Let's Forever Link Gun Violence & Mental Health Together

Solve the gun violence problem by assigning fees to everything related to gun violence and putting those fees to work in our failing mental health system and programs.

I promised myself I wasn't going to write this blog. I wanted to, even thought I needed to, but could find no good reason to write it. That was until just a short few hours ago. A few short hours ago (currently 7pm on Dec. 21), Jeffrey Michael took the lives of 4 people and injured 3 State Troopers in Hollidaysburg, Pa. Like many of you, I was at a loss for words over the events in Newtown, CT. I am the father to a beautiful 5-year old in Kindergarten and I have spent much of my last few days wondering how someone could do such a thing. For that very reason I wasn't going to write what would have become a very emotional blog. But I had to and here's why-

Guns are not the problem. A study  estimated there were 270 million guns owned by private citizens in the United States in 2007. That was 5 years ago. There are an estimated 311 million people in the US. My point is if guns were the problem, there would be a lot less of us considering how many guns are out there. 

So here is my point in this whole diatribe: If we take away the gun issue, if only for a moment, and look at WHO is committing these crimes, you will notice something. In profiling, you look for certain commonalities. (Read Profiling Mass Murders , if you still don't get it). They were all mentally challenged in one form or another.

"We have slowly dismantled a public mental health system that has limited resources to deal with dangerous psychiatric illnesses" wrote Jackie Chazan. "No longer do we hospitalize individuals with profound mental illness -- the state institutions in many states shuttered their doors long ago. Instead, we rely on..., mental health emergency rooms, and short-term psychiatric hospitalizations with uncertain follow-up of patients with critical problems." (Read the whole article here). Why did we dismantle the system? In 1999, the State of Georgia lost a case in the Supreme Court whereby mental health patients were thought to be able to get equally effective treatment in their communities rather than state-run mental health hospitals.

The problem is local communities do not have the resources to administer truly effective mental health solutions complete with follow-up services. The money isn't there folks. So every day, the people who need help are not receiving it. Instead, they simply go about their lives, often showing signs of severe mental issues and nothing is done about it. Nothing. But when those same people who have mental health issues take the lives of innocent men, women and children, we rush to blame the guns. But the core issue is inadequate mental health services.

So let's forever link the two issues together: Guns and Mental Health. Want a firearms permit to buy a gun? It will cost you $400; $50 for processing and $350 for the mental health system. And just like your driver's license, it will expire in 5 years, so we will need to see you back here, just to make sure you are still sane and have the ability to properly handle a firearm. And another $400. Want to buy a gun with that new permit? That will cost you an additional $1,000 on top of the price of the gun. We need that money for mental health treatment to prevent mass killings. And we need you to register that firearm every year, just as you do your automobile, every year on your birthday. Just bring in your firearm(s) when you are registering your vehicle(s) so we can keep up with who owns what and bring a $100 for every pistol, $150 for rifles, $200 for anything that is semi-automatic. Oh, and if you have a rifle or a shot gun, regardless of what you have it for, we are going to charge you for a yearly hunting license. Because that is why you own an AR-15 right? For hunting? That will be an additional $200.

Bullets? Add an additional $100 on that box of 50. We need that to fund our mental health programs. That trip to the firing range just got a lot more expensive, but there are far fewer shooting incidents. Bullet proof vest? Tack on an extra $1,200 to give to the local police in the event someone injures or kills one of them while trying to subdue someone wearing one of those. And let's not forget the first-person shooter video games. In order to keep these games from becoming an influence on people who cannot determine right from wrong, violent games will cost you an additional $150 each. We need that money to prevent innocent children from becoming victims.

So everyone gets what they want and need without taking away any guns from owners or restricting the purchase of firearms or ammo. And if you actually feed your family with the animals you kill while hunting, you can claim up to 200 rounds of ammunition on your taxes because let's face it, if you can't kill one or two deer, some ducks and a few pigs with 200 rounds, you might want to think about trying your hand at fishing. Ever considered going vegan?

Because guns are the easiest way for mentally challenged people to kill other people, gun purchases, ammunition purchases, bullet-proof vests, helmets and other tactical gear sold to civilians should foot the bill for their treatment. When they start using cars, we will start looking at ways to combat that as well, but for right now, if you want to limit the horrendous mix of mental instability and gun violence, you need to treat the cause with the millions of dollars we spend on our right to bear arms.

