Oliver North says Ritalin linked to school shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMHO, it has little to do with video games or movies. The problem lies when there is nothing from the parents to counter the influence. It lies with parents that put zero restrictions on what movies they watch, what games they play (one that I've played has more F-words than an entire season of The Sopranos) and what they're doing on the internet. Many of us grew up watching Westerns, some of the most violent movies ever made. However, we also grew up with parents that disciplined us and taught us right from wrong. This ALL boils down to parental responsibility. Parents are less and less responsible at a time when they need to be the most responsible at any time in history.
 
According to researchers at Johns Hopkins, medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US.
Medical experts are far from perfect and not above scrutiny.

Sure, this is true, but the scrutiny of the educated, informed, and experienced is probably a bit more useful than some internet randos with a degree from WebMD.

Oliver North doesn't really have any expertise in psychiatry, psychology, or school shootings.
 
IMO, all these school shootings are a culmination of a few things.

Broken homes.
Violent video games.
Sensationalizing violence in movies and TV.
Increase in youth medications.
Idiotic parents that let their mentally disturbed child have access to firearms.
Attempts of the Left to take away religion.
Young folks today have an overwhelming sense of entitlement and will become unstable if not catered to.

I am sure there are more, but you get my drift.

Again, folks, stop repeating the lie that video games have any correlation to or causation of violent behavior. They do not, and study after study has proven so.

I'll repeat what was posted earlier in this very thread:

Essentially every study undertaken trying to determine correlation between playing video games (violent or otherwise) and violent criminal behavior has determined the same thing: playing video games does not increase violent behavior, and in many cases, reduces it.

This lie, propagated by politicians like Hillary Clinton in the late 90s and early 2000s, is a red herring designed to deflect attention from actual societal conditions that lead to violence. We are only harming ourselves and our cause by repeating it.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/video-game-stress-reduction-need-start-playing-right-now/

http://www.delcotimes.com/article/DC/20141001/NEWS/141009988

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Violent-video-games-reduce-crime.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-political-geek-cred/?utm_term=.6cba3764fd69
 
IMHO, it has little to do with video games or movies. The problem lies when there is nothing from the parents to counter the influence. It lies with parents that put zero restrictions on what movies they watch, what games they play (one that I've played has more F-words than an entire season of The Sopranos) and what they're doing on the internet. Many of us grew up watching Westerns, some of the most violent movies ever made. However, we also grew up with parents that disciplined us and taught us right from wrong. This ALL boils down to parental responsibility. Parents are less and less responsible at a time when they need to be the most responsible at any time in history.
I agree in part. And I would add a cultural element which encompasses a number of subjects.

It doesn't explain why there are - as far as I know - no black school shooters. Whether statistically there are more - or less - "troubled" or "problem" children in their group is a matter of statistical relevence.

So could it be that they are far less medicated than whites in schools? How about Hispanics and Asians?

Why are these school shooters all white?
 
Again, folks, stop repeating the lie that video games have any correlation to or causation of violent behavior. They do not, and study after study has proven so.

I'll repeat what was posted earlier in this very thread:

Essentially every study undertaken trying to determine correlation between playing video games (violent or otherwise) and violent criminal behavior has determined the same thing: playing video games does not increase violent behavior, and in many cases, reduces it.

This lie, propagated by politicians like Hillary Clinton in the late 90s and early 2000s, is a red herring designed to deflect attention from actual societal conditions that lead to violence. We are only harming ourselves and our cause by repeating it.

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/video-game-stress-reduction-need-start-playing-right-now/

http://www.delcotimes.com/article/DC/20141001/NEWS/141009988

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8798927/Violent-video-games-reduce-crime.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-political-geek-cred/?utm_term=.6cba3764fd69

I'm not buying that liberal tripe that violent video games attribute 0% or actually reduce crime.

If we get right down to it, these school shootings while tragic are negligible in total firearms death over the last 30+ years. Thing is the media over sensationalizes them. Nobody appears to give a crap about all the innocent bystanders shot in gangland shootings in our inner cities and that is a far larger number.
 
