‘Gun free’ military bases and dangerous psychiatric drugs: a lethal mixture

I’m sure you heard the news. Another mass shooting. Another at a military base, no less. Another at Fort Hood, specifically.

Ivan Lopez opened fire, killed three people and injured 16 before committing suicide.

Of course, the usual suspects don’t even wait for the bodies to be recovered before they start clamoring for gun control. The shooting spree ended when a woman with a gun stood up to the assailant, but that fact conveniently evades these exploitative clowns.

The rest of us continue to grapple with the age old problem of how best to confront the basic and unavoidable reality that evil people will do evil things, while these imbecilic loudmouths cowardly glaze over the complexities of the issue, in favor of infusing moral significance into an inanimate object — an inanimate object that is quite often the only thing that will stop those evil people once they’ve begun to carry out that evil thing.

Same old story. We’ve had this debate a thousand times. Tragically, we’ll have it a thousand more times.

And, because I often take it upon myself to argue with fools, I can’t help but jump into the fray here.

In light of this shooting, and every other, and even regardless of any particular incident, we all need to consider the following two points:

1) ‘Gun control’ could only hypothetically stop violence if we could figure out a way to eradicate all guns everywhere from everyone, and get rid of other forms of weaponry, and abolish the malice in the hearts of men, and effectively outlaw hate, anger, greed and mental disorders, and require all people to be peaceful, kind and trustworthy. We merely have to make all of humanity family friendly, non-violent, and G-rated.

Then again, some skeptics might raise a couple of objections to this proposal: namely, it sounds expensive. Also, it’s insane.

What we are then left contemplating is how to best equip and protect ourselves from the reality of evil, of which gun violence is only but a symptom. In fact, while we have that conversation, we should also discuss the possibility of at least, to begin with, equipping our military.

Fort Hood, in compliance with DoD regulations, does not allow most of its military personnel to carry weapons on base.

Now, I love this country, I really do. But we’ve got a brand of stupid in this nation that’s hard to find anywhere else on Earth, let alone the galaxy. Back in the Roman days, soldiers were required to be armed at all times, under penalty of death. Yet here we confiscate their personal firearms and tell them to keep their military issued weapons locked away, which leads directly to these sorts of situations.

We trust these people to fight wars, operate battleships, fly jets, drop bombs, use drones, go on Special Forces missions, but we don’t think they’re competent or psychologically stable enough to carry a weapon to work without accidentally shooting each other?

In my innocence, prior to the (first) Fort Hood rampage, I sort of assumed that the military members on a military base would be perpetually locked and loaded every day — because, you know, it’s a military base. It’s a target. It’s a place where everyone ought to be prepared for the worst, because that’s why it exists. It’s a military base. These are trained and disciplined men and women. These people are in the military. Their weapons are tools of their trade. It’s a military base, for God’s sake.

Back when I didn’t know any better, I had an adorably naive confidence that, say, a trained Marine Corps sniper, who assassinates high valued targets from a distance of 800 meters for a living, might be allowed to keep a holstered firearm on his person when he enters an American military installation. But I was wrong.

A military base in the United States should be the last place on the planet where anyone could hope to successfully carry out a mass killing. But here we are. Again.

The feds tell us we are in a permanent state of war, so why is our military in a permanent state of disarmament?

2) Guns are only part of this story — and not the most important part. At some point, as uncomfortable as it may be, we need to seriously talk about psychiatric drugs.

This guy was reportedly on a ‘cocktail’ of drugs, including antidepressants and Ambien.

Please understand, when I say we need to ‘talk about psychiatric drugs,’ I don’t mean it in the same way that many people mean it. They want to talk about strategies to best ensure that we are shoving these pills down as many throats as possible. I, on the other hand, want to guide the conversation in the opposite direction.

The FDA has attached words and phrases like hostility, impulsivity, panic attacks, agitation, homicidal ideation, mania, violent behavior, and psychotic episodes to the list of side effects for numerous psychiatric medications.

Indeed, a thorough review of FDA data confirmed that there is an association between psychotropic pills and these kinds of “adverse events.”

It’s particularly notable that the shooter was evidently taking Ambien, seeing as how Ambien has been especially linked to “violent outbursts.” It’s even been successfully used as a defense in murder trials.

I will admit: I am probably more concerned about side effects than I need to be. My wife will tell you that I’m reluctant to even take Tylenol because I’ve read the warning label on the bottle. But I have to believe that I’m not being paranoid when I question the wisdom of wantonly prescribing substances that could, and have been known to, cause homicidal thoughts and hostile behavior.

It’s one thing for a medication to manifest physical side effects. These, however, are “side effects” that invade your very mind and capture your thoughts. They warp your perceptions and cloud your soul. I don’t even understand how a drug could mess with your conscience in that way, and nobody does. No matter what anyone says, there isn’t a human being on the planet who really, fully understands how our minds can be twisted and controlled by an artificial substance. This is outside the bounds of psychiatry and neuroscience. We’ve ventured into something metaphysical and spiritual.

This is serious business, in other words. I’m not saying that nobody should ever take a psychiatric drug, but I am saying that we should tread in those waters with great caution and discipline. Yet, one in five American adults takes psychotropic meds. Is that caution and discipline? No, that’s a godforsaken smorgasbord.

I’m also saying that mass shooters are frequently on this stuff. How can we so quickly dismiss the potential role that a drug plays in a violent episode, when the drug is known to cause violent episodes?

It doesn’t make any sense.

Well, it does make sense, I guess.

I already solved the mystery of our silence: one in five of us are taking psychiatric drugs. Millions of us have our kids on these medications. Hence, we take the conversation as a personal affront against ourselves and our children, and so we change the subject and stick our heads back into the pill-bottle-littered sand.

Nothing gets better because we’re afraid to honestly inspect the problem.

It’s time to stop the madness.


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

188 Responses to ‘Gun free’ military bases and dangerous psychiatric drugs: a lethal mixture

  1. jamesrovira says:

    Oh please 🙂 The fact that he could kill three and injure quite a few more -on a military base- means that the proliferation of guns -does nothing to increase safety-. Reasonable gun control laws restrict ownership for people who probably shouldn’t be carrying, such as, oh, maybe those on psychotropic drugs? I do think you make a good point by focusing on that — now suppose we had regulations that kept guns out of the hands of people on certain drugs? Use a little common sense here. Gun control is not about taking everyone’s guns away (try actually reading the seriously proposed legislation), but about regulating the exercise of a recognized -right- that’s in no danger of being taken away.

