There’s a conversation we’re not having about mass violence in America.

There's a conversation we're not having about mass violence in America.

When you watch ads for antidepressants, the disclaimers are stunning: common side effects include worsening depression, suicidal ideation, and aggression or violence toward yourself and others. These aren't rare reactions buried in clinical trials—they're listed as common.

Yet in the aftermath of mass shootings over the past decade, one question is almost never asked in mainstream coverage: How many of these individuals were on psychiatric medication at the time? The data suggests the overlap is significant—some estimates point to the vast majority. But it's treated as a third rail. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on advertising. Media outlets depend on that revenue. And so the question remains unasked.

This isn't about demonizing people who struggle with mental health. It's about transparency. If a class of drugs carries known risks of violent ideation and we're prescribing them at record rates, shouldn't that be part of the public conversation about violence?

We talk about guns. We talk about mental health in the abstract. But we don't talk about the biochemical interventions we're using—and what happens when they go wrong.

Why do you think that is?