If people were drowning in pools and most of them were on SSRIs, would we be banning pools or looking at SSRIs? You also have to look at the type of active shooter. I've said for years that a lot of these active shooters are just suicides that decided to take a few people with them first. For awhile, it was uncommon to catch the shooters alive, they usually killed themselves- either when pressured or when they were 'done'. Suicide with SSRIs, especially in the populations that committed the AS, are a well known problem.
Now this kind of AS doesn't explain San Bernadino, NZ or El Paso. You have old school Jihadis and new school shit-posting 'shooters-without-a-clue' in the last two.
Correlation isn't causation, especially when we hand out SSRIs candy. But we know that SSRIs increase the risk of suicides. It isn't a huge leap to see a handful of these to decide to take out a few people first. To me, the interesting thing is the seeming reduction in the correlation- but then again, this might explain the increase in shootings. We have a base load of shootings from true mental health issues, and now we have the shit-posters like El-Paso. We've crowded out the Jihadis to the point where their use of mass shootings would get lost in the noise.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Bookmarks