And to the thousands of outraged gun owners who think this is a tax, what are you willing to give to have just one of those 20 innocent children back with their families? A few extra hundred dollars will go a long way toward preventing the next mentally challenged person from acting out in a similar way. Just remember: Freedom Is Not, Nor Has It Ever Been, FREE! So please pay at the cashier and have a nice day. (Someone pass this on to Joe Biden for me. Tell him I'm doing my part to create a solution). 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Stephen P Belt December 23, 2012 at 07:11 PM
o state shall convert a right into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor. -murdok v. pennsylvania, 319 US 105 if the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity. -shuttleworth v. city of birmingham alabama 373 US 262 the court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secure rights -boyd v. u.s., 116 US 616 where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them. -miranda v. arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) an unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed. -norton v. shelby county, 118 US 425
Jair Sweatman December 23, 2012 at 09:41 PM
I don't know if you have children, but I don't know of any parent who wants put their child in the middle of a gun fight, which is exactly the situation you are creating by arming teachers, administrators or private armed guards. Teachers are already paid less than any other profession of equal importance. Has anyone asked them if they want the added responsibility of undergoing the training and the psychological stress tests required to be able to squeeze a trigger and take a life? Lastly, please don't patronize the poor by suggesting the neighborhoods they live in are so crime infested that they must all carry guns in order to be safe. No one is restricting your right to own a firearm in as much as no one is restricting your access to a private jet. Quite simply, the freedom you enjoy is not free. It is relatively cheap. The mix of cheap and destructive needs to be adjusted upward to position destructive out of the cheap seat section. And the money that comes from that adjustment will go toward treating mental health issues that we have ignored for far too long. So please don't complain when the increased cost of freedom for school children NOT being caught in the middle of a fire fight comes knocking on your door. Just do your part as an American and open your wallet. Consider it part of your civic responsibility as we create a better United States for our children.
Jair Sweatman December 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM
First of all let me Thank You for bringing this up. In McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, the United States Supreme Court stated that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is not an absolute right- Individual citizens must still abide by state statutes that require permits for the carrying of guns. For example, statutes that prohibit convicted felons from using guns are still in effect. Your right is NOT absolute and therefore subject to state statutes, fees included. My proposals only increase fees. Unlike D.C v. Heller , 2008, none of my proposals restrict or prohibit ownership or use. But I appreciate your contribution. And you can Thank Justice Thomas for using incorporation as a means to reach his decision on McDonald v. Chicago thus paving the way for states to charge for permits and additional fees. Without clarification, the door is wide open on what individual states can charge without violating an individuals right to own a firearm. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/gun-possession-without-a-permit.html)
jeff December 23, 2012 at 11:13 PM
I don't know of any parents that want to put the children where the ones in charge of their wellbeing are armed only with courage and good intentions. To suggest the "children will be in the middle of a gunfight" is silly, at least they will stand a chance to live. Why not allow the good guy(or gal) to be armed in the room? I know several teachers that want to be armed. As for me "patronizing the poor" why do you want to stick it to them just to be able to exercise their right? You keep pointing out that freedom isn't free(yes I understand that, many thanks to all that fought for it!), but why should it cost anything to exercise it? I exercise my first amendment rights freely. As for the increased cost of keeping the children save, I'm offering a free option which you choose to not want to accept.
Clicker December 24, 2012 at 04:25 PM
Typical liberal claptrap here. Let's tax one group of people to fund a societal fix. Taxes are always the answer after all. Dumb.
Byte Stryke December 24, 2012 at 04:44 PM
Let's flip this. You have to purchase a state I.D. Card and or Drivers license to exercise your right to vote. WHAT? Disparaging the poor? Racist, you say? It's OK when it suits your need but an infringement on civil liberties when it doesn't. So you want to hand over all protections to the government. Only the police and government should have guns... Who is going to protect you from the government? My point is, Our creator has given each of us the inalienable right to bear arms in our own defense. The second Amendment does not grant that right, it preserves it. you want to see what happens to a disarmed society? Look at China, Look at the violent crime statistics for England and South Africa. Call the police, they are not obligated to defend you.
