BREAKING NEWS: Up to 5 shot in possible sniper attack at Omaha mall, WOWT TV rep

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So, you don't believe in free will?  Demography isn't destiny.  A person can decide his/her own actions no matter what situation that person's in.  For example, this kid could've killed himself without shooting up the mall.

He could've slipped on a banana peel on his way to the shootout.  So?

Poors are abused!!!!  He was an alcoholic drug addict!  It's his own fault.

Alcoholism and drug addiction are merely symptoms of a larger ailment, Inks.  The monkey on this man's back was the ruling class, not mary-jane.

The monkey on his back didn't pull the trigger, he did.  And I fail to see how society forced him into murdering 8 people.

[Gabu]

Whenever opebo opens his mouth, conversation immediately focuses on him and what he has to say... which is exactly what he wants.

Why people still give him attention after all this time is beyond me.  He doesn't want to debate, he wants attention, and he's willing to say whatever outrageous thing he needs to in order to get it.

[Willy Woz]

So, you don't believe in free will?  Demography isn't destiny.  A person can decide his/her own actions no matter what situation that person's in.  For example, this kid could've killed himself without shooting up the mall.

He could've slipped on a banana peel on his way to the shootout.  So?

Poors are abused!!!!  He was an alcoholic drug addict!  It's his own fault.

Alcoholism and drug addiction are merely symptoms of a larger ailment, Inks.  The monkey on this man's back was the ruling class, not mary-jane.

The monkey on his back didn't pull the trigger, he did.  And I fail to see how society forced him into murdering 8 people.

He was an absolute lunatic, OK. He was no more sane than Jack the Ripper.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Of course there is a matter of Free will here. Hawkins is responsible is actions I didn't say otherwise...

But why in that case do more people America like Hawkins direct their free will towards violence than in European countries, where more often they don't?

[Ebowed]

It's interesting that Inks feels the Saudis have an effective method of preventing evil, due to the severity of their justice system.

Quite indicative of an unhealthy frame of mind (where morality and legality are synonymous terms).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's interesting that Inks feels the Saudis have an effective method of preventing evil, due to the severity of their justice system.

Quite indicative of an unhealthy frame of mind (where morality and legality are synonymous terms).

Did I say that I support their penalty system?

[dead0man]

Of course there is a matter of Free will here. Hawkins is responsible is actions I didn't say otherwise...

But why in that case do more people America like Hawkins direct their free will towards violence than in European countries, where more often they don't?

Maybe because Americans don't have at outlet for their violence at their sporting events?

[Ebowed]

It's interesting that Inks feels the Saudis have an effective method of preventing evil, due to the severity of their justice system.

Quite indicative of an unhealthy frame of mind (where morality and legality are synonymous terms).

Did I say that I support their penalty system?

No.  You called it effective.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's interesting that Inks feels the Saudis have an effective method of preventing evil, due to the severity of their justice system.

Quite indicative of an unhealthy frame of mind (where morality and legality are synonymous terms).

Did I say that I support their penalty system?

No.  You called it effective.

Right - it is effective.  They have less crime.

[Јas]

It's interesting that Inks feels the Saudis have an effective method of preventing evil, due to the severity of their justice system.

Quite indicative of an unhealthy frame of mind (where morality and legality are synonymous terms).

Did I say that I support their penalty system?

No.  You called it effective.

Right - it is effective.  They have less crime.

Very effective...This woman, for instance, will be sure not to be gang raped again after her 200 lashes and 6 month imprisonment. You can bet she also learnt her lesson when the judges increased the sentence on appeal because of the case's media attention.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's interesting that Inks feels the Saudis have an effective method of preventing evil, due to the severity of their justice system.

Quite indicative of an unhealthy frame of mind (where morality and legality are synonymous terms).

Did I say that I support their penalty system?

No.  You called it effective.

Right - it is effective.  They have less crime.

Very effective...This woman, for instance, will be sure not to be gang raped again after her 200 lashes and 6 month imprisonment. You can bet she also learnt her lesson when the judges increased the sentence on appeal because of the case's media attention.

Look - by no means am I advocating their punishments, but you can't tell me that they don't work better.

[Silent Hunter]

Effective and right, like moral and legal, are not automatically the same thing.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Effective and right, like moral and legal, are not automatically the same thing.

That's my point (I think you're agreeing with me, but I'm not 100% sure).

[Silent Hunter]

Effective and right, like moral and legal, are not automatically the same thing.

That's my point (I think you're agreeing with me, but I'm not 100% sure).

