WASHINGTON. Recently, when this writer was visiting with some friends, the issues of spree killing and gun control came up. The consensus of most in the group was that we need more regulations on guns. When asked why, they were shocked. “Um, to stop these mass shootings!” one said. The others seemed to agree. The endless preaching on gun control by today’s progressives and their media promoters is clearly having an effect.
Numerous laws are violated before spree killings occur
Every spree killer violates numerous laws before shooting a single victim. Take for example, the case of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook murderer. The killer violated dozens of laws before firing a single shot. Law enforcement said Lanza also perpetrated a minimum of 70 crimes prior to his rampage.
The fact that prior to the killing, most spree killers have committed a series of crimes, should make us anything but surprised that they break many other laws in the process.
This is the sheer insanity behind the demand for more gun restrictions. Such restrictions ignore the way the criminal mind works. Spree killers and mass murderers would argue that you “have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.”
For these killers, the “omelet” would be the many people they kill and the eggs would be the many laws violated along the way to that goal. Make it harder for a person like this to kill en masse, and they will pull a chapter from Timothy McVeigh. They will substitute fertilizer and gasoline for bullets and kill even more. Such criminals do not necessarily care about the method, namely, how they kill. Instead, they focus on the objective, which is killing.
Progressives preach gun control, media promotes it. But why?
Recently, according to at least one survey, a small but notable percentage of the American population – 30 percent at a minimum – do not want to touch guns at all. Another poll cited by CNN was even more disheartening for gun control advocates. 52 percent of those polled in that survey opposed stricter gun laws. This significant group of Americans opposed to new gun laws is very passionate in that opposition.
Americans have long had a unique relationship with their guns. Even Barack Obama admitted this as he lamented the country’s “gun culture” and violence. There are more guns than people in this country. Gun rights are explicitly protected in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Yet if you want to end a meaningful conversation on spree killings, just talk about more gun laws.
During the conversation mentioned above, this writer’s friends were shocked when challenged on their underlying assumptions concerning gun control laws. “What else could we talk about other than guns?” was the general response. That is an excellent question. But think about it for a moment.
Under the Second Amendment, guns have always been available to American citizens. So why the recent rise in spree killings?
The current availability of semi-automatic and automatic guns is nothing new. They have been around – and available – for several generations. Yet spree killings are relatively new. They did not become regular occurrences until the notorious Columbine High School assault in 1999. Common sense would argue that people should look at what changed during the 1990s. We know the availability of guns was not any different then. So what had changed?
The writer has tried to explore this topic at a deeper level on his radio show, “The Price of Business.” There are many logical explanations for the increase in spree killings. But the media and political progressives simply do not want to address or even consider them. For example, note the sheer number of people involved in these spree killing stories that suffer from mental health issues and take prescription medications labeled with explicit, dire warnings that “use of this can lead to suicidal thoughts” or “violence.”
Experts single out mental issues, drug therapies and violent video games
Mental health specialist Dr. Linda Lagemann, has told my radio audience that the “vast majority” of these murderers, are on these type of drugs and their use should be reexamined. She also noted that the vast majority of these drugs came to market in the 1990s. Furthermore, around 80 percent of these spree killers are documented to have been on this class of medications, according to Lagemann. It is important to note, however, that they were not on these drugs because of suicidal or violent tendencies. Instead, these issues developed because of these medications, according to Lagemann.
Meanwhile, Lt. Col. David Grossman, a best selling author and a leading authority on “killology,” has told the Price of Business show audience about how the rise of extremely realistic and violent video games since the 1990s has contributed to whole generations that are desensitized about killing.
Think about the rise of these games and the growth in spree killing events in recent decades. Evidence indicates there is a direct link between the rise of these popular games and the increasing frequency of killings, particularly those committed by young people in schools. These individuals are the most likely to commit these mass murder events.
Why aren’t other causes of spree killing even discussed in public or by the media?
When they become aware of other possibilities behind spree killings, individuals often ask, “Why don’t the media and politicians talk about those things? Why don’t we discuss every possibility when it comes to these killings?” Good questions. Yet this writer has become cynical regarding such potentially productive discussions. Clearly, progressives actually want this problem to remain, not go away. At least not without more gun control.
For the left, it is always about control. And as long as these random mass murders continue to occur, the left will have “somebody to blame” (gun rights activists). And plenty are emotionally naïve enough to believe the media’s misleading conclusions.
How has the media become complicit to the progressives’ failure to look at all factors that lead to such crimes? It is transparently obvious that many of them possess an ideological motivation to follow, in lockstep, current progressive dogma.
However, there is also another possibility as well. When you factor in how much money the drug industry pumps into the media in advertising, it should not be too much of a surprise that media news-talkers are not digging very deeply into the connection between pharmaceutical products and potential mass murder occurrences. How much do pharmaceutical companies spend to influence the public and the media? $3 billion a year, according to the Washington Post.
Putting liberals and the “progressive” left on the spot
So the next time liberals pound their fists demanding action to prevent spree killings, tell them to put up or shut up. Challenge them to consider the many possible contributors to these events, such as drugs and video games, instead of obsessing on the outward symptoms. As in the choice of weapons to perpetrate these horrendous crimes.
Remember: Guns have been around for generations. But the recent increase in spree killings is is only about a generation old. What happened? What changed to bring this about? These are the questions everyone should really be asking.
— Headline image: CDN Compilation