Howard, Dr. Ron Manderscheid and national leaders who are peers, consumer/survivor/expatients, consumers, stakeholders in Mental Health and Addiction/Substance Abuse are developing a coalition network of partners to address the dire issue of violence in mental health in the world. If you're interested, I can put you in touch, if you plan to do something about it.

We know already that we can get the most effect for the money by 1) screening and intervening as early as possible in the lives of children and their families involving daycare providers, preschools, and pediatrics visits, 2) improving school-based mental health screening programs and awareness of disturbances among peers and teachers, and 3) by increasing awareness of signs of disturbance among pediatricians, family practitioners and other primary care providers. As I have pointed out in the article entitled: Forecasting Aggression: Toward a New Interdisciplinary Understanding of What Makes Some Troubled Youth Turn Violent, the factors influencing the development of violence are multiple and involve complex interactions. Those who are most at risk are often least likely to seek help or be brought to services. So, increasing awareness of signs of disturbance among those who cross paths with potentially violenc individuals is the answer-- in addition to restricting access to arms of course.

Take a look at the evidence in alternative media pointing to some of these school shootings being 'red flag' events designed for political gain, gun control and big pharma lobbying.... When a web site was created 3 days before the Sandy Hook killing asking for donations, first reports described multiple shooters and both the fathers of Holmes and Lanza are testifying against the same bank for corruption you have to ask ARE THEY REAL?

Either way I agree with Kevin, these drugs in young people often have extreme adverse reactions (including world record suicide rates) and we don't need more of the same, instead we need transparent research from the drug companies and some hard questions asked about safety. By all means support vulnerable people with psychosocial intervention but leave out the mind bending drugs.

This asks the wrong question, as such shootings are simply symptomatic of more serious underlying issues. What exactly is causing the shootings? Is it caused by the economy? What about the media? It is interesting that nobody seems to be criticizing the glorification of such rampages in the media, like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" that arguably encourage future attacks. I think there's a very strong case to be made that our negligent media is a major factor causing the killings. By removing accountability in America for the media, we have allowed them to produce harmful mass effects that result in inevitable tragedies.

Also, kudos to Kevin and Heather for correctly observing that the anti-depressants negligently prescribed by state officials in recent years have been discovered to actually increase suicidal urges when combined (see e.g. St. John's Wort, Paxil, Effexor, etc.). It is quite possible the rush to medicate and treat actually helped cause the shootings themselves.

Much of the problem lies within the way things are reported. The repeated sensationalism of the media may lead to glorification of the act. Reflection on such by readers can at times lead to identification with the events and create attitudes and consequential beliefs that could in the very few be played out. I remember reading Hans Eysenck many many years ago (sex violence and the media) and reflecting on the way children mimic things they have seen in cartoons and on the football field. So even the young who may not have the developed reasoning skills of an adult can be overtly influenced by external things we identify with.

I am completing some research that looks like the way things are presented to the general public and could influence their decision making. I look at the Appleby and Wessley (1988) work on the Hungerford Massacre in the UK and draw some solace that attitudes do change when things like this happen, but after time they return to the previous attitude before the event. My only problem is the time between the event and the consequential response. The media unfortunately continue to hype events and keep old things current. This in many cases widens the window and heightens the potential impact of reactive behaviour. The media need to curb the language and ask simple questions about how much we actually need to know and why they are producing it in this form. In the UK there are attempts to almost censor the press. I do not agree with this but responsibility of reporting is needed. If you read something that either appalls or excites you it stimulated a response. Repeated balanced reporting can mitigate some of the impact, but continues to keep the story current.

Lastly in the UK we have just had a soldier killed in a London street by allegedly terrorists. The reporting of such led to groups of disenfranchised youths and adults to march, mob handed on Muslim temples. Fortunately they were met with reasonable Muslims who were not frightened and invited them in. All was solved over a cup of tea. Had they had access to guns, the story may have been very different. Culture can play a part but we can all react without truly considering the consequences.

Its interesting how things change given time... the UK murder will probably do the same as the Sandy Hook shootings, morph as events and connections come to light. Have a look in the alternative media, some of the people involved showed up in the Boston bombing......... I digress, what stays fairly constant is societal distress, pharmaceutical drugging (of young people in particular), media hype and political agenda. The result is more mental health screening, a lowering of the definition of unwell (even the original writers of the DSM are disgusted by the DSM-5), more drugging, more heavily armed police, an erosion of human rights and a downward spiral.

It has been proven if you look for disorder you will find it. Psychiatry itself conducted that famous experiment whereby students presented at asylums as hearing just one word 'thud' then acted normally, all had to be rescued. 'Fixers' notoriously create more havoc in the long run. What if school councilors used screening tests to look for resilience, for survival skills, for social support, for personal strengths and supported all of these? You can not wrap young people in cotton wool, stifle their maturity process or eliminate risk as it weakens growth. People learn by making mistakes, by finding the boundaries between pleasure and pain. We can not deny them the same journey we experienced by medicating every emotional distress. Especially if by doing so we condemn them to risks of impotency, obesity, diabetes, suicide, unemployment, social shunning and increased heart failure. Scientist and academics beware you are not being hood winked by cleaver marketing tools of big business, which includes government. Perhaps kids are resorting to guns because they are not being heard any other way....

Yes the DSM now has a category for shyness! Once admitted it can be hard to get out but not in every case. We have case histories the same as everywhere that show people that were discharged from services who later relapse and do something terrible. But we cannot keep them locked up. But we should assess them properly and if necessary provide them with the most appropriate treatment (depending unfortunately on their location and wealth).

The mentally ill are stigmatized enough and they are an easy target whenever an event like this occurs. We quickly categorize the perpetrators as one thing or another but very soon their mental health will be brought forward and they then complete the circle and we are back to linking mental illness with violence.

Media needs to start to look at the positive of mental illness and stop making the tenuous ties that all the mentally ill are dangerous.

The problem is as you rightly say there will be a generalization and some people will not heed the call for calm. But they are generally focused individuals and not necessarily in need of medication...just good societal role models and a chance. This is however the same for the mentally ill. They need a chance and some of our politicians who fear the label should come out and admit their histories. We are all vulnerable given the right circumstances.

Statically the population of people with current mental health diagnosis are no more dangerous than young men between the ages of 18 and 25. I said 'current' as according to Dr Daniel Fisher people experiencing mental health distress given the right circumstances have a 80% chance of recovery. Yet the media and professionals refer to the bulk of people in distress as if they are the 20% who have life long issues. Dr Fisher experienced psychosis while in medical school before qualifying as a psychiatrist and he went on to become an adviser to the White House.

Given that shyness is now, fraudulently, a mental health issue I wonder what percentage of patients should not be in the system at all. Then take out the people who would recover from distress if their causes were addressed such as whole nutrition, parasite elimination, heavy metal and chemical detoxing, trauma counseling, social support, meaningful employment, social equity and political transparency. Medical transparency should be making it easy to get out of the mental health traps, to come off medication, to resume a useful and productive life but unfortunately it seems to be working the other way.

You are correct, we are all vulnerable to social stress, nutritional deficiency, environmental derogation, ill health, financial strain, emotional overload and much more. If we had a good system we would welcome its intervention yet we fear it for ourselves and family, one has to ask why. What could we do better? Again have a look at Open Dialogue, Finland and see the short and long term benefits of no diagnosis or drugs.