The Dog That Didn’t Bark

Has anyone else noticed an odd omission from all the recent, harrowing accounts of sexual assault and outright rape of young women in the motion picture and TV news industries by older, powerful men?

All alleged assailants are owed a presumption of innocence in court, of course. But when so many scores of accounts describe curiously similar “modes of operation” — and when in some cases these women now solve the mystery of their career eclipses by reporting they were traumatized for years — surely we’re not forbidden to note this one, odd, missing detail — the “dog that didn’t bark.”

Wouldn’t it seem to defy the odds that not a single one of these women ends her account by saying “So, since shouting ‘No, I don’t want this,’ didn’t work, pushing him away didn’t work, trying to get out the door didn’t work, finally after he pushed me down on the bed and started to rip off my clothes, I just couldn’t think what else to do, so I pulled my snub-nose .38 out of my purse and fired two warning shots into the center of his chest. Do you think that was enough, officer?”

There’s a reason for this. You don’t see a pattern of this kind of depraved conduct in Alaska, Arizona, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire or Vermont. Virtually all of these crimes occurred in such “gun-free zones” as New York, Los Angeles, London and the south of France, where these women presumably would have had no idea where to obtain a self-defense handgun, and where there’s a good chance THEY would have been the ones arrested if they’d availed themselves of the only method of protection which is EVER likely to work for a small woman against a larger, ruthless, powerful man.

What’s even stranger is that I haven’t heard a single one of these women -– or any of the chorus of Johnny-come-latelies now “signaling their virtue” by racing to the ladies’ much belated defense (generally a good thing, though men losing their jobs without due process remains worrisome) — say “That’s why we need to get rid of these grossly harmful victim disarmament laws. We need to demand that our legislatures pro-actively declare it LEGAL for a woman to buy a self-defense weapon and carry it on her person at all times, without having to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops.”

Not a one.


In fact, can it be a coincidence that the biggest ogres in this ongoing scandal aren’t merely passive, go-along type gun haters, but really arrogant, PUSHY gun-haters?

At, Denver Nicks reported back in January of 2014: “Film executive Harvey Weinstein said Wednesday he plans to make an anti-gun movie starring Meryl Streep that will take a direct shot at the National Rifle Association.”

“We’re going to take this issue head on, and they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them,” Weinstein said of the NRA on Howard Stern’s radio show, where he was discussing a forthcoming project based on a novel about a Holocaust uprising, Mediaite reported.

“It’s not a Holocaust story as much as it’s Jews with guns. It’s my whole philosophy,” Weinstein said. “It’s the idea that when injustice is so great you can’t just march into the camps.”

Stern asked the big-time producer if he himself owned a gun.

“I never want to have a gun,” Weinstein said. “I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it, and I think the NRA is a disaster area.”

The millionaire movie producer said the film he was planning would be “a big movie, like ‘Mr. Smith goes to Washington,’” that will hurt the stock price of gun manufacturers. “It’s going to be like crash and burn,” for those businesses, he said.

So . . . the Holocaust was facilitated by the fact European Jews and other minorities were disarmed by law, while the Gestapo and the SS remained armed? Correct. Jews who got hold of guns and — against all odds — rose up against their Nazis oppressors were heroes who deserve to have films made about their valor? Correct. Up to this point, Mr. Weinstein sounds like a good spokesman for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

But then he asserts the NRA is evil and American gun manufacturers deserve to see their businesses lose value or fail because they . . . make available the firearms that allow everyday Americans to arm themselves, thus preventing similar Holocausts on these shores?

That last part, the “Far-Left turn,” doesn’t make a lick of sense. Unless, of course, when Mr. Weinstein said people “don’t need guns in this country,” he had in mind primarily people like Rose McGowan, Annabella Sciorra, Asia Argento, Lucia Evans, Mimi Haleyi, Dominique Huett, Rosanna Arquette, Lauren Sivan, Jessica Barth, Emma de Caunes, Cara Delevigne, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Daryl Hannah, Zoe Brock, Ambra Battilana Guttierez, (who wore a wire and got Mr. Weinstein to discuss how he’d groped her breast the day before — but still couldn’t get the Manhattan D.A. to do anything) . . . the list of women who have accused Weinstein of rape, attempted rape, and other forms of sexual pressure and assault is literally longer than we have room for.

