[User23]

The overwhelming majority of mass shooters are urban career criminals either actively engaging in some kind of crime or getting in stupid disputes over perceived disrespect. These stories pretty much only show up in local if-it-bleeds-it-leads coverage. The troubled white boy shooting up his school gets a lot of national press, because it fits a narrative the political elite wants to push, but those media darling cases are an absolutely tiny minority of mass shooting events.

[gillytech]

The latter, the school boys, are nearly to a one on some kind of psychiatric drug.

[manuelabeledo]

Even if that was true, which is not, what kind of scientology BS is this? There is absolutely no proof that psychiatric meds push teens to commit mass shootings.

[User23]

What evidentiary standard would that “proof” have to meet to satisfy you? Is there one? If not then you’re just expressing a political belief and not a scientific one.

[manuelabeledo]

> What evidentiary standard would that “proof” have to meet to satisfy you?

So, asking for proof of a so far unsubstantiated statement, is a "political belief" now?

What did I miss?

[User23]

> What did I miss?

Evidentiary standards, it appears. You literally just admitted to not having any.

[manuelabeledo]

Even if that was true, don’t you think it would be ironic if I just rather took the word of a random internet user at face value?

Regardless, some evidence to back up the claim should be easy to provide. There are plenty of legitimate medical journals with publicly available content online, and at least one should be carrying a study on psychiatric drugs contributing to violent and erratic behavior. There should be also some sociological papers out there outlining the relationship between psychiatric treatment and homicidal tendencies.

Yet nothing of these sorts has been provided, and here I am, being told that I don’t have “evidentiary standards” because I have asked for proof. The burden of which is on those who made the claim, by the way.