    • Sarah Wood says:

      You are one of the people that has their heads in the sand as Matt said above. If you think legislation will keep people who shouldn’t have guns from them, you are seriously deluded. I’m pretty sure criminals aren’t supposed to have guns, but guess what!? They do! If some criminal or crazy person is going to have a gun, you’d better be damn sure I’m going to have one too.
      OMG, you people make me so angry. If you think you can rely on the police to get to you in time, I hope you already have your funeral arrangements made and your other affairs in order.

      • Abby says:

        So you have anger issues and own a gun! Glad I’m in the UK where this just isn’t an issue.

        • Eva says:

          Tell me about it! We had one school massacre and the government took all our guns off us and guess what – NO more shootings! And now on the incredibly rare occasion where there is a shooting it’s a huge huge deal because no one in Britain is supposed to have a gun. Bit different to the US where a someone is shot about every 5 minutes…

    • Amy says:

      What about the spouses of people on drugs, or children or friends… Maybe you’re on psychotropic drugs but your spouse isn’t and he or she owns guns. Theoretically, it wouldn’t be that hard for you to access those guns. So do you start regulating family members of people on drugs, etc? It’s really just not possible to control who has access to guns and who doesn’t.

      The original purpose of the right to own firearms is to prevent the government from getting out of control (lol). Now if the government is in control of who gets a gun and who doesn’t… (and if you trust the government to be honest and not take advantage of such powers then you haven’t been paying attention to the direction things are going these days.)

      • AmandaM says:

        No, Amy. The original reason for having the 2nd Ammendment was partly because it was an element of English Common Law that the American settlers brought over, during a time when civil conflict and war was a very real threat. The new government realised that they didn’t have the ability to provide a police force either for their citizens or to defend against the British, so they wanted an armed population. These original reasons for the “Right to Bear Arms” have no place in current society.

        • Curtis says:

          Really? No place in current society? So law abiding Americans should get rid of their guns? Ok, good luck curbing any shootings and robberies committed by people who, oh, I don’t know, DON’T OBEY THE LAWS. You act like the modern world is all rainbows and butterflies, apparently. Time to grow up, sister. There is violence and evil in the world, and I hope that when it confronts you, you’re ready to deal with it.

        • AmandaM says:

          Curtis, I clearly said the “original reasons” for wanting an armed society are no longer relevant, yet I still hear them getting trotted out on a regular basis.
          No, I don’t think everything is sunshine and rainbows all the time, but neither is it doom and gloom and everyone is out to get me all the time either. We are so afraid of the possibility of something happening, that we have created a fear-based society.
          Law-abiding citizens should be free to own guns. But they should NOT be free to carry them in public. Period. Keep your guns on your own property, or use them to go hunting, but they are not to be carried in your car, or on your person while you’re walking down the street, that’s total bullshit.

    • MizDi says:

      How about we arm our soldiers and remove the ones taking psychotropic drugs from the military until they no longer “need” them? Sounds better than removing their ability to protect themselves and others.

      • Kherena says:

        MizDi, That will not work, the only thing that will do is make military men and women reluctant to seek help when they need it After all , would you go seek help if you knew you might get fired from your job . Especially a job that is more than likely tied into not just your income , but benefits that are paying for your treatment , and housing.

        • Sarah Wood says:

          I agree. How about actually dealing with their issues instead of just writing a prescription?Too many doctors are quick to just arbitrarily give out drugs, rather than actually getting to the root of the problem. I know some people are greatly benefited by these drugs, but too often it seems like they’re used as a band aid rather than a solution.
          Why not make it less taboo to have PTSD or other issues?

    • Sam says:

      and when that person is no longer on those drugs… do you think the government will just happily remove the gun owning restriction for that person…. PUH LEASE… all that will do is drive the people that really need mental help away for fear of losing even more of theri rights…

      • Jillocity says:

        gun owning “restriction” is like “taxes”…have you EVER heard of a tax, once imposed, being stricken from law? neither will gun owning “restriction”…which is a fancy word for “control” which is what it is really all about

    • I think you misunderstood the article. He wrote, and I quote:

      Back in the Roman days, soldiers were required to be armed at all times, under penalty of death. Yet here we confiscate their personal firearms and tell them to keep their military issued weapons locked away, which leads directly to these sorts of situations.

      E.g., the “proliferation of guns did nothing” because the military wasn’t allowed to carry them. You can’t defend yourself with a gun outside your home if the gun is locked away inside your home. It’s an easy concept to understand, which is why so many of those in power (or who wish to seize power) want to limit our rights to bear arms. If we can’t defend ourselves, then we’re more dependent on the government and easier to control.

      • Abby says:

        1. The American government already controls you – I don’t see your guns helping.

        2. The Romans didn’t have guns.

        • 1. The U.S. government may have some small measure of control over the American people but it is neither stable nor total, and it’s control will never be stable or total until gun rights are completely eroded. This isn’t China or North Korea, whose ruling bodies do retain and exercise near total power over their peoples.

          2. The Romans were armed with the best weaponry of the time period. You can bet your hat that nothing like this ever happened in a Roman military camp, because every man and his mother’s dog was armed out the kazoo. And if it ever did happen, I imagine the only casualty was the rapidly subdued and subsequently executed antagonist. The analogy still serves, and serves well.

    • One step leads to another. Study some history, it all starts somewhere….

      • Curtis says:

        Indeed. Slippery Slope is not a fallacy, it’s an inevitability. Just ask the philosophers who wrote a whole piece about why “post-term abortions” should be allowed, using the same exact arguments that support abortion.

    • jill says:

      I think the point is that even though it is a military base there is NOT a proliferation of guns..

    • Greg Parker says:

      I disagree. Gun control advocates constantly spew the “gun control is not about taking everyone’s guns away” bullshit. Even if you really believe that, those in power and those that lobby and raise money (Brady, VPC, MDA, MAIG, etc.) … they have ALL been caught plainly stating that it would be JUST dandy if all firearms could be outlawed.

      These Hitlerish and Orwellian nuances in how these organizations propagandize their ultimate intent is plain to those that have eyes to see and ears to hear.

    • Dwayne says:

      It sound almost like a gun free school campus shooting, doesn’t it. Also why is it that the safest schools are in Texas where teachers are allowed to care concealed weapons and are paid to train annually and qualify. Now that is a superintendent that truly cares about the safety of his children.

      The same should apply to bases; even if Officers and off duty MPs caried, at least someone would have been able to slow him down.