Yeah, totally. I mean, when someone with a nut allergy goes into anaphylactic shock or even dies, it's totally psychosomatic....:scrutiny:.

I have young kids. Many people don’t know this but the pediatrics have walked back on not feeding peanuts to children because they figured out the boom in peanut allergies was caused by pediatricians telling parents not to give young children nuts. They are slowly and quietly walking it back...
It’s not the only thing the medical community ever has wrong.
 
I think Mr. North was speaking outside his field of expertise, and that's not advisable, but can you see what's going on with this story? We have no context for his claim, as the Associated Press doesn't link to his original and complete statement or presentation. Not that I could see, anyway. The AP is making it sound as if Oliver North came out with a press release with the distinct purpose of blaming school shootings on prescription drugs, and that may not be the case. His context may have been to examine many elements in mass shootings that have, up to this point, been largely unexplored by the public or the media. Yes, he was outside his field of expertise, and that's not good, but we all do that. That's why reporters and school officials use the term "automatic weapon" generically.

The press wants to portray him as a moron or fool, and he may be, but I'm not ready to buy into that assessment yet. Based on the lack of integrity that I've seen from the press, I'd have to be a moron or a fool to do so at this point.

For instance, one CBS news piece said the shooter in this latest shooting had a "uniform" with "Nazi regalia" on it, and didn't expand beyond that at all, even though it was plain to see that he had a communist Soviet star pin on his coat, with a hammer and sickle on it. The communist symbol wasn't mentioned at all in the piece, and the "Nazi" symbol was an Iron cross that Germany also used long before the Nazi era (not specifically Nazi.) They made no mention of the satanic symbol or the Japanese flag, either. Of course, after a day or two, we all know about the shooter's pins and the meaning he ascribed to them, but when the story first breaks, the media tries to tacitly connect the shooter to some right wing or Trump-influenced cause. That's the level of media integrity we're dealing with.
 
Last edited:
I'm not buying that liberal tripe that violent video games attribute 0% or actually reduce crime.

You are free to do as you want (advocate for restrictions on the First Amendment and stick your head in the sand with regard to actual scientific findings), but this should not be dragged into the 2nd Amendment debate, as it does nothing but discredit our position.

Remember - the politicians (largely Democrat) that went after video games (and failed when science disproved them and the public turned against such policies) were doing it to divert attention from their own failed policies that did nothing to prevent crime, and in many cases increased it (gun control, public housing, failed economic policies).
 
Last edited:
That's odd, I know of several parents that have been told by three different school systems that if their children were not examined by doctors for psych testing they would not be allowed back in school and would face the repercussions, but financial and legal for that. While you are correct the school did not "diagnose nor treat" that statement is at best self-serving.

Not self-serving, just factual. You know parents that got bluffed.

Those school people, whomever they were, didn't have the ability to follow through with those threats. They were (successfully, it would seem) counting on the parents being ignorant of their rights and of the legal restrictions placed on schools. You can't suspend a kid for a lack of a diagnosis. You can suspend them for behaving like a jerk in some cases, although for a limited number of days at best. Your friends got played by someone who understood the system better than they did.
 
Why are these school shooters all white?
That's a good question. I'm afraid the USA is a long way from being able to have an objective discussion about race. Too much political correctness and hurt feelings.


If we get right down to it, these school shootings while tragic are negligible in total firearms death over the last 30+ years. Thing is the media over sensationalizes them. Nobody appears to give a crap about all the innocent bystanders shot in gangland shootings in our inner cities and that is a far larger number.
This is 100% true too. The media sensationalism is part of the problem, as is the way it exaggerates the significance of school shootings in the overall scheme of things. Not only are far more young people the victims of violent crime in every day life but more serious issues like the opioid epidemic are only getting lip service.
 
Evil people do evil things. We can try to ascribe that to all manner of influences, but at the end of the day evil is still evil. Going around in circles about topics we have beat to death after every previous shooting will not change things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top