Why Progressives Have No Credibility When it Comes to Stopping Spree Shooters

Reading Time: 4 minutes

By Kevin Price, National News Editor, USADC.

Recently I had lunch with several friends, all of whom wanted to see more gun control in order to “fight” spree killings.  I asked them why they wanted to do that and they looked at me as if I had just grown another head. “To stop these killings!” they all declared in almost perfect unison.  I pointed out that every spree killer has violated several laws before shooting a single victim.  Take for example, the case of Adam Lanza (of Sandy Hook infamy).  Dozens of laws were violated by the killer before firing a single shot. The fact that the crime these people are noted for the killing of many while using guns, should make us not at all surprised that they violate several other laws along the way. This is the sheer insanity of more gun restrictions — they ignore the way the criminal mind works. These criminals would cynically argue that you “have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” For these spree killers, the “omelet” would be their many victims and the eggs would be the many laws along the way.

Meanwhile, there is a significant percentage of the population that doesn’t want to touch guns at all — a minimum of 30 percent of the population.  A poll cited by CNN was even more disheartening for gun control advocates, with 52 percent of those polled opposed to stricter gun laws.  This significant group opposed to gun laws are very passionate in their opposition.  Americans have a unique relationship with their guns.  There are more guns than people in this country.  Gun rights are explicitly protected in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  If you want to end meaningful conversation on spree killings, just talk about more gun laws.

Recently I had lunch with several friends, all of whom wanted to see more gun control in order to “fight” spree killings.  I asked them why they wanted to do that and they looked at me as if I had just grown another head.

My friends were bewildered, “what else would we talk about?”  That is a great question, but think about it.  The availability of semi-automatic and automatic guns is nothing new.  They have been around for several generations.  Yet, spree killings are relatively new.  They did not become regular occurrences until Columbine High School in 1999.  Common sense would argue that people should look at what happened in the 1990s.  We know the availability of guns was not different then, what was?

If you want to end meaningful conversation on spree killings, just talk about more gun laws.

I have tried to dig deeper on this subject through my radio show, and there are many logical explanations that the media and progressives in politics do not want to address.   What is interesting is the sheer number of people in these spree killing stories that suffer from mental health issues and take medicines with warnings of “leading to suicidal thoughts” or “violence.” In fact, mental health specialist Dr. Linda Lagemann, has told my audience that the “vast majority” of these assailants, are on these type of drugs and their use should be reexamined. She also noted that the vast majority of these drugs were developed in the 1990s.  In addition, approximately 80 percent of these killers are documented to be on this class of medications, according to Lagemann. It is important to note they were not on these drugs because of suicidal or violent tendencies, but these issues developed because of these medications. Meanwhile, Lt. Col. David Grossman, who is a best selling author and leading authority on “killology,” has told my audience about how the rise of incredibly realistic and violent video games since the 1990s which has created whole generations that are desensitized about killing. Think about the rise of these games and the growth in this type of violence. Evidence indicates there is a direct link between the rise of these games and these killings (particularly by young people in schools, who are the majority of such perpetrators).

These criminals would cynically argue that you “have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.” For these spree killers, the “omelet” would be their many victims and the eggs would be the many laws along the way.

My friends asked, “why don’t the media and politicians talk about those things?  Shouldn’t everything be on the table to discuss this issue?”  Good questions.  I hate to be cynical, but I am not convinced progressives want this problem to go away — at least not without more gun control.  For the left, it is about control and as long as these murders happen, progressives will have “somebody to blame” (gun rights activists) and plenty are naïve enough to believe them.  Why does the media avoid these alternative causes?  I think many of them are ideologically motivated.  However, there is also a cynical possibility.  When you factor in how much money the drug industry pumps into the media in advertising, it should not be shocking that they are not digging too deep into the pharmaceutical and potential mass murder connection. How much? $3 billion a year, according to the Washington Post.

So the next time a progressive pounds his or her chest, demanding action to prevent spree killings, tell them to put up or shut up — by looking at the possible causes (drugs and video games) — rather than the symptoms (the choice of weapons). 

 

Kevin Price is Host of the nationally syndicated Price of Business radio show and National News Editor of USADC.

Share This:

About kevin 1558 Articles
No articles on this site should be construed as the opinion of PriceofBusiness.com. Do your homework, get expert advice before following the advice on this or any other site.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*