You're breezily dismissive of something that has a lot of scientific merit.
That's the thing - it doesn't have scientific (or even statistical) merit. It's correlation without causation - some shooters have been on drugs therefore the drugs must be suspicious as agents.
Problems:
Doesn't explain shooters not on drugs.
Shooters represent a miniscule proportion of those using drugs, 99.9999% of whom don't kill anyone. If SSRIs/ADs were a homicidal trigger we'd see it in a larger percentage of the drug-using population.
SSRI use is prevalent throughout the developed world - but they don't have the continual mass killing problem we do.
On the correlation angle - it's all but guaranteed that a larger percentage of shooters have played violent video games or watched violent movies than have been prescribed but as a culture we've moved beyond the idea that playing Grand Theft Auto turns you into a marauding carjacker.
Almost all shooters are white men - but white women are almost twice as likely to be on a SSRI/AD. Where are those shooters at?
I mean if we want to talk about the bullshit of overprescribing these drugs, I'm all about it. The great scam of Big Pharma isn't that the mental health drugs are dangerous, it's that the drugs (as a rule) aren't particularly effective (particularly set against their negative side effects) and most depressed/mentally ill people (who aren't actively delusional or working on offing themselves) would be better off meditating, exercising and talking about their issues with a trusted confidant (whether that's a friend or therapist).