Tim December 24, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Perhaps a better solution is to tax the parents that have children, and use this money to provide mental health screening and treatment for these children. That makes much more sense and puts the responsibility for payment right where it belongs...on the person(s) responsible for the burdon of treatment. Taxing guns for mental health treatment makes no sense since there is no connection or cause/effct between guns and mental health (except as a recreational outlet which improves mental health, or possibly a feeling of safety).
Jair Sweatman December 24, 2012 at 06:50 PM
So you have a RIGHT to low cost ammunition? Maybe you should have a right to FREE ammunition? Maybe the government should give everyone a gun as a birth right. And why stop there. Maybe everyone should have a rifle and a handgun. Because it CLEARLY says in the 2nd Ammendment that you have a RIGHT to BEAR ARMS with an "S". Why should you have to pay for it if you have a RIGHT TO IT? Oh wait... you would call that Socialism wouldn't you? It is ironic that you want the things you want, even feeling a sense of entitlement to them, but only you are entitled to them. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was denied to 26 people by one person and 100 rounds of ammunition. And you can't see past your Right to bear arms, a right no one is taking away, by the way, but you can't see how a few extra dollars will make your right even more secure? I suppose the mentally ill should get a job and fund their own mental health care? Are you hiring? There are over 57 million of your fellow Americans who need a job to pay for their mental health care. But I bet you won't leave your gun in a place where they can find it.
Jair Sweatman December 24, 2012 at 07:20 PM
I agree, you should have to show a picture I.D. to vote. (One strike). The Creator did not give you an inalienable right to bear arms. The Second Amendment to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights, speciffically says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." No where is there a God-given right. (Strike Two). The number of deaths resulting from gun violence in England in 2009: 138. Number of deaths resulting from gun violence in the City of Atlanta in 2009: 168. That's not Metro Atlanta, just the City of Atlanta. If we were to treat cars and driving the way we treat guns, everyone would be able to drive an unregistered vehicle, gas would be 15 cents a gallon and after a mentally ill driver plows through a crowded mall, movie theater or school play ground and kill dozens of people, the National Car Association would defend the right to drive and suggest placing more cars around school and having a car in every classroom to stop bad guys with cars. Consider this flipped.
Byte Stryke December 24, 2012 at 07:36 PM
failed civics did we? and you do NOT have the right to drive a car. yet more people are killed with a car in a month than guns in a year
Jair Sweatman December 24, 2012 at 08:07 PM
You have quite the knack for creativity, but let's give credit where credit is due. There were more TRAFFIC related deaths in 2010 than there were GUN related deaths. 32,788 people were killed in traffic related incidents in 2011 versus 31,347 killed in in an incident were a firearm was used. That is a difference of 1,441. How you come up with this idea that more people are killed in a car in a month than are people killed by gun violence in a year is beyond me, but you still get an 'F' for Failing. You do NOT have a RIGHT as assigned by GOD or the Constitution to bear arms. Ask anyone convicted of a felony. By the way, the FBI says: " firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults."
Jair Sweatman December 24, 2012 at 08:38 PM
I like your approach on this Tim. Here's the problem with mental health care: If you Google where to find a qualified mental health care professional in your area, almost always in the top 3 spots will be a county mental health care facility. The local city & county offices don't have the money to properly treat people with severe mental health issues. Taxing a parent is probably not as effective as providing a tax-break for parents, but I see where you are going with it. Parents have a responsibility to ensure their children get proper help with mental health issues. Once the children become adults, like the last string of 20 to 24 year olds who killed in malls, movie theaters and schools, well then you aren't talking about kids anymore. Who helps the 57 million mental ill now? No one does. Tim, I'm not trying to limit, restrict or take away gun from anyone. The government restricts how much fertilizer you can buy because large amounts can be used to make bombs. They limit the amount of cough medicine you can buy because it can be used to make meth. I'm not limiting anything related to guns. Mentally ill people don't build bombs. Sane people with intentions on killing people build bombs. Mentally ill people use guns to kill because they are easy to get and easy to use. We need to treat those mentally ill adults. We pay extra on airfare for added security. Let's pay extra for firearms and ammunition for mental help for those who need it.
Stephen P Belt December 24, 2012 at 09:13 PM
@Jair disarming felons is a new idea with no historical basis(passed in 1968 which was basically the NAZI gun control act translated into english by Thomas Dodd) In fact in Colorado courts have to instruct juries that felons have a right to possess firearms... http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/01/colorado-courts-continue-to-protect-felons-rights-to-keep-and-bear-arms/