    • Amanda says:

      a very important point you completely disregard is that if someone intends to go on a shooting rampage and kill people, they are clearly past the point of caring about what is legal, let alone moral. they will obtain a gun by any means at their disposal. gun control laws will do nothing to stop them. this has been the case in every shooting that has ever occurred and congress could legislate gun ownership back to the stone ages and we would still have mass shootings in this country on an all too frequent basis. that is common sense thinking.

      • Thank you! He had already ignored laws related to concealed carry, discharge of a firearm in a populated area, laws regarding assault with a deadly weapon, laws regarding murder, not to mention having defeated his innate social and moral hinderances to avoid all of the above. Would the an additional law have been any impediment?

    • TTWheelsquad says:

      “The fact that he could kill three and injure quite a few more -on a military base- means that the proliferation of guns -does nothing to increase safety-”

      You are completely wrong. Guns are anything but proliferated on a military base. That’s one of the first main points Matt addresses. Understand the details before claiming to understand the situation better than him.

    • Oh my God. You have to be a troll. I can’t even wrap my head around the twisted hoops and tangled turns your mind has to go through to reach that conclusion.

      (1) Gun Control is about the restriction, erosion, and eventual revocation of the right to keep and bear arms. To claim otherwise is at best an example of self delusion and at worst deliberate deception on your part. California, New York, and Connecticut are examples of where Gun control is headed. Not that those states are done. Until they are a gun free paradise where only the Police and Criminals have firearms, the civilian disarmament movement will not declare the job complete. After all, we have to follow the example of places like Brazil and great Britain! Those are both gun free, and they’re both crime free paradise!

      (2) The point of Matt’s post is that it is RIDICULOUS for our soldiers to be disarmed. They are trained and disciplined, if ANYONE should be trusted to be armed, THEY SHOULD BE, and as has been proven on several occasions, GUN FREE ZONES ARE FREAKING MASS MURDER ZONES.

      (3) Regulating the exercise of a right that is in no danger of being taken away?

      Except.. our servicemen were disarmed. Their right had been “temporarily” taken away “for their own safety” – which was of great comfort to those who died, unable to mount any real defense of themselves and others. I’m sure their last thoughts were “thank goodness this was a gun free zone.”

      That statement is so completely untrue I’m not sure how you typed it. If the right was in no danger of being taken away, it would have been legal for soldiers at Fort Hood to be armed. Don’t talk about “reasonable regulation” and act like it won’t take away our rights.

      (4) The Government can’t even keep itself in the black fiscally, makes a hash of our foreign and domestic policies at every turn, and you want to give them MORE control over our lives? You want them to be able to decide when and where you should be able to defend your life, or the lives of those you love? Would you also like them to decide when and where you have the right to free speech? How about when and where you have the right to vote? When and where you have the right to a fair trial and a jury of your peers? How about the right to believe what you want to believe? The idea that the Government should be allowed to “regulate” our rights is to mistake a “Right” for a “Privilege”

      A RIGHT is something that I have an expectation to as a human being. A just Government will not attempt to violate my rights.
      A PRIVILEGE is subject to control, revocation and complete elimination at the whim of the Government.

      If you agree with ANY of the bill of rights, you REALLY ought to rethink whether or not you’re willing to allow the Government to decide when your “rights” are real. And when they’re not.

    • Wraith says:

      OK…did you get the part where GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED ON A MILITARY BASE? Your opening assertion shows serious comprehension problems.

    • Katie says:

      Thank you for posting in a non-violent way, and tastefully sating your opinions. I really do appreciate that. However, most if not all of the gun controlling legislation that has been proposed is to take away guns from everyone. Not just the crazy people. And unfortunately, this country may be heading, with liberals at the head, to a place where the right to bear arms is abolished.

      • Abby says:

        In all sincerity, as someone who comes from a part of the world where people do not carry guns, why is it so important to carry a gun? Do you feel scared? Is it a rights issue?

      • Natalie says:

        I struggle to understand this too, Abby, as someone who also comes from a part of the world where guns are much less common (Canada). I think it is a very deeply-entrenched ‘right’ that Americans feel they have. Which I find slightly ironic when placed on the same pedestal as the right to life. Guns are for killing. Seems a bit hypocritical.

      • AmandaM says:

        Katie, what makes you think that gun control legislation is trying to take guns away from everyone? The impetus has been to remove availability of assault rifles and large clips, not to take away personal handguns.

        Abby, I agree….I simply don’t understand the fear in this debate. Where I come from, it is illegal to carry a gun anywhere. Plenty of people own guns, hunting is a big deal here, but we simply do not carry guns in public places. At all. And there is very little violent crime….hmmm I wonder why??

    • Matt (Not Walsh) says:

      One of the biggest events that people who want the legislation like you are talking about refer to is the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. Yes, the person who committed this atrocity was mentally unstable. But here’s the kicker, the guns he used were not his, but his mom who was no mentally unstable. He killed her first, stole her guns and went to the school to open fire. Passing legislation like this is not going to stop anything.

      • jamesrovira says:

        Saying legislation like this is “not going to stop anything” because of the details of a single incident is a bit nuts. Suppose the legislation were written so that you couldn’t have any guns in the same house with a person like this?

        • Curtis says:

          Just a single event? Yeah, I’m sure. I’ll believe THAT when we get a list of all school shootings detailing which used legally obtained weapons and which were obtained by black market, theft, etc.

        • jamesrovira says:

          Probably not hard to find that out, Curtis. I think I’ve seen that.

          Saying that we shouldn’t have reasonable gun control laws because criminals will still illegally possess and use guns is like saying we shouldn’t have speed limits because people will still speed. Or like saying we shouldn’t have abortion laws because women will still get abortions.

  2. Doug Poole says:

    Please let your next blog be about Daniel Murphy, the Second Baseman of the New York Mets.

  3. Laura says:

    “Now, I love this country, I really do. But we’ve got a brand of stupid in this nation that’s hard to find anywhere else on Earth, let alone the galaxy. Back in the Roman days, soldiers were required to be armed at all times, under penalty of death. Yet here we confiscate their personal firearms and tell them to keep their military issued weapons locked away, which leads directly to these sorts of situations.”
    Spot on — are we training warriors or bureaucrats?

    • That was my favorite quote too! This is a military base in the country that supposedly has the best warriors in the world. No one should be able to get away with something like this for more than 10 seconds before they are restrained or dead.

