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?