Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Waay back when...
When Prozac first hit the market, the medical literature about it included the information that in a small percentage of cases, it did not work as usual, and that individuals could (rarely) become paranoid, and even violent as a result of being on the drug.
I have no idea what the literature says today, but I doubt that part is emphasised, if it is even still there.
The basic problem is that here, we are dealing with mind altering drugs. Legally prescribed, but still mind altering drugs. AND that even though we are all basically the same physically, there are enough differences that all drugs do not work as planned on all people. 10,000 people may take drug A and be cured. #10001 may have an allergic reaction and die. #270343 may become psychotic and violent.
The overwhelming majority of the mass shootings during the late 1980s and 1990s had mind altering drugs, prescription and/or street involved. Patrick Purdy (Stockton - the incident that started the whole assault rifle issue) was on prescription meds (Prozac, I believe) and street dope. Westbecker (Louisville - a copycat crime) was on Prozac from one doctor, and Lithium from another doc across town, who knew nothing about the first Doc. The list goes on, a little research will support this conclusion.
The real problem comes from what the unmedicated society will decide is the proper method of treating the issue. Prozac and other "anti-depressants" have become the most prescribed meds in the country. Treating depressed people with therapy is costly, and time consuming. And results are being questioned, since depression is now being considered as a medical condition due to chemical imbalance. It is much easier, and cost effective for the medical profession to simply prescribe a "happy pill" and hope for the best. Most of the time, it works, however sometimes, it goes wrong, and sometimes, it goes very badly wrong.
What the anti-gunners will most likely push, once they decide that the issue can be twisted to their advantage, is that anyone on these meds must surrender/be denied guns (no matter if there is nothing tangible to support it - "its simply too great a risk"). It is very unlikely that they will push for increased scrutiny about what gets prescribed, and to whom, and closer monitoring of individuals on medication.
I know one veteran, who is being treated (for the now popular catch-all condition) PTSD. He was forced, by the VA to give up (sell) his guns, knives, swords (if he had any), or they would deny his treatment.
Right now, there are a great number of children being treated with Ritalin, for "behavioral problems", who's parents are unaware that when 8year old Johnny turns 18 and wants a military career, he will be denied, because of his drug use. And by then, he may be denied his 2nd amendment rights as well, if certain people get their way.
There are proposed laws right now, that would require gun owners (and those wishing to become gun owners) to have a psychological evaluation, in the name of public safety.
Now, while I recognise that there are sincere and dedicated professionals in the psychological community, I also know that there are people with agendas there as well. Remember that a few decades ago, the "standard" medical/psychological references listed homosexuality as a mental disorder! Today, they do not. Psychology is not a "hard" science the way Physics is. It is subject to change and evolution, changing societal standards, and being changed by them.
Also remember that one of the tactics of the Soviet Union was to declare that dissadents were "mentally ill", and shipped them off to camps for "treatment".
Current law only denies 2nd Amendment rights after a court adjudicates you as incompetent. I, for one, would not care to have that decision given to anyone else, let alone a hoplophobic mental health "professional" to make on their own.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.