As John Nolte noted at on Nov. 7:

“No Coincidence Pro-Rape Hollywood and Media are Anti-Gun:

“According to the latest numbers, there are 67 men in Hollywood who stand accused of abusing women and children. A few of those men are even accused of abusing other men. Moreover, the Hollywood Reporter reveals that ‘these stories are just the tip of the iceberg. . . .’

“Is it any wonder, then, that Hollywood, a town ruled by left-wing men, an institution dedicated to sexual abuse and shielding those abusers, is anti-gun, would prefer their pool of victims defenseless?”
And it’s not just Hollywood. Nolte notes. There’s also our national electronic media.

“High-powered men (who) work(ed) for NBC News, ABC News, NPR, Vox, the New Republic, the New York Times. Mother Jones . . . all accused of various forms of misconduct towards women.

“If these allegations are true, is it any wonder the powerful men who guide these media outlets, who shape conventional wisdom within the media, would prefer an unarmed populace, would feel better knowing a woman cannot suddenly equalize a situation with a firearm?”

Nolte cites the case of the slick and simpering gun-grabber Mark Halperin, attempting to humiliate one of his alleged victims, Emily Miller (the courageous, persistent author of the 2013 book “Emily Gets Her Gun . . . But Obama Wants to Take Yours”) during a “Morning Joe” broadcast, smirking and trying (unsuccessfully) to throw Ms. Miller off balance by pretending to be in favor of “defending his family” with a machine gun — baiting the young author by asking if she’d be in favor of that.

(Miller started to respond that — if he really meant it — he could contact the ATF and apply for a machine gun permit . . . but was cut off by all the leftists on the show breaking into laughter. Needing a firearm to defend yourself or your family from murderers and rapists is really funny, you see — until the day comes when you wish you had a firearm to defend yourself or your family from murderers and rapists, of course.)

Halperin, Nolte notes, “stands accused of masturbating in front of women, rubbing his clothed erection up against women, throwing women up against walls. . . . If guilty, should we be surprised that such a man would be so hostile towards a female Second Amendment advocate, an apostle for the idea of women arming themselves? . . .

“There are countless reasons our Morning Joe elites so desire a helpless population, and not a single one of those reasons has to do with stopping mass shooters,” Nolte continues. “Despite all these terrible events, not a single elite calling for more gun control can come up with a law that would have stopped even one of these massacres. . . .

“Our elites are not in favor of gun control to stop mass-shootings, rather, they are in favor of using mass-shootings to push the gun control that will result in a more vulnerable populace that is easier to control and victimize.”


And speaking of mass shootings, they’ve multiplied from unheard-of events to familiar tragedies over the past 30 years – since about 1985.

What’s changed over those 30 years? Do Americans now have more ready access to firearms? Of course not. In fact, before 1968 you could buy guns THROUGH THE MAIL.

No. Something else happened in 1985.

In 1985, Hoffmann-La Roche’s patent on the widely used tranquilizer Valium expired, clearing the way for other pharmaceutical companies to begin manufacturing the drug on a generic basis – and selling them for small change. Since then, the routine prescribing of these “Mothers’ Little Helpers” -– especially the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) -– has skyrocketed.

Chart the rise in mass shootings since 1985 against the increase in the number of prescriptions being written for SSRIs and other “mood-altering” psychiatric drugs. The two lines track really well.

Stephen Paddock, the man behind the recent Las Vegas mass shooting?

A court deposition in a civil suit filed by murderer-to-be Paddock over a slip-and-fall incident at the Cosmopolitan Hotel finds him explaining that he often gambled all night, sleeping during the day. He testified he had no mental health issues. Yet he said Nevada internist Steven Winkler prescribed him Valium “for anxiousness.” Asked if he had a good relationship with Dr. Winkler, Paddock bragged that he had him on retainer.

While the toxicology report has not been released and it’s not known when he last took the drug, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was issued another prescription for 50, 10-milligram diazepam (generic Valium) tablets on June 21, according to Nevada’s prescription drug monitoring database. He filled the prescription the same day it was prescribed.

