This article claims that Lee Rhiannon, Roland Browne and Rebecca Peters of the NCGC, along with partner journalists, taught mass killers how to get guns to perform massacres.

You need to check the sources. Here they are!

Cantor, C. (2001). Civil Massacres Ethological Perspectives. The ASCAP Bulletin Vol 2 No 1 , 29-31.

Cantor, C., Mullen, P., & Alpers, P. (2000). Mass homicide: the civil massacre. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28:1 , 55-63.

Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon.

Cramer, C. (1993). Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9 .

Hansen, J. (1995, 10 2). Tassie Guns, featuring Peters, Rebecca; Browne, Roland. . A Current Affair . Australia: NINE Network.

Lovibond, J. (1996, 5 21). Hobart gun death related to TV show. Hobart Mercury , p. 2.

Mullen, P. (1997, 3 4). Copycats to Blame for Massacres Says Expert - Courier Mail. (K. Hannon, Interviewer)

Phillips, D. P. (1980). Airplane accidents, murder and the mass media: Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces 58 , 1001-1024.

Pinker, S. (1999). In How the Mind Works (p. 672). Norton and Company.

Meanwhile there was an item in todays paper about a SEVEN year old boy taking a 22 gun to school and waving it about in a threatening manner in/as response to a minor argument to some of his fellow school children.
What kind of deranged parent would allow, or rather give a gun to a 7 year old to take to school?

As I stated in a post a couple of days ago:

There are numerous examples of people who have gone on a shooting rampage and killed their classmates, co-workers, members of their family and often took their own lives, then it was discovered they were taking antidepressants. It initially appears the person was mentally ill and went on a rage but when these cases have actually been looked at closely they find the person did not have any violent tendencies and in most cases was not even suicidal before they started treatment with their antidepressant medication.

SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are the pharmaceutical company’s latest cash cows. Their use has skyrocketed in the last ten years. Nicknamed “Chemical Babysitters” and designated anti depressants, they are causing dozens of murders, thousands of psychoses and are altering the minds of millions of users. All but a very few of the latest “Mass Murderers” have been on these drugs. Schools encourage parents to put their children on these drugs for the smallest signs of “non conformity”. Schools in the US receive more money for “disabled” students.

SSRIs markedly alter brain chemistry, particularly drugs like Prozac. A few people have tried to warn authorities, but no one is listening. And SSRIs don’t backfire in children only.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors are commonly used to treat depression in children and adolescents. In 2005, the US Centre for Disease Control reported that 118 million prescriptions had been written for anti-depressants, and that the number of people using anti-depressants had “almost tripled between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000”.

As more and more people are given SSRIs to combat depression, mounting evidence suggests that the side effects of SSRIs can lead to violent behavior and suicide. Many of the high fatality school shootings of the past 10 years have involved shooters who had been prescribed SSRIs. An in depth look at school shootings, and the commonly known side effects of SSRIs, reveals these drugs to be a primary factor leading to violence.

It will be interesting to see if the latest ‘killer’ was on SSRIs.

Got to agree with Geoff on this one.
This reference states the case:

http://herbdocblog.com

Meanwhile of course much of the dreadfully sane USA population is zonked out on mood altering drugs of one kind or another.
Exactly as described in Huxley's Brave New World.
Zombie nation rules OK!

It could even be said that Big Pharma is systematically killing off the human population. But not necessarily intentionally, although some conspiracy theorists might argue otherwise.

A comment on SSRI and murder. The deranged people-haters kill en masse not because of medication, or their internal angst, or any other of these factors (none of which would explain why America is the gun massacre capital of the world) but because they could get their hands on a gun that would do the job. THAT explains why America is the gun massacre capital of the world.

All the mealymouthed excuses for the massacres, down to the fatuous proposal that the news media should hush it up, boil down to "I want to be able to own a gun because I'm inadequate otherwise, so please don't rule it out.".

BTW, the quote marks in Geoff of Perth's reference to the 'killer' prompt the question: how many people does someone have to kill, and how obvious does it have to be that he's the perp, to lose the quote marks round the word killer?

In respect of medication and mental illness, I draw your attention to the guidelines in the article.

- Do not use words that might encourage people to think their own life patterns are similar to those of the perpetrators; emphasize the uniqueness of mental illnesses and situations of individuals.

This is very important. As pointed out in other comments, there are MILLIONS of people with mental illnesses, on medication, who present little threat to anyone. Making them all feel hated and feared, like the activists did to shooters 1996-1999, is just creating division and fear in society for self-righteousness. It is a wrong against the ordinary people.

Are you a medical doctor or pharmacist Geoff of Perth, or are you just spouting rubbish you read on the Internet or in Scientology magazines?

I am a nurse that has spent years carong for people on these sorts of medications.
All drugs have side effects and antidepressant or anti psychotic drugs do have some nasty side effects in some people. You are right in saying there are many people in the world taking these drugs now, and it is big business to the drug companies.

However, we don't see mass gun massacres all over the world as a result do we?
No, we mainly see that in America where people can most easily get their hands on weapons that can kill many people in a short time.

The news media should report these gun massacres just as they do now, so the right and proper horror is known to all, and we can start tightening up gun laws...

What comes first do you think...the mental illness itself, or the drug induced mental illness? How do we know that the mass murderers wouldn't have done the same thing without taking anti psychotic drugs?

In fact, I believe that the problem is more likely that these criminals had refused to take their medications, and that this is the reason they could have 'lost it'.

These medications weren't around during HItler's day...

...What would Genghis Kahn say then? He would be laughing at our “Pussy-Cat” world for sure!

...A propensity towards mayhem and murder through violent “normal” instincts, is a recipe for domination and survival of the fittest! It’s the way of the Gods

There is probably some truth in this and most comments. However if guns were restricted to ones that needed reloading after each shot then there would be less people killed. What reason has anyone for needing a high powered rifle in normal life?
Katydid

Katydid, thank you for commenting. Its really important that people with ordinary knowledge of the subject join the debate, as it allows us to see what is really going on. May I ask a few questions?

You say that no-one needs a high powered rifle in 'normal life'. Does that mean that you view only lives you approve as 'normal', and people like farmers, vets, international shooting medallists and servicemen are 'not normal'?

In this argument many words like 'normal' are deployed as emotive weapons, an indicator that any difference or questioning of the speakers opinion is illegitimate.

When people share their opinions, consider their motives. Are they showing what good people they are by their displayed ideas? Are those ideas based on knowledge, measurement and evidence? Or are anecdote, emotion and circular assumptions their evidentiary basis?