Jair Sweatman December 24, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Colorado law (CRS 18-12-108) does allow for previously convicted persons to obtain a firearm 10 YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THEIR SENTENCE. If you are a convicted felon in Colorado and you are found to have or are EVEN NEAR a firearm and it has not been 10 years since you completed your sentence, you will be charged with a Class 5 Felony giving you no less than 6 months, up to 6 years in prison and a minimum 2 years on probation. Just being in the same house as gun can get you locked up. So if Granny keeps a shot gun, maybe you should stick with Skype. Federal law still prohibits felons from owning a firearm, so a Federal agent can still arrest a prior felon for owning a firearm even if the State allows for it. Give it a try and let me know how that works out for you... Look out for those NAZI's in jail though...
Clicker December 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM
“...if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.” ― Lewis Carroll
Stephen P Belt December 25, 2012 at 06:21 PM
nooo what im getting at is that in Colorado its illegal but the language of the right to bear arms is a defense to any law federal or state that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a felon..felons can be around guns they just cant possess them. ie your granny example it needs to be locked up or the individual can be charged but if grandma carries a pistol on her side that is ok for the felon too as he is not in control..yes the feds can still try a person but the trial will be in colorado and the jury will be instructed that they have a right to posses said weapon and the state language is a defense to that charge..basically is a form of Jury Nullification that is told to the jurors that they may use
Tim December 25, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Jair, I think I understand what you are saying, but I do disagree. To use your example of paying a tax on airline tickets for airport security, would be like paying more taxes on gun sales/ammo IF that money was used only to fund gun safety classes. Why not charge a large extra tax on cars and gas to fund mental health services since crazy people cause crashes and death, wether on purpose or during a confuesed moment? Again, since there is no cause/effect between guns and mental heath, I fail to see a rational reason to single out guns for extra taxes.
Jair Sweatman December 25, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Stephen, nothing I have written restricts or limits or takes away the 2nd Amendment Right To Bear Arms. But to your point, most states have very strict laws regarding felons and guns to the point where convicted felons cannot be around a gun. Specifically, citing Colorado law, being "... within "arm's reach" of firearm at time of arrest constituted prima facie evidence of illegal possession of a firearm, which precluded defendant from judgment of acquittal. People v. Rivera, 765 P.2d 624 (Colo. App. 1988)." Most courts say that constructive possession, also sometimes called "possession in law," exists where a person has knowledge of an object plus the ability to control the object, even if the person has no physical contact with it (United States v. Derose, 74 F.3d 1177 [11th Cir. 1996]) Further, Federal law trumps state law. Federal law prohibits felons from ever owning a firearm. The US Constitution includes what is called the “Supremacy Clause,” which says that the US Constitution and federal laws are superior to state laws. Therefore, when a state and federal law explicitly conflict, the state law cannot be enforced. This happens when a state law expressly permits an action that the federal law expressly forbids. However, the opposite is not true. States have a right to impose more responsibility on their residents, and a state law can prohibit marijuana even if federal law permits it. (Too many references used to place here)
Jair Sweatman December 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM
I can appreciate your disagreement Tim and I appreciate you taking the time to express it in a reasonable manner as you have, even offering alternatives. Rationale discussions on these topics are absent on many different levels. But to your point, I believe there is a solid connection between gun violence and mentally ill people. I believe the reason 99.9 percent of people who own handguns do so to protect themselves from the idiot or crazy person who would do them harm, not the sane person shopping at the grocery store. They own a firearm to stop the crazy person with a gun from entering their home, causing harm to their family or taking their lives. I believe mentally ill people can get a gun with ease, can fire a gun with ease and can take several lives with ease. I do not believe a mentally ill person can get a driver's license. We do a pretty good job of restricting who can get a driver's license. We don't do nearly as well as keeping even mildly mentally ill people from getting a gun. Under my proposal, that $600 pre-owned AR-15 would go to $1,600. The cost of one 5.56 round would go from 35 cents each to $2.35 each. To put that is perpective, if a person is killed with two rounds of high powered ammunition, the cost of taking their life was less than 75 cents. The cost of treatment to prevent a mentally ill person from using a gun is more expensive. But freedom ain't free and lives should be priceless.
Jair Sweatman December 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM
First, your Right to free speech is not exactly free. The old adage about screaming 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater is just one example of the limitations on our freedoms. As for the poor, if low income earners want a firearm, there is nothing of substance preventing them from purchasing a firearm, or a Mercedes or a Mangusta yacht. I would offer this bit of insight, however: Mass shootings are more likely to occur in middle to high income, majority (not minority) areas rather than lower income areas. It is safer to live in a trailer park. As a Marine, the training we went through prepared us to use a firearm in high pressure situations. As a graduate of the Citizens Police Academy, I can tell you officers are trained to use their firearms in high pressure situations. Having a firearm without the proper training, including the critical decision making skills needed to save lives, is paramount to giving a Ferrari to a 16-year old with a new license. Can they drive it? Probably. Is it prudent? No. Even banks have removed armed guards from their buildings due to the possibility of customers being shot and the effectiveness of cameras to catch the criminals. If we arm teachers, the first accidental discharge of a firearm will spark a debate of whether it is worth the risk to children. Not to mention the specifics of the Newtown case show the shooter had ties to the school, as his mother worked there. Had she worked in a retail store, the kids would be alive.
Stephen P Belt December 26, 2012 at 08:55 PM
Well Juries trump any law federal or state...this is what ended prohibition of booze.. Jurors are a power unto themselves and can rule not guilty for any crime. the biggest case of jury nullification in our lifetimes is the OJ Simpson trial. everyone know OJ did it but they still found him not guilty Its happening all over the country for drug trials as we speak..when the law becomes unenforceable then the government would stop prosecuting for that crime..lets say someones mother got caught writing a bad check from her own personal account she pleads guilty to it. Do you really think she is so dangerous she should never be able to possess a gun again? If i was on the jury I would find her not guilty..Sale for Martha Stewart i dont think she is any threat to society if she possess a gun in violation of federal or state laws and would rule that way on a jury. If someone is so dangerous they should be able to own a tool they should still be in jail...
Jair Sweatman December 26, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Surely you aren't suggesting that we are NOT a nation of laws? The Rule of Law is paramount to maintaining a civil society. We have a right to our individual opinions and points of view Stephen, but to suggest that we, as citizens, should be able to pick and choose which laws we will obey and which laws we will ignore goes against the very fabric of a civil society. More impressive is how, seeing that you disagree with me on fees associated with firearms, you have managed to incorporate ignoring laws if they do not fit neatly into your view of the world and how it should work. To that point, please consider that your right to bear arms is not absolute, thus it can be ignored, legally. If you violate Federal law as a felon in possession of a firearm, you can request a jury trial, but the jury must render your judgement based on the LAW, not personal opinion. Did the prosecution prove that the felon was in possession? Yes or No? While visiting Grandma, a known felon, with knowledge of a gun in the home and knowledge of how to use the gun, is deemed to be in violation of the law the way it is written. Unless you know some Jedi mind trick that allows you to read the thoughts and intentions of the felon, you must judge according to the law. Otherwise, we become a nation of opinions and if I have more guns and more friends with guns than you do, my opinion is the law of the land. This is why we adhere to the law; so that violence over opinions does not destroy our society.
gdfo January 03, 2013 at 09:15 PM
Dear friends, You seem to be trying to make a left shoe that fits everybodies right foot. Each situation of the tragedies listed is somewhat different. The striking thing in CT, is that the mother was the registered owner of the firearms and was reported to be a sport shooter, had a few time taken her son and taught him to shoot. The problem here was not the firearm law. The problem, in my opinion, is that a purposely single mother was raising a son who was home schooled because he had a physical problem and perhaps emotional imbalances also. The problem was not the inappropriate sale of firearms or ammunition. Another aspect is hindsight and the amazing thought processes that some people go through that involves engrandizing their egos by being able to say or think that there MUST be something they could have done. How absurd. What do these same people claim in regards to events in history in which tragic life loss was parcel to? If only this.... if only that... If only I had done something..... The ego of someone who wants control of thinks they have more control or deserve more control than anyone else because they have all the answers, in hindsight, ofcourse!
sree689 January 04, 2013 at 11:40 AM
Stay up to date with your accreditation status. If you do not continually renew your status with Blue Cross, it may be taken away and you will lose your accreditation. Find out how often you need to renew your accreditation and keep up to date in order to sustain it. Thanks. http://www.creativebioscience.com
Jair Sweatman January 04, 2013 at 08:20 PM