  4. OtterMatt says:

    I live in Austin, and this kind of tragedy really is awful. I honestly kinda feel sorry for the guy, because he was long-diagnosed with PTSD (as I hear it) and had been in all kinds of therapy for upwards of two years. PTSD messes with your mind as bad or worse than the drugs do, and when those two get into conflict, no one knows what could or might happen. Heck, I don’t know if we’ll ever learn if he even knew what he was doing at the time.

    That being said, though, I highly agree that a disarmed military base is the apex of stupidity, and I suppose it was only a matter of time before the first shooting (a few years ago). But what now? Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice? Why hasn’t anything changed?

    • Colleen says:

      I’ve read where he never saw combat. Pretty easy to get PTSD these days I guess. Wonder what the men who landed on Omaha Beach had if this guy had PTSD? The vast majority of which never needed drugs or shot their fellow citizens. Nope, they just came home, got a job, raised a family and stayed married to the same woman for 65 years or so…with just a few exceptions.

    • Greg Parker says:

      You’re right … a disarmed military base is not the apex of stupidity … it is without a doubt at the exit of the turn … the apex of stupidity happened back in 1992 when anyone in their right mind thought it was a good idea. The fact that we haven’t reversed the course is the PINNACLE of stupidity.

    • Becca says:

      Actually he was being evaluated for PTSD but was not diagnosed. He did 4 months in Iraq as a driver and records show he never even encountered combat. He was however long-diagnosed with depression and anxiety and one other thing I can’t remember.

  5. perspectivesandmusings says:

    Reblogged this on Perspectives and Musings.

  6. Raymond Thompson says:

    Right on, Matt. Here’s some backup for you. cchr.org, cchrint.org, sntp.net

  7. DrAnonymous says:

    “…hostility, impulsivity, panic attacks, agitation, homicidal ideation, mania, violent behavior, and psychotic episodes…” Matt, just FYI, these are also symptoms of the very conditions that psychotropic drugs are used to treat. How to separate the symptoms of the disease from the treatment in FDA-mandated package inserts…? Well, you can’t.

    • Madd says:

      Yes, you can separate drug induced symptoms vs. the disease. It has been done. If you are serious about learning more, you should consider the work of Dr. David Healy and Dr. Peter Breggin.

    • Greg Parker says:

      Wow…do you like to comment just so you can read your own hogwash? I think any half-witted, discerning person can see the distinction here. Chances are if you exhibit these symptoms PRIOR to being placed on psychotropic medications, the hope is to reduce, quell, calm, etc. your symptoms. Unfortunately, is with very little discernment and with quarter-witted, greed-driven, superiority-complex-laded narcissism that these drugs are handed-out like candy to virtually anyone having a bad day.

      And this offending soldier? I suspect he did need the assistance of medication on some level but was likely barraged with a poison cocktail of multiple meds designed to address each and every one of his symptoms.

      Diet, exercise and life coaching is far less dangerous and much more effective than the big-pharma-poison being peddled to the World today.

    • bradenbost says:

      What about the fact that clinical trials have shown violent outbursts and behavior in subjects who previously exhibited none? You make a good chicken-or-the-egg observation otherwise, but there are studies that strongly suggest that the drugs play a role in the violent behavior.

    • RebeccaG. says:

      If this man had been diagnosed, or at least considered for a possible diagnosis of the above listed behaviors, why was he still on active duty? Nice try, but, seriously if this man had been under medical care for such things as you refer, would he really be allowed on a military base let alone still in uniform?

  8. Jenny Hatch says:

    I am glad you took it on Matt, I have been writing about it for a long time. Fact is that the psychiatric chemical imbalance theory has been completely discredited as junk science. It breaks my heart every time I read about another shooting, but my go to position is, Which Psychiatric med were they on? http://naturalfamilyblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/jon-rappaport-rip-psychiatry-the-chemical-imbalance-theory-is-dead/

    • LucidMystery says:

      I could tell someone right now that a norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor can help alleviate the effects of autism by allowing immunoglobulins to bind to the myelin sheaths (aka Schwann cells) of neurons, thus promoting quicker signal transduction in the frontal lobe, the part of the brain that guides social interactions. Every word of that is complete crap even though I used legitimate terms, but could the average person tell me why it’s complete crap? No. That’s the problem with most anti-vaccine blogs, “natural health” and alternative medicine blogs, and random anti-modern medicine websites. The scientific literacy of the audience (eg, the general public) is very poor, and they can’t detect when they are being lied to. You can’t merely read blogs online and suppose that makes your new education level qualifies you to make medical statements. If you have never taken a biochemistry class, a physiology class, sometimes even a basic general biology class, you can’t identify when you’re being misled.

      Neuroscience is incredibly complex, and by the time it reaches the general public, the facts are often confused and garbled. For example, if you ever someone say “This neurotransmitter does xyz”, don’t trust them. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Oxytocin is a great example of this. Folks who know a smidge about hormones and their influence on behavior might say “Oxytocin stimulates bonding”, but that’s only half correct. Oxytocin doesn’t do anything in and of itself–it’s all about which receptors are picking it up. Sure, if oxytocin is in some pathways, it stimulates bonding, but it can also activate aggression in other pathways. Also, some hormones and neurotransmitter act synergistically. It’s not as cut and dry as you’re suggesting. I do apologize, I don’t like being this rude, but saying that chemical imbalances have been discredited as junk science is factually incorrect and over-simplifying. It’s insulting to those who do suffer from legitimate imbalances. Ask someone with OCD what happens when they’re taken off meds to correct a serotonin deficiency.

      • kh128 says:

        You’re probably right – but the fact is that most scientists really don’t “know” as much as they think they do. They do some research and think they understand something – very often there are problems with their sample size, the design of their study, the length of their study or simply their interpretation of the data. There are countless examples of where scientific “fact” has proved misleading or just plain wrong. Occasionally, to top it off, there’s fraud. Witness the cholesterol theory and how data was cherry-picked to support a theory which was then used to affect medical advice and practice for decades. I think it’s sensible to question science, especially when it’s so often been presented to us by those with a financial vested interest!!

        • LucidMystery says:

          I see what you’re saying, but the money trail issue works both ways. For example, the guy who started the anti-vaccine scare had a vested interest in doing so. He claimed the MMR vaccine caused autism…and it just so happened he was patenting a single-dose measles vaccine.