Yeah, more or less. Shooting a murderer sans trial may stop him or her murdering again, but that doesn't make it right.

[Ebowed]

Right - it is effective.  They have less crime.

Except that their definition of "crime" is so unfair that there's nothing effective about it at all.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Right - it is effective.  They have less crime.

Except that their definition of "crime" is so unfair that there's nothing effective about it at all.

That makes no sense.  They have more things worthy of a crime, so they have LESS freedom and crime - it's much more effective.

[Ebowed]

That makes no sense.  They have more things worthy of a crime, so they have LESS freedom and crime - it's much more effective.

No, since everything is illegal there, just about everything is a crime, so they have less resources to actually prosecute all of it.

Sort of like victimless crimes in the US.

Harsh punishments do not mean effective crime reduction, BTW.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

That makes no sense.  They have more things worthy of a crime, so they have LESS freedom and crime - it's much more effective.

No, since everything is illegal there, just about everything is a crime, so they have less resources to actually prosecute all of it.

Sort of like victimless crimes in the US.

Harsh punishments do not mean effective crime reduction, BTW.

Then what do you attribute their low crime rate to?

[Ebowed]

Then what do you attribute their low crime rate to?

They don't have a low crime rate.  They report a low one.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Then what do you attribute their low crime rate to?

They don't have a low crime rate.  They report a low one.

And your proof for this...?

[Ebowed]

Then what do you attribute their low crime rate to?

They don't have a low crime rate.  They report a low one.

And your proof for this...?

It's common sense.

Think of all of their laws that you and I would disagree with.  Many of these illegal actions occur behind closed doors-- presumably things like having oral sex, or letting your wife read the newspaper, or whatever else is illegal in that useless hellhole-- and thus, there's no way they can ever suffer from legal action by the police, because the police don't have the resources to check in on everyone's home 24/7.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Then what do you attribute their low crime rate to?

They don't have a low crime rate.  They report a low one.

And your proof for this...?

It's common sense.

Think of all of their laws that you and I would disagree with.  Many of these illegal actions occur behind closed doors-- presumably things like having oral sex, or letting your wife read the newspaper, or whatever else is illegal in that useless hellhole-- and thus, there's no way they can ever suffer from legal action by the police, because the police don't have the resources to check in on everyone's home 24/7.

OK - I get your point now.  I was talking more about violent crimes/crimes with clear victims.

[Ebowed]

Examples of completely unenforceable Saudi laws (from Wikipedia):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the frequent reference to ignored laws.


As far as violent crime is concerned, the punishments are dire, but they still occur on a regular basis.  As Jas noted, the victim is often punished instead of the criminal.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Both were punished I thought in the woman's rape hting.

[frihetsivrare]

 (NewsTarget) America seems shocked that, yet again, a young male would pick up an assault rifle and murder his fellow citizens, then take his own life. This is what happened last night in Omaha, Nebraska, where the 19-year-old Hawkins killed himself and eight other people with an assault rifle. Those lacking keen observation skills are quick to blame guns for this tragedy, but others who are familiar with the history of such violent acts by young males instantly recognize a more sinister connection: A history of treatment with psychiatric drugs for depression and ADHD.

It all started in Columbine, Colorado, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold massacred their way into the history books on April 20, 1999 by killing 12 and wounding 23 people. The mainstream media virtually glorified the event, yet utterly failed to report the connection between violence in young men and treatment with psychiatric drugs. (Both Harris and Klebold were taking antidepressant drugs.)

It's a little known fact that antidepressant drugs have never been tested on children nor approved by the FDA for use on children. It is well established in the scientific literature, however, that such drugs cause young men to think violent thoughts and commit violent acts. This is precisely why the U.K. has outright banned the prescribing of such drugs to children. Yet here in the United States -- the capitol of gun violence by kids on depression drugs -- the FDA and drug companies pretend that mind-altering drugs have no link whatsoever to behavior.


Enormous evidence linking mind-altering drugs with violent acts
In 2005, I reported on this site that Eli Lilly had full knowledge of a 1200% increase in suicide risk for takers of their Prozac drug, a popular anti-depressant SSRI medication.

In 2006, we reported the results of a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry showing that teens taking antidepressant drugs are more likely to commit suicide (and to be "successful" at completing the act). See http://www.newstarget.com/020643.html

On September 11, 2006, I reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and violent behavior yet again. (See http://www.newstarget.com/020394.html ) In that article, I explained, "If you're going to alter the brain chemistry of these children, you had better be prepared for the results. The result we're seeing now is mass killings. Elsewhere around the world, where children aren't doped up on all these drugs, we don't see this kind of behavior. This is what happens when you change children's brain chemistry; you get these results..."