Thank You for your comment. Just for clarification, you might explain what a 'purposely single mother' is. It sounds as if you are saying the mother chose to be single. I didn't know single mothers had a higher rate of raising kids with mental problems or a higher rate of raising kids who grow up and kill people. Is there a study on that? Also, what is an 'inappropriate sale' and who made an inappropriate sale of firearms and ammunition? The issues I believe contributed most to the Newtown shooting are inadequate mental health care and the ease of access to gun. Clearly the shooter had some mental and maybe some emotional imbalances. Clearly he had access to several guns. The combination of the two led to the loss of several innocent lives. My solution is to fund the mental health system. As hindsight goes, you certainly have a point there. Hindsight would lead one to believe that the problem is a 'purposely single mother (who) was raising a son who was home schooled because he had a physical problem (what was the physical problem?) and perhaps emotional imbalances...". If only she had not home schooled him... if only she were not purposely single... if only he did not have a physical problem... 'They' should have known all those factors lead to nothing but bad. I'm glad you pointed that out for the rest of us. Glad you had the answers, in hindsight, of course! Thank you 'gdfo'... (or is it 'sdfu'?)
gdfo January 04, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Not sure what sdfu is. Perhaps you can explain that one. Purposely single in as much as she participated in a divorce, her husband had not abandoned her nor was he killed. Was there inadequatre mental/emotional health care? I do believe so. In an earlier part of the NEWS coverage the young mans obsession with violent videos games was brought out. I did not state at all that I had all the answers. So why do you state that I do/did?
Jair Sweatman January 04, 2013 at 11:13 PM
So here is the problem I have with your comment 'gdfo': What does a single mother, home schooling a son, who may or may not have a physical problem, have to do with a psychotic adult killing kids? I'm really trying to connect the dots between being a single mother and an adult killing kids, because we are talking about an adult who killed his mother and a bunch of kids. I'm only trying to better understand your reasoning in mentioning it. In your opinion, the problem is "... that a purposely single mother was raising a son who was home schooled because he had a physical problem and perhaps emotional imbalances also." Pardon me, but I don't see a problem with a single mother raising a son and home schooling him. I would applaud a single mother who has the time and ability, not to mention the financial resources, to home school her child. I don't understand what physical problem he may or may not have had and how it contributed to the violent act he carried out. In the meantime, please Google 'Irony', 'gdfo' and 'sdfu'.
gdfo January 05, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Actually, you used the term sdfu. I did not. So I will not google it, nor look it up. It has some meaning to you and perhaps other folks. Either you can explain it or not. Within 2 days fo the Ct shooting, it was reported in the NEWS that Adam Lanza suffered from a condition in which he did not, at least on some parts of this skin or body, feel pain. There was referrence to a class in which the instructor noticed Adam bleeding from injury to his hands or arms while working on a specific project at school. This had happened more than once. He was also reported to have been very withdrawn and troublesome at school. He was taken out of school and was home schooled for those reasons. More later on the phenomena of single mothers raising violent teenagers.
Jair Sweatman January 05, 2013 at 09:13 PM
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were raised by a single mother. Add Bill Cosby, Ed Bradley, Alicia Keys, Angelia Jolie, Matt Damon, Aubrey Hepburn, Oprah Winfrey, Jack Nicholson and Al Pacino. Surely, they all must have been violent teenagers because they grew up in a single parent household led by a woman. Let's look at the numbers involved in your theory that attacks single mothers: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are approximately 13.6 million single parents raising 21.2 million children in this country. 72 percent of black children are raised in single parent households, but the majority of serial/mass killers are white. Your theory is dangerous gdfo because it makes irrational assumptions and conclusions and stigmatizes single mothers unfairly. We can no more conclude that white people are more dangerous and prone to mental illness than you can conclude that single mothers raise troubled teenagers. There are more white people and more single mothers, so the majority of the time, the odds of it being a white person raised in a single parent household will prevail. Solutions, not creating some moral or ethical case against the world as you see it, are what we need. You can pass judgement on others in your world, but the one we share with others find passing judgement as helpful as passing gas. You might be relieved, but to the rest of us, it just stinks.
ns January 12, 2013 at 08:50 AM
Systematic activities to prevent or cure health problems and promote good health in humans are undertaken by health care providers. Applications with regard to animal health are covered by the veterinary sciences. Thanks. http://www.weightlosspunch.com/


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something