          I’m not saying to blindly trust scientists. We’re human and we make mistakes, but the peer-review system of publication is set-up to at least try to minimize that. Also, we can’t help when the media takes something with a catchy headline and runs with it, and that’s actually a huge problem. I’ve only been interviewed about my research five or six times, but either I’ve been seriously misquoted or my results have been seriously misinterpreted each time (but I’m a wildlife geneticist, not something medical, so when I’m misquoted, it’s annoying rather than dangerous.) My overall point, though, is that it’s a problem when folks who don’t have any sort of scientific background make medical claims because they found something on the internet. Matt himself wrote funny facebook post about he was sure one of his babies had some exotic disease because he looked up symptoms on WebMD. He was kidding, but the concept is pretty accurate.

        • Jamie says:

          I think the real problem is FDA accepting lobbyists’ offerings to allow pharma companies to push a drug long before adequately understanding a drug. It’s not the application of science is flawed, it’s that the regulating bodies letting money and influence determine the application that is flawed.

        • The Mommy says:

          I dealt with a lot of PhD’s during my years as an analytical chemist. Not one of them was fool-proof. Not one of them never made a mistake. And ALL data can be manipulated to get the answer you want if you test it in the right way or enough times (kinda like polls). This is why *I* have trust issues with anything that’s endorsed or promoted by Dr. KnowItAlls. Yes, peer-review will vastly reduce the “facts” that are allowed to be called that but it still happens. Usually, many times per year.

        • LucidMystery says:

          @The Mommy…so what is your solution then? I’m not sure I understand your point. If you can’t trust the educated ones…why are uneducated ones any better? Why bother going to doctors or ever taking medicine if we can never be trusted? Again, I say, I understand that we’re human and to be human is to make mistakes. No, we don’t all manipulate data–though surely some do. No we don’t all promote things solely because they are financially beneficial to us–though surely that happens as well. You can trust scientists as much as you can trust any other sub-grouping of people. In general our goal is to understand the world around us and try to help make it a better place because of our discoveries. Of course there are exceptions…there are unscrupulous teachers, politicians, lawyers, grocers, bankers, business folks, priests, pastors, and parents…there are unscrupulous humans in whatever subset you can imagine! I don’t understand why there is an insistence that conspiracy theories abound within the scientific community. We’re normal people…we want the best for our world and our communities.

        • The Mommy says:

          @LucidMystery – My point is that people have to make up their own minds about who and what to believe. Not everyone with a “Dr.” before their name is an “expert”. Medical doctors all have specialties and so do ALL PhD’s. The problem is, you can have a PhD in “Chemistry” and not know a stinkin’ thing about SOME aspects of it. I think that doing your own research (meaning, educating yourself about a subject) before deciding what or whom to believe is the only way to make a conclusion. Another example is artificial sweeteners. We were told FOR YEARS that aspartame is safe. Nuh uh. I’ve witnessed with my own eyes what is can do and it ain’t pretty. That is my version of fact, based on my own experiences. There will be nothing published by any “expert” that will ever change my mind. No, I’m not an expert on it but I am educated by personal experience. I’m just saying that @kh128 is right in that experts are sometimes only named so in their own mind or by the media.

  9. Ursula Stouffer says:

    As usual, I completely agree with you, Matt. It is utter insanity to disarm our military on military bases, and it is complete madness how these dangerous, mind-altering pills are passed out like candy these days!

    • jamesrovira says:

      Except that no one is actually talking about “disarming our military bases” — at least no one that we need to take seriously.

      • LucidMystery says:

        But…our military bases are already disarmed…? So, you’re right that no is talking about it; it’s already been done.

      • Matt (Not Walsh) says:

        You do realize that even our deployed troops are ordered to keep duct tape over their clips unless they get permission to fire. And those are the ones who are in harms way 24/7

      • They ARE disarmed. Overseas in a war zone, soldiers are armed on and off base. Stateside, their guns stay at home unless they’re base security (MPs). This has been happening for years over concerns about PTSD and workplace violence. Matt and many others are saying that soldiers who are trusted to carry guns in combat should be trusted to carry guns to work on base at home, too, and if they had their guns, they could halt tragedies like this with a much lower body count.

      • Jillocity says:

        no, they’re just disarming the members of our military on the bases, and therefore leaving them open to being killed by someone is IS armed

      • Jillocity says:

        It is a sad state of affairs when the members of our military are allowed to become unarmed targets in our country, on our bases…I can’t help wondering if former Pres. George HW Bush has regrets about allowing by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense, to sign the directive which essentially made them targets…the directive states, “that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”

        “The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,” it says.

        The policy, however, adds, “DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.” A former member of the Air Force, with experience in base security, thus, told the Washington Post that he would guess there were “no more than a couple of dozen weapons on the Navy Yard.”

        It appears DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued in April 2011 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III…so it is an ongoing directive, in the Obama administration.

        In considering the second paragraph above, it appears to me (a lay person, never a member of the military) that there is now a “reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.”

        But hey, what is “reasonable” to me obviously is not “reasonable” to those who could revers this terrible directive.

        • jamesrovira says:

          A couple of dozen weapons should be enough, though. There are fewer than that around most other places that size at any given time.

          I don’t think you’re fully thinking through the implications of having EVERYONE have guns in a shooter situation when the shooter is dressed like military personnel. How do you tell the difference between the shooter and someone shooting at the shooter?

        • Curtis says:

          @Jamesrovira: If a couple dozen weapons should be enough (to, say, I don’t know, deter these kinds of shootings on military bases), then why is it NOT enough? I mean, it’s happened twice on the same base, so apparently what “should be enough” just isn’t enough.

      • Ross says:

        Locking all the weapons in a vault and separating them from their ammunition is, for all practical purposes, the same as disarming the base. It takes hours to mobilize any garrisoned unit except for the few military police who stand at the gates.

        It’s painfully obvious from your troll comments that you have never been in the military and have no idea what you’re talking about, because you clearly haven’t a clue as to how a garrison military base operates.

  10. Madd says:

    Thank you, Matt, for bringing attention to the psychotropic med issue. The mainstream media won’t touch this since so much advertising revenue comes from the manufacturers of these drugs. But you can bet that if so many mass shooters were high on marijuana, the mainstream media would be playing that up right and left. I took antidepressants in my teens and twenties and can tell you they “work” by making people not give a crap about anything–you’re not depressed anymore, you’re just numb. You don’t care who you hurt–even if it’s yourself. I’m glad to have made it through that decade alive, without hurting myself or anyone else, & will never take or allow my family to take anything like that again. Thanks for raising awareness of the issue. BTW, people have also used “antidepressant intoxication” as a murder defense. And we now have kids as young as 6 yrs old committing suicide while on these meds–more needs to be done to raise awareness, but the mainstream media has sold its soul and just will NOT cover it. So thank YOU!!!

