run differently. My 2 cents

 

[Dungannon]

Besides protecting dignitaries [current and former Presidents, Vice-Presidents, presidential candidates, visiting heads of state, the White House complex, Treasury Building, etc] the Secret Service investigates crimes that affect our financial infrastructure [e.g., money laundering, counterfeiting] and foreign efforts to undermine our financial systems.

Since they get thousands of crank threats every year, I'm sure they'd like to develop some logical decision tree for assessing the [relative] likelihood that Dingbat #9 is more likely to act on his impulses than Thimble Brains #4. Are they going to share everything they look at, and what conclusions they draw? Well, of course not. Might they toss the public a bone by letting a small study go public? Sure, why not.

They have access to all the crime data in the United States, and communication with security services around the world, and hopefully that information never gets shared beyond those with the need to know it to do their job.

I got pulled into the security apparatus when President Clinton was in Portland for the Forest Conference. [They wanted managers with security clearances to be the suits at all doors, so the agents to keep their eyes on people without having to answer questions like 'where is the restroom' and 'is there an elevator available for this lady?'] Had a chance to interact with all four groups of SS: the POTUS detail, the uniforms, the undercover, and the regional financial investigators that were pulled in to supplement the traveling team. The undercover bunch was the epitome of 'the gray man.'

 

[saxon]

Just to be persnickety: True facts?

As opposed to... false facts?

Something is either true or a fact.

Now, say something unkind about having this pointed out...grammar nazi or something along those lines. I won't be disappointed or in the least miffed if you do.

And yes, at times I too employ poor grammar, but this 'true facts' error is a pet peeve...

it is the relationship between the facts that give them their meaning or truth. just saying

 

[bbbass]

#triggered

Just having fun....

 

[No_Regerts]

Just having fun....

#Metoo

 

[bbbass]

Since they state they are interested in assessing a person's potential for violence, I'm guessing that the Secret Service is using mass shooters as proxies for potential assassins. This would give them a larger study population, since those who actually attempt assassinations are relatively rare. They get hundreds if not thousands of threats against protected individuals every year, which must be investigated. How do you separate the crackpots from those who might actually carry out a threat? If I am correct, they would prioritize enforcement efforts against those individuals who fit the profile of someone who would actually carry out a violent act (personal grievance, history of criminal charges, mental health symptoms, and/or illicit substance use or abuse, at least one significant stressor within the last five years, indications of financial instability, concerning communications and/or elicited concern).

It would be interesting to know how many of the subjects had begun, discontinued, or had changes to prescriptions for psychotropic drugs. As usual, crickets.

I am not saying any specific drug is involved, nor am I saying it is necessarily a contributing factor. I just think it is worth looking at. Obviously, not everyone taking them would be affected this way, just as not everyone experiences other side effects. But could certain people be affected? Who knows till it's studied?

Since I had a bunch of fun letting my fingers run amok at your expense, I owe you 20 likes!

Regarding psych drugs and mass shootings... I think the cause and effect aspect is overdone. IE these people are either crazy and unstable to begin with, or they have big time behavior problems. Some of those drugs, such as lithium, are pretty heavy and people go off them and go misbehave... but they were crazy and or having behavior problems in the first place. Gotta expect trouble with those people and not allow them access to firearms!!

The only psych drug I can speak to personally is an SSRI.... I have written that I can personally verify that going off cold turkey makes anger more intense. IMO, the biggest problem we have is that MDs are prescribing SSRIs... that should only be done by psychiatrists and the patient kept under care. One of the things that happens even with psychiatrists is that the SSRIs are prescribed and then the patient does not receive continued care.

Imagine what that is like for people on heavier drugs. Truth though is that 24/7 monitoring is not possible outside of a hospital setting and we don't do that anymore, rarely anyway.

 

[Jonnyuma]

It doesn't matter who's doing all the murder, or what their mental state was, or how many psychotropic drugs they were on or for how long. If there were no guns there would be no shootings.

A "true fact" based on a faulty premise. Also, a favored "argument" for the domestic disarmament enthusiasts. The 0 guns equals 0 shootings is statistically true and irrefutable by the numbers. It's also a fantasy that has no basis in reality and has to be countered with logic and reason... it's the one place where the numbers aren't on our side.

 

[Cavedweller]

Regarding psych drugs and mass shootings... I think the cause and effect aspect is overdone. IE these people are either crazy and unstable to begin with, or they have big time behavior problems. Some of those drugs, such as lithium, are pretty heavy and people go off them and go misbehave... but they were crazy and or having behavior problems in the first place. Gotta expect trouble with those people and not allow them access to firearms!!

The only psych drug I can speak to personally is an SSRI.... I have written that I can personally verify that going off cold turkey makes anger more intense. IMO, the biggest problem we have is that MDs are prescribing SSRIs... that should only be done by psychiatrists and the patient kept under care. One of the things that happens even with psychiatrists is that the SSRIs are prescribed and then the patient does not receive continued care.

Imagine what that is like for people on heavier drugs. Truth though is that 24/7 monitoring is not possible outside of a hospital setting and we don't do that anymore, rarely anyway.

You hit the nail right on the head! My concerns exactly.

 

[bbbass]

It doesn't matter who's doing all the murder, or what their mental state was, or how many psychotropic drugs they were on or for how long. If there were no guns there would be no shootings.

A "true fact" based on a faulty premise. Also, a favored "argument" for the domestic disarmament enthusiasts. The 0 guns equals 0 shootings is statistically true and irrefutable by the numbers. It's also a fantasy that has no basis in reality and has to be countered with logic and reason... it's the one place where the numbers aren't on our side.

A 2A defender argues that it is not possible to remove all guns. The defender having bought into the premise, the anti then says that if 0 guns = 0 shootings, then less guns = less shootings. (See John Lott.) It's a logic bomb that I won't buy into... don't talk to them. 0 talking = 0 arguments and neither of us is going to change our minds anyway.

 

[RicInOR]

Hat trick?

Hockey reference = 3

 

[bbbass]

Hockey reference = 3

Ah, good to know.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Cavedweller]

A 2A defender argues that it is not possible to remove all guns. The defender having bought into the premise, the anti then says that if 0 guns = 0 shootings, then less guns = less shootings. (See John Lott.) It's a logic bomb that I won't buy into... don't talk to them. 0 talking = 0 arguments and neither of us is going to change our minds anyway.

The real question is, does fewer guns = fewer murders, or does zero guns = zero murders. I seriously doubt it. Look at China, they have school stabbings.

As I have mentioned before, a centuries-old expression we have adopted from the Malay language is "to run amok." In SE Asia, this literally means to grab a machete and go on a killing spree. Mass murder is not a phenomenon restricted to our time, our country, or gun owning cultures.

 

[Flopsweat]

There are no false facts. A fact is, by definition, "a thing that is known or proved to be true." Therefore, a fact cannot be false. What the media puts forth may be called false information, among other things, but not "false facts."

You've clearly never seen the movie True Lies.