The very next day, we published a report about the anti-depressant drug Paxil doubling the risk of violent behavior.  In that article, I stated, "This finding helps explain why school shootings are almost always conducted by children who are taking antidepressants. We also know that SSRIs cause children to disconnect from reality. When you combine that with a propensity for violence, you create a dangerous recipe for school shootings and other adolescent violence.

In April of this year, I also reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and the Virginia Tech shooting.

What I said in that article has urgent application right now, following the Omaha shooting:

A study published in the Public Library of Science Medicine (an open source medical journal) explored these same links in detail. (See Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law, by David Healy, Andrew Herxheimer, David B. Menkes)

The authors note that "Some regulators, such as the Canadian regulators, have also referred to risks of treatment-induced activation leading to both self-harm and harm to others" and the "United States labels for all antidepressants as of August 2004 note that 'anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, and mania have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants for major depressive disorder as well as for other indications, both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric'".

In other words, the link between antidepressants and violence has been known for years by the very people manufacturing, marketing or prescribing the drugs. As the author of the study mentioned above concluded, "The new issues highlighted by these cases need urgent examination jointly by jurists and psychiatrists in all countries where antidepressants are widely used."

That was last year, well before this latest shooting. The warning signs were there, and they've been visible for a long time. Medical authorities can hardly say they are "shocked" by this violent behavior. After all, the same pattern of violence among antidepressant takers has been observed, documented and published in numerous previous cases.



Not surprised at what happened in Omaha
The people of Omaha may be surprised at what happened there yesterday, but I'm not. Why? Because the shooter, Robert Hawkins, had a history of being "treated" for both depression and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). (Source: Associated Press)

And what is the standard American psychiatric "treatment" for these conditions? Mind-altering drugs, of course.

ADHD, for example, is treated with a drug that used to be an illegal street drug called "speed." It's an amphetamine, and recent research published in the August, 2007 issue of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reveals that Ritalin and other ADHD drugs actually stunt the growth of children, causing their brains and bodies to be physically altered.

Depression, of course, is treated with SSRI drugs, none of which have ever been safety approved by the FDA for use on children or teens. In other words, the use of these drugs on teenagers is a grand, mind-altering medical experiment, and what we just witnessed in Omaha is one result of that experiment.

There will be more. I hate to be accurate about this grisly prediction, because I grieve for the families of those lost to pharmaceutically-induced violence, but the truth is that until we stop drugging our children with psychotropic drugs, the shootings are not going to stop.

Big Pharma is to blame for this one, not the manufacturer of the gun. That gun has a trigger, you see, and the trigger was pulled by a finger. The finger was connected via a series of nerves to a brain, and that brain was altered by psychotropic drugs. The brain wasn't functioning like a normal, healthy, well-nourished brain; it was functioning like a zoned out "zombie" brain permanently distorted by psychiatric drugs.

Sending a teenager out into the public doped up on mind-altering drugs that we KNOW are linked to violence -- and jacked up on junk foods (he worked at McDonald's) -- is a certain recipe for disaster. Big Pharma executives, drug reps and the irresponsible psychiatrists who dish these pills out to teenagers might as well have just walked right into the mall and set off a bomb themselves. These are the people ultimately responsible for the tragedy in Omaha. Hawkins may have pulled the trigger, but modern psychiatry drugged him with violence-inducing chemicals. The fact that such drugs promote violence isn't even disputed. It's printed right on the warning labels of those drugs!

And as sad as this tragedy is for all those affected by this medication-induced violence, the truly sad part is that America still hasn't learned this lesson. If you drug the children with chemicals that cause violence, you're going to see more shootings. It's as simple as that. And if you take away the guns, you'll see bombs, knives or machetes used in these attacks. When disturbed young boys are doped up on psychotropic drugs that promote violence -- and they're drugged by the hundreds of thousands -- it's like playing a national game of Russian roulette (with apologies to Russia). Sooner or later, another kid whose mind has been altered by Ritalin, Prozac or some other drug is going to walk into yet another school or mall and start killing people. This kind of behavior is a direct product of chemical-based psychiatric "treatment."


This is yet another shooting that would not have happened if the shooter had not taken any anti-depressants.  This young man had a perscription for these drugs for his depression.  He was being "treated."  Another example to cite when arguing against using drugs to combat depression.  Drugs such as Prozac make marijuana seem like the perfect drug to treat depression.