  11. Rachel says:

    My only contention with the above is the assumption that because the shooters were on these drugs, the drugs caused them to be violent. They were on these drugs because they had psychological problems. I’m not saying the meds don’t contribute – they may. But these people had recognized red flags already. I agree that drugs are WAY over prescribed, but I know people who are kept stable and kept from becoming violent by meds. Sometimes they work.

  12. Carolyn Maslin says:

    Thank you for a straight forward assessment.

  13. Ashley says:

    “But we’ve got a brand of stupid in this nation that’s hard to find anywhere else on Earth, let alone the galaxy.”

    That comment made me laugh, but at the same time, it’s sad. True, but sad. How in the world did our once great, God-fearing country turn so backward? We stopped fearing God, and stopped using common sense, which isn’t so common anymore.

  14. Carol Harris says:

    Your are correct we do have a special kind of stupid in this country and it’s concentrated in DC

  15. What about the millions of people that are stable on there meds? I’m tired of people making the meds the enemy. Maybe people in the media make this stuff up to make it look ilke oh they are just crazy. Then this makes it look bad for someone like me who has schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Tired of the medias (main and alternative) spreading the stigma. It’s hard enough living with mental illness. Maybe it was the government who put them on this so called, “Cocktail,” ever heard of “Manchurian Canidates?”

    • mommyx4boys says:

      as a recovering drug addict and someone who has been on just about every kind of anti depressant there is, i can tell you from personal experience that the risks out weigh the benefits . And there is no drug out there that does better than good old fashioned will power. I have not taken any kind of medication in 2 years and 8 months and i have never felt better.

      • Natalie says:

        You are sadly misinformed if you think willpower has *anything* to do with functioning with a mental illness.

        • mommyx4boys says:

          Well i have been diagnosed with ptsd, ocd, ppd, and add. I don’t take medication and i am in perfect mental health now. I’m not saying all mental health issues are a matter of will power but some definitely are.

  16. What I don’t understand is why people with a supposed mental disorder are put on drugs that cause psychotic side effects. What kind of a solution is that? These supposed out of the blue attacks seem all to convenient and calculated to me. Remove weapons from qualified personnel, then let a drug induced psycho to run amuck through the place. Interesting that most of these nuts always “end” up killing themselves. How well choreographed.

  17. michael says:

    lets not label this man evil please, any individual suffering from post traumatic stress (in this case suffered due to his decision to protect his country) and clinical depression is at risk of such actions. this does not make him evil, this makes him mental ill. We don’t call children with down syndrome who hit other children and adults evil for a reason.

    • mo says:

      @ Michael –

      Sorry, but I disagree. People don’t get a pass because somewhere down the line they were labeled “mentally ill”. And there are plenty of people with the same label who never commit such acts.

      This man chose to do what he did. (If he didn’t understand – at least on some level – that what he was doing was wrong, why did he commit suicide?)

      This man murdered people. He destroyed the lives of their families.

      That’s evil. Maybe the rest of his life he was a fine person, but when he willfully chose to commit those acts, he was evil. Period.

      Stop excusing people. That’s part of the problem. “They’re not evil. They’re just sick” Baloney.

      • The anti-feminist feminine. says:

        Thank you for stating the obvious. Just because you have ‘issues’ is no excuse for atrocious behavior. We as a society need to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions. I have clinical depression, I suffer horrific anger, I have suicidal tendencies. I am a former cutter, and yet in my darkest moments when all I wanted was to cease to exist, never once did I want to harm other individuals. Why you ask? Because I know the difference between right and wrong. Once you become the perpetrator, you are no longer a victim.

        • mo says:

          @ The anti-feminist feminine.

          Excellently stated. And I am so sorry that every time some evil person commits an evil act, people such as yourself are all put into the same category as them. It’s not right. Thank you for speaking out.

          I think being treated as a human being who has choices and who has the capacity to control those choices/behaviors is one of the most healing things you can offer someone who is hurting. Telling them they are just sick and can’t help anything that happens to them or can’t change anything they do is not only giving them a hopeless outlook on life, but it’s just plain false. We DO have control over our actions! When we are in an out of control situation in life, knowing that at least we have control over *ourselves* can mean the difference between life or death.

          I hope you are finding some good counseling help. There is always hope – the greatest being in Christ.

    • SeekingTruth says:

      Post-traumatic stress from WHAT? News is saying he never had a confirmed combat-caused TBI, and never saw combat, period. I’m not saying he wasn’t unbalanced by something, but let’s not leap to conclusions that this was combat-related, which means it really has nothing to do with combat, or service in the military. It just so happens this guy was in the Army when he snapped, period.

    • Matt (Not Walsh) says:

      Jeffrey Dahmer was mentally ill, does that mean he wasn’t evil? Charles Manson is mentally ill, does that mean he is not evil? This man’s actions were evil pure and simple to say otherwise is degrading to the memory of the people he killed and wounded.

  18. Jen says:

    “How can we so quickly dismiss the potential role that a drug plays in a violent episode, when the drug is known to cause violent episodes?” I have to argue that the drugs don’t CAUSE the violent episodes…. I think that people who are on meds generally are on them to control and prevent such episodes. Just as a person on cholesterol lowering drugs doesn’t always have an immediate good outcome, same could be said for people on psych meds…. Sometimes meds need to be adjusted to attain the right balance.

    I don’t disagree with you that “happy pills” are overly-prescribed…. being moody, having the blues, or having trouble concentrating isn’t necessarily reason to medicate. And I think that in the same way doctors have had to learn to tell people “no” to antibiotics, they need to say “no” to over-prescribing psych meds.

    Additionally, doctors need to be more cautious when they DO prescribe – following up with patients, asking about side effects, mood changes, etc. is a very important aspect of prescribing psych meds. If doctors aren’t willing to invest in patients to that degree, they either need to decline to prescribe, or refer to their patients to psychiatry.

    But for those (like me) who truly benefit from psych meds, I have to argue that they are more beneficial than harmful. For me, it’s beneficial that my meds “invade my mind and capture my thoughts” because left to work on it’s own, my brain tells me horrible dark things that cause suicidal tendencies…. My meds give me just enough of a lift to allow me to retain control of my thoughts an stay sane… and alive….

