Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by candiodari | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

candiodari

So mass shooters have

1) experienced violence before, often early

2) sometimes experienced psychological problems, maybe as a result of 1)

3) sometimes had some reason to become angry (before the mass-shooting, such as getting fired)

4) sometimes explore/study other mass-shootings before committing one themselves

5) had the means to carry out this crime

Ok, with a bit of flexibility (other than point 5) that could describe every last one of my coworkers, for none of which there is any chance whatsoever they'll ever commit a mass-shooting. The idea is ludicrous.

Typical psychological social-science "insight".

View on HN

> that could describe every last one of my coworkers, for none of which there is any chance whatsoever they'll ever commit a mass-shooting.

Something I've noticed after mass shootings: newspapers will interview the friends and family of the shooters. And they'll frequently say things like (paraphrased) "I never could have imagined <shooter> doing this thing, they were always such a <nice person|quiet boy|sweetiepie|etc>."

You're saying something similar - just in advance. The truth is that while there are often red flags, at our core we don't consider each other to be capable of cold-blooded murder. Until it happens.

My point is that the described "warning signs" are not red flags, unless you think that 30% of the population is just waiting to commit mass murder next time they get cut off at a red light.

I’m not sure where 30% came from.

But - given the data we have available - the only conclusion left is yes. Yes, there are more people than we’d like to admit that are capable of these horrible acts. Given the frequency of gun violence here, it’s very difficult to draw another conclusion.

Authors don't make the claim you argue against.

At least a majority of mass shooters seem have been on antidepressants at some point, and quite a few were receiving some form of treatment.

Why this won’t be popularized more is likely political reasons, SSRIs improve patient outcomes in nearly all cases, why allow controversy over SSRIs when it may be a factor in such a small handful of cases per year?

Because of:

1) the effects (esp. the long-term effects: permanent depression and suicide)

2) the addiction and dependency they create

3) their association with mental health

4) their abuse within the mental health institutions

The ordering may not be very accurate.

Also please note that depression rarely, if ever, results in violent behavior (other than suicide).

Because you know better?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com