Diazepam can cause aggressiveness, rage and irritability. Experts told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that people who have underlying aggression problems can become even more aggressive when you try to sedate them with the drug, and its effects can also be magnified by alcohol.

A Finnish study published in World Psychiatry in 2015 examined people convicted of homicide and found their odds of killing were a remarkable 45 percent higher while they were on benzodiazepines.

While the vast majority of people taking these drugs of course do no harm, and there’s no proof their use directly CAUSES mass murders all by itself, use of psychiatric drugs is nonetheless common among mass murderers. Eric Harris of the high-profile Columbine school shooting tried to join the Marines, but was turned down because he was on prescription Zoloft and Luvox. He and fellow killer Dylan Klebold -– whose medical records have never been made public — between them killed 12 students and a teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves.

Sixteen-year-old Jeff Weise was taking a high dose of Prozac in 2005 when he shot family members and students at his school in Red Lake, Minnesota, before turning the gun on himself. He killed 10, wounded 12.

Recent Sutherland Springs, Texas, church murderer Devin Kelley? A former high school classmate told Fox News that Kelley had a history of mental illness, and had been on psychiatric meds.

“His parents had him on high doses of ‘psych’ meds from 6th to 9th grade, the time I knew him,” said the student, who wished to be identified only as Reid. Kelley’s use of prescription “mood elevators” since then? Not yet known.


The Web site of the Florida Citizens Commission on Human Rights notes:

“Before the late nineteen eighties, mass shootings and acts of senseless violence were relatively unheard of. Prozac, the most well known SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant, was not yet on the market. When Prozac did arrive, it was marketed as a panacea for depression which resulted in huge profits for its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Of course other drug companies had to create their own cash cow and followed suit by marketing their own SSRI antidepressants.

“Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. . . .

“The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot 22 classmates and killed two. . . . In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants,” the Florida based Web site continues. “These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten. . . .”

At, Dan Roberts reported back in 2013:

“Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years — and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings — all share one thing in common, and it’s not the weapons used.

“The overwhelming evidence points to the single largest common factor in all of these incidents being the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.”

There simply isn’t room here to repeat all the links Roberts details between psychiatric drugs and teen shooters But because it didn’t involve guns, how many people have heard about (just as one example) Jeff Franklin (on Prozac and Ritalin), of Huntsville, Alabama, who killed his parents as they came home from work, using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister?

Was that was caused by “the more common availability of sledge hammers and hatchets” since 1985 — best solved by more congressional hammer and hatchet control?

What about Steven Kazmierczak, 27, who shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium in February of 2008? According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

Kazmierczak didn’t use a so-called “assault rifle.” He used a shotgun and a couple of pistols. A problem best solved by more federal “shotgun control”?

Wouldn’t it be ironic if Congress — whose members have shrieked for more “gun control” after almost every one of these violent incidents — has had the real culprit right under their noses the whole time, and merely refused to look?

That couldn’t be because of the substantial “campaign contributions” they receive from pharmaceutical manufacturers . . . could it?

Vin Suprynowicz was for 20 years an editorial writer and columnist at the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal. He blogs at .

4 Comments to “The Dog That Didn’t Bark”

  1. MamaLiberty Says:

    Good luck getting anyone in entertainment, and most politically active women to carry a gun and use it effectively for self defense. Most of those women are seriously involved in “gun control” and assume no personal responsibility for much of anything.

  2. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger Says:

    Research show that dead rapists are rarely recidivists

  3. Henry Says:

    I think this dog actually does bark. It just barks somewhere else.

    When this dog barks, you don’t get articles about some guy who abused women for 40 years and is now in the process of being socially dragged through the mud, and maybe even eventually indicted, assuming somebody in the justice system can find some spare time.

    You get an article about some guy being carted out feet first who had a reputation in neighborhood circles for abusing the ladies, though he never earned any actual convictions. Often you will find the police and the justice system did f*-all about him while he was alive.

    For example:

  4. Vin Suprynowicz » Blog Archive » Reader asks Vin to “Lay off the bullshit’ Says:

    […] . . or, further down on this site, to a Dec. 5 post titled “The Dog That Didn’t Bark,” ( ), scrolling down to the sub-head “What Links All the ‘Mass Shooting’ […]