When you consider that there are probably tens of thousands of people who do not have major adverse effects from the drugs versus the few who do, (and keeping in mind we do not know what forms of self-medication people may have added to their systems), the people who have a violent psychotic moment and end up becoming mass murderers are likely a rare segment of the total population taking the drugs.
In this case, the question is one of correlation, causation, or both, and that determination is made more problematical by the underlying conditions which led to the prescription in the first place.
Unfortunately, the high profile crimes that those few commit are very destructive, at least in the case of those we do hear about.
Admittedly, we are dealing with a skewed data set, in that people who are prescribed these drugs who do not have complications or interactions just don't make the news.
That is the specific reason I don't like blanket suppositions based on pharmacological history.
Furthermore, if people can be deprived of a right because they have had a problem, one of the effects of that will be to deter people who should seek help for a small problem until it becomes far more difficult to manage. Additionally, the bar can be raised at the whim of the medical and psych establishment at any time. The effect is that a fundamental right lies at the mercy of people who have been known to follow political agendae in the past, while ignoring sound science to do so.
“I think you may have nailed the problem, in that the Doctors prescribing the drugs do not know the pharmacology or the patient well enough (or both), and are failing to educate the patient and family sufficiently.”
I totally agree with you. A good example is to try and understand the psychopharmacology of the atypical antipsychotics.