At the end of the short, Donna can be heard mumbling "I don't have a gun." while she's lying on the front step of her home. Police lights can be flashing. Given that we saw her evil-self torment her children, it's not too far-fetched to guess that she likely murdered her own children. She may not have a gun, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that she stabbed, strangled, or even beaten them to death.
The ending implies that she knows she's done something horrible. She has to live with the fact that not only did her addiction ruin her own life, it also caused her to have a lapse in clarity and murder her own children.
Or it could be a case of denial- she shot her children and is trying to convince herself that she didn't do it. If she doesn't have a gun (right now), then she couldn't have hurt anyone with it.
The crime scene has a subtle yet very disturbing moment where we see a policeman sobbing inconsolably on the sidewalk. What could possibly cause a trained officer to break down like that? Did he know the victims or possibly the suspect? Or, was the crime scene so bad it caused him to suffer a breakdown? Real world police officers have publicly admitted that crime scenes involving children are the worst for them to deal with.
There are also several details of the crime scene, itself, that are subtly off. The scene is in the later stages of being processed, but the apparent suspect is still there. He's screaming and acting like a lunatic, but no one is making any move to restrain him—in fact, nobody seems to notice he's there at all. There are at least a dozen first responders working the scene, but no emergency vehicles anywhere in sight. This all serves nicely as the first overt hint that Donna's not quite in touch with reality.
In both the Crazed Man's and Donna's case, the police show up after it's far too late to prevent either tragedy from happening. Also, notice how the rest of the neighborhood doesn't seem to notice or care about what's going on around them. Sad and horrifying truth is that addiction isn't always obvious. A person may not realize he or she has a problem until something terrible happens and they end up arrested or possibly even dead.
Likewise, the short shows that addiction can happen anywhere. People tend to think that drug problems only occur in poor inner-city areas. The truth is that addiction can happen anywhere and to anyone.
So, why have bear footage at the start if the rest has nothing to do with it? Well, the whole short is about the dangers of prescription drug addiction. The beginning has soothing relaxing footage of a grizzly bear only to suddenly shift into a very surreal and increasingly disturbing commercial for Claridryl. The whole short shows how people addicted to certain prescription drugs start off in a sort of tranquil high only to end up spiraling into a dangerous cycle.
A bear is also a perfect metaphor for Donna, her children, and her addiction. Why? Well, for one thing, both Donna and bears are very devoted mothers. It's clear from the Claridryl commercial (at least until things go horribly wrong) that Donna is trying her best to be a single parent. For another thing, both the bear and Donna are deceptive in terms of appearance. The bear footage at the start shows the bear as being docile and of no danger to anyone. Likewise, Donna at the start of the Claridryl commercial is also shown to be docile as well. However, much like how bears can turn extremely violent when provoked, Donna's addiction to Claridryl also causes her to develop a violent streak.
It's also likely a reference to the phrase Mama Bear
Claridryl's supposed to be a nasal decongestant or anti-allergy medicine, but the side effects are sometimes insane and skewed more towards something that manages depression. Three reasons:
1) The more obvious one: the depression metaphor (see more on main page).
2) Some nasal decongestants actually fall under the category of controlled substances and you need a pharmacist's approval to get them, because combining the right ingredients can make the more illicit forms of the drugs instead of the benign effect it's supposed to have. These kinds of drugs are more dangerous with regards to potential addiction and abuse.
3) Drug trials in the testing phase must list down every side effect a person has whether it seems related to the drug or not; even if only one person experienced it, it must be added to the side effect list. Drug releases are balances between side-effect severity, amount of people who experience the effects, and actual potential to mitigate what it claims to. So the Claridryl makers could have been hiding the worse side effects or simply claim it did its job and the low numbers mean it wouldn't happen to anyone as a way to avoid responsibility.