  19. Bruce says:

    I agree with almost everything you write and thoroughly enjoy your blog. I was in the military from 1981-1985. There were some outstanding soldiers that would make anyone proud to have them serving their country. Unfortunately, there were others that chose the military as opposed to going to jail. You have probably heard of the 80/20 rule in churches, where 20% of the people do almost all of the giving/serving. I don’t think it is that bad in the military, but there are probably 20% that you wouldn’t want to be armed on a regular basis. That is another blog post, but I agree that our military installations should have much better protections in place to avoid this type of tragedy. Heartbroken for those families that suffered losses.

    • speakeasy25 says:

      Bruce, at current numbers, that’s about 300,000 people I wouldn’t want “armed on a regular basis” who are armed on a regular basis. How does that not freak you out?

  20. Amy says:

    The problem is that successfully treating mental illness is a game of hit and miss. It’s hard to successfully diagnose a problem and it’s hard to treat it because we really don’t know what each drug does. We just know it does something. It may help a certain problem with one person and not help another person with the same problem. Each person reacts differently to each drug. It’s a long and expensive process and it takes a very dedicated doctor and patient even if they have a good relationship.

    Unfortunately PTSD is pretty common among people with military experience. It really is just the crappy world we live in. It would be nice if there was no war and everyone got along hunky dorey. But no, we have to send people out to do horrible things to people who may or may not deserve it. Voila, we have a cocktail of bad conditions that lead to people losing their marbles and the very people that are causing such problems are trying to legislate it out of existence with gun control laws which have nothing to do at all with the underlying problem.

  21. Charity says:

    I’m a little concerned about these so called conservation camps that some of my family has said is going up. What are they for?

  22. mckjillian says:

    Perfect Matt, as in so many times before, you hit the nail on the head.

  23. May Sams says:

    Matt, If it weren’t for psychotropic drugs we’d still be doing inhumane treatments on innocent victims in insane asylums. For myself – one who has been in a mental health treatment facility for a very surprise psychotic episode – am grateful for them. When I was psychotic I didn’t have a violent bone in my body other than to protect my own hide from being shot up with tranquilizers. Here’s a shameless plug for my blog that will tell you the whole story: http://www.postpartumbipolar.wordpress.com. And here’s an idea that is much more important than my story: Let’s just make sure we all realize that most violence is not committed by those who are mentally ill (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/03/298752099/shooting-unfairly-links-violence-with-mental-illness-again). The fact that this guy is mentally ill is really not even relevant.

  24. Crystal says:

    My husband is a soldier, and expert marksman. He is trained as a gunner no less and not allowed to carry on American bases. It’s ridiculous. He served a year in Afghanistan (I can’t even tell you some of the bs that went on there.) He has no mental health issues and has his conceal and carry. It’s crazy to me that he wouldn’t be trusted to carry on base. If a housewife in Minnesota knows that criminals don’t follow laws…why don’t the educated men on capital hill know? They do…which leads me to believe they have a different agenda. There is a reason they want good people unarmed.

  25. SeekingTruth says:

    Matt, all good points, but I think it is instructive to expand your aperture. This isn’t just a military problem, nor do I think psychotropic drugs and weapons are mutually exclusive. You would be amazed at the number of soldiers who were medicated in the combat zone during the last 13 years: the weapon was placed back In their hands, and they executed their mission successfully. But, I am surprised as I read all the dialogue on this latest shooting that no one is remembering the Killeen, TX Luby’s shooting of 1991 (right outside of Fort Hood, ironically), where 24 people lost their lives because of a mentally deranged dude with two pistols and lots of ammo. One of the most powerful vignettes of this tragedy was the experience of Suzanna Hupp, who normally carried a pistol on her, but left it in the car due to laws in 1991 precluding concealed carry in “public places.” As a result of her adherence to the law she watched as both of her parents were murdered. Why we are focusing exclusively on the military with this event simply confounds me.

  26. Greg Parker says:

    Matt … I couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately, the gun haters will almost universally NEVER change. Logic and reason have no place for them in this debate. Damn the guns and ban them now! Well…not “all of the guns”…umm-hmm…not yet anyway.

    One thing I have found is that most fervent gun-control proponents are the biggest narcissists and hypocrites on the planet.

  27. Lisa Torry says:

    Took Ambien for about a week…..once. Just about harmed my kid in a totally out of character violent outburst. It’s a dangerous, dangerous drug. When I looked up the side effects the first things listed were anger and aggression.

  28. Rob says:

    How exactly are you privy to what psychiatric medications this shooter was on? I usually respect your positions and I believe gun in this country is going the wrong way. However, psychiatric medication is not to blame. Is there a tendency to over medicate, sometimes yes. But we also now have population of mentally ill persons who can function instead of being caged in a room, babbling. Oversimplifying the problem is what the other side does don’t join in. And go to your local chronic or state hospital and see what no psych mess really looks like.

  29. Em says:

    Do those violent episodes occur because the person is on anti-psychiatric meds? Or because the type of person who needs anti-psychiatric meds is more prone to violence?
    You can’t assume that correlation implies causation.

  30. Benadryl 50 mg at night is just as good ,without those side effect

  31. Tolly says:

    Thank you.

  32. People who support gun control should be shot. That’s all there is to it.

    • That guy says:

      Because everybody that disagrees with what YOU think is best for the country should be shot.

    • Curtis says:

      I don’t think that they SHOULD be shot… but the ironic realization when they’re faced with a home invader shooting them when they COULD have saved their family with their own weaponry would, at the very least, be some odd blend of irony and poetic justice.

      • Eva says:

        You know, in the UK when they took everyone’s guns away…they took EVERYONE’s guns away. And they took them out of all the local supermarkets and hardware stores and they basically made it near impossible for us to get guns and would you know it? No one gets shot in the UK. You might get stabbed or hit with a blunt object, but it’s hard to perform a massacre as big as, say Fort Hood, when you have nothing but a broken glass bottle and a kitchen knife.

  33. mo says:

    “In my innocence, prior to the (first) Fort Hood rampage, I sort of assumed that the military members on a military base would be perpetually locked and loaded every day – because, you know, it’s a military base..”

    Yep. I assumed so as well. Silly us!

    This world is upside down and inside out.

  34. Jana Rice says:

    I have been dealing with panic attacks for years. I also take pharmaceuticals for this. I also am a recovering Addict. 30 years,. I a am also a Teacher, Doc Trainer and Dog Competitor. I have never acted on an impulse to annihilate human life, We are humans who have free will. And some choose to make the most horrid choice . There is help out there. And some choose not to get help. That is the sad end of innocent people.

