Trifecta of Failure - Drugs, Gun Control and the Media

The recent tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut's Sandy Hook elementary school started a national debate. That's good. Not so good are the failures we are seeing in this debate. 

Before we start, let's make it absolutely clear that the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is meant to provide Americans with their last resort to stop a tyrannical government, state or federal. It is a gift from our founding fathers to preserve the spirit of their revolution. Period.[¹] 

If the media continues to fail the people as a source of information there will be no honest debate. There is a shocking amount information the media fails to provide. Sandy Hook was covered like a blanket with dozens of daily reports recounting the horror, the body count and comparisons to other school shootings. But great gaps exists. 

Lack of Media Investigations

So far, no investigative reports reveal the facts. In a review of seventeen mass school shootings[²] since 1989, assault weapons were used less than 19% of the time (just 3 of 17). More over, publicly available data says almost 60% of the killers used mood-altering drugs such as Ritalin, Prozac and Zoloft. These drugs account for 75% of the dead and wounded in the seventeen school shootings studied. But despite the media's money and resources no one has examined this relationship. 


Pharmaceutical Cover-Up?

What of the drug companies? The side effects of these drugs are dangerous. Rage, suicidal thoughts and acts of violence are not unusual. Is it any wonder that 60% of the killers on these drugs commit suicide? These drugs are over three times more likely to be involved than assault weapons, yet we are not addressing the dangers. We hear "Big Pharma" tell us that the majority are used "safely" and the media swallows it whole, while demonizing guns, of which less than 0.9% are misused. I'm sure advertising revenues play no part in the media's silence. 


Does Gun Control Even Work?

We must ask why more gun control being pushed as the solution. Specifically, why ban assault weapons and limit capacity of guns when psychotropic drugs are three times more likely to be involved?  In my review of the seventeen mass shootings over a 23-year span, assault weapons were the minority type used.  So why the big push for a ban on assault weapons? Does gun control even work? 

Evidence says no. A review of the available statistics from the FBI, CDC and other agencies shows that despite adding some 18,000 or more laws between 1965 and 1991, violent crime and homicide rates tripled. Since 1991, rates have declined to 1972 levels, just double that of 1965, before the first gun control act was passed. You would think that if gun control was going to work at all, we'd see some evidence of it in the last 45 years.  We have not.  Adding the current gun control proposals would be like trying to stop drunk driving by banning two-seat V8 sports cars and making everyone drive around with a six-gallon gas tank. 

If we are to have an honest debate the media must start doing its job. Reporters and editors must start looking at what is behind these shootings. Why are these people so angry and unable to find help? Why are dangerous drugs dispensed with so little oversight about their side effects?  

¹ If you want to argue it's absurd to think we could use pistols and rifles against tanks, Apache helicopters and nuclear weapons, save yourself some time, don't. Instead learn what it means to control a population. Or research how many governments have been taken over by authoritarian rule and killed hundreds of thousands of their own people. 

² A school mass shooting is defined as 3 or more fatalities for this study.