"After Harriss death, the coroner discovered that his bloodstream contained the antidepressant Luvox, and some speculated that his psychiatric medicationalong with bullying and many other factorscould have contributed to the violence. Luvox manufacturer, Solvay, reported that in a ten-week trial four percent of youth being treated with Luvox experienced manic reactions, compared with no such reactions in a control group treated with a placebo. Antidepressants, other psychotropic drugs, and alcohol are, for some people, disinhibitors to violence, meaning that they make it easier for violent thoughts to become violent actions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has an black box warningthe agencys most serious cautionabout the increased risk of contemplating suicide in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants."
So here we have direct evidence of a psychotropic drug adversely affecting the actions of certain groups of people in such a way as to promote incidences such as Newtown, and yet all anyone can talk about is "gun control" which has dubious benefits at reducing crime at best; even Joe Biden recognized and publicly stated that his gun control proposal would not have necessarily prevented Newtown. The prescription of antidepressants, anti-anxiety, and ADHD inhibiting drugs has increased astronomically in the last 20 years. Apparently the number of mass shootings is on the rise as well (debatable, depends on how you define it). At the same time, gun control legislation has receded, overall crime rates have dropped dramatically, and yet it is the guns that are to blame for Newtown, Columbine, VT, and Aurora?
How about looking at the overall scope of the problem?