  35. Katie says:

    Well said Matt! And let me give a round of applause to the women who stopped it all.

  36. suckmywake says:

    Do any of you posting on here ever entirely read Matt’s posts or do you all just skim each line for words that spark your hot buttons??

  37. Sheril C says:

    You are right. I used to be one of those people on those medications. They have the power to destroy lives. And they do it everyday. We need to face the truth. I’ll help anyone who wants help to find a path to natural healing in place of psychiatric drugs!

  38. Amrita says:

    As a practicing GP I totally agree. We are prescribing way too much psychiatry medication in a horribly alarming manner. I once was given sertraline for a month and I went crazy. The depression was easier to take than the numb but messed up way I felt on those pills. But for purely defending doctors some of them prescribe just in case. its ironic.

  39. This is what happens when men and women ignore, make fun of, and lambaste the tenets given to us by God. Here, if you care, is a look at what life would look like if progressives get their way… http://johnwilsonbach.com/2014/04/03/life-as-a-progressive/

  40. mommyx4boys says:

    I am a conservative, but i do think that there should be a longer process when buying a gun, like if someone takes anti depressants than they don’t need a gun, that’s just common sense, your depressed then you definitely shouldn’t be buying a gun. Also and most important people who break gun laws should be punished severely, no more slaps on the wrist. First time you get caught with a gun that you are not supposed to have, it be an automatic 2 or 3 years in jail. If they would do that not as many people would be willing to take that risk. And i completely agree with matt, it is so stupid that our military is not allowed to carry weapons especially on base.

  41. Pam Weber says:

    I was placed on Ambien after a two year stint in hospitals, after a surgeon messed me me up really bad. The Ambien was prescibed as a sleep aide. The part they do not tell you, is that if you cannot get to sleep sfter you have dosed yourself, you will hallucinate severely. My husband thought I was losing mind! Nasty stuff that sleep aide! I was also put on a anti-depressant for sypmtoms of my hyper thyroidism. There are plenty of good doctors out there, but even more bad ones. Heaven help us with Obama care!! I’d be dead for sure if I had not had my real insurance, while I fought for my life at the hands oyf some crazy doctors…thank God for the good ones whose paths I crossed.

  42. AppleTart says:

    Psychiatric drugs don’t exist – psychoactive drugs do. The title alone was enough to know the quality of the post.

  43. fyrecurl says:

    Matt, I’m so glad I found you. I love the way you think, and put these wonderful, profound thoughts into writing. With a conscious like yours reminding us of what makes sense, and what does not, America works. Loved this blog.

  44. Many drugs that aren’t officially psychotropic drugs have deleterious effects on mental health. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics (Cipro, Levaquin, Avelox and Floxin) can damage mitochondria and cause a massive influx of oxidative stress that can make you depressed, anxious, suicidal, fearful, bipolar, etc. I lost my memory and reading comprehension while I was going through an 18 month adverse reaction to Cipro. Fluoroquinolones are related to Lariam/melfloquine – the anti-malarial drug that makes people psychotic.

    Once your mind is taken over by these drugs, it’s not a matter of “snapping out of it” or changing your mind. Mind over matter struggles do nothing.

    Of course, people need to take responsibility for what pills they take. But the only way that change is going to come about is if the drug manufacturers are held responsible and liable for the role that they are playing in destroying our psyche’s and our souls.

  45. Matt (Not Walsh) says:

    Here’s the only argument against gun control that needs to be said. When legislation is passed to make it illegal to own a gun, the only people who will have them are the criminals.

  46. Jillocity says:

    this got posted in the wrong place cause my laptop trackpad goofed me up…sorry…

    It is a sad state of affairs when the members of our military are allowed to become unarmed targets in our country, on our bases…I can’t help wondering if former Pres. George HW Bush has regrets about allowing by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense, to sign the directive which essentially made them targets…the directive states, “that “it is DoD Policy” to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.”

    “The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried,” it says.

    The policy, however, adds, “DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.” A former member of the Air Force, with experience in base security, thus, told the Washington Post that he would guess there were “no more than a couple of dozen weapons on the Navy Yard.”

    It appears DoD Directive 5210.56 was reissued in April 2011 by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III…so it is an ongoing directive, in the Obama administration.

    In considering the second paragraph above, it appears to me (a lay person, never a member of the military) that there is now a “reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.”

    But hey, what is “reasonable” to me obviously is not “reasonable” to those who could revers this terrible directive.

  47. BoKnwos says:

    Why do they want to take all the guns away? Why do they hate the constitution? What is the collapse of the petrodollar? Who is John Gault? What is the NDAA? What are FEMA camps? Why is there Fluoride in the municiple water supply? Why does our food cause cancer? Why does are government fund extremist groups in other countries? What is fractional reserve banking? What is a false flag? What is operation Northwoods? Why does the NSA spy on everyone? Why do they make math even harder than it already is? Who is they? How does the top 1% have 40% of the country’s wealth? Why do we as a whole not care? What is MKultra? Do you know Jesus?

  48. Bob says:

    You should research/experience Hong Kong or Tokyo(anywhere in Japan) and dig into how these mega-cities are so safe. It amazed me (and still does) how safe they are. There was a recent incident of a stabbing of a journalist in Hong Kong (for exposing Chinese government officials to corruption), but if you overlook this interference from the terrible CPC, Hong Kong is quite a beautiful thing to behold. Violent crime is virtually non-existent in these places.

    • Curtis says:

      Hmmmm… a world of no violent crime in which we’re also killed by our fellow men, who happen to hold political position, if we speak out against their corruption and tyranny? Wait… I think I’m seeing something…
      No violent crime…
      Killed for speaking against political corruption….
      No violent crime…
      Killed for speaking against political corruption….
      No violent crime…
      Killed for speaking against political corruption….
      What was your point?

  49. analyticalperspective says:

    I am mentally ill, emotional, female, ex-military, and attempted both suicide and homicide, as well as self-educated and recovered, albeit eccentric. And this is what I think:


  50. Helen Hill says:

    Hi Matt

    Love your blog.

    On the issue of the drugs, here in South Africa I have heard of several – and personally know the family of one – 16-year-old boys committing suicide. The one was definitely on a skin medication – I don’t know if this is a global issue but if so perhaps it could do with some high-profile exposure … ?

    Best regards


Comments are closed.