Posted by: kevinfortruth | December 27, 2012

White males + mental illness + antipsychotic drugs + assault weapons = potential mass murderers


After the recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the media and the NRA and Congress have us blaming anything and everything – except for the one thing that really makes sense – drugs – no, not cocaine, marijuana, heroin, or others – I believe the culprit is antipsychotic drugs that are prescribed for a variety of mental health issues.

Even though many of the recent mass shootings were “executed” with semi-automatic assault weapons with some kind of high capacity clip, the NRA has responded in a very calculating manner. 

The first thing the NRA does, following a mass shooting, is to clam up.  They say absolutely nothing for a day or two, waiting for authorities to release basic information on the shooter and his weapon(s) of choice used to commit the crime.  Then they (the NRA) rally the troops to all chime like crows on power lines that “Guns do not kill people” – and instead say, “people kill people.”  The NRA is nauseatingly predictable – a few days after the smoke has cleared, so to speak, the NRA comes up with their list of culprits behind the violence.  The first thing the NRA comes up with as the primary cause of the shooting is, of course, “violence” – everything from violent games kids play on their computers to violent films to violence on television.

What I find interesting is that all of the above “sources” of violence exist in Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the free countries in Europe and Asia, yet the incidence of mass shootings is much less elsewhere.  Why?

So, if violence is the lynchpin behind mass shootings, why don’t we see a large amount of killings in the other countries and continents mentioned above? 

From what I have read, some professionals say that the number of mass shootings here in the U.S. is because of the proliferation of weapons in the U. S.  I am not sure if the number of guns is the primary reason for mass shootings – I am sure it is a factor but I also believe there is a more common thread behind all these deaths.

The question is this, “Would new gun legislation help slow down or reverse the high incidence of mass shootings?”  That is a complex question that deserves and requires more than a simple “one word” answer. 

If high capacity clips were outlawed, I am confident that the frequency, or incidence, of mass murders would not go down.  A few weeks ago, I probably would have answered that question differently, but after reading dozens of blogs and articles on the subject, I have rethought my opinion.

I also feel that if certain assault weapons were banned, it would not necessarily result in fewer mass shootings.  It might, however, result in fewer deaths per mass shooting because of the shooter having to change clips more frequently. i.e. 15 – 10 round clips versus 5 – 30 round clips.  Each time a shooter stops to change clips, there is time for more potential victims to escape. 

My guess is that most of you reading that probably think I am way off base here, but I assure you – I am not. Hang in there for a few more paragraphs, please.

Some of you know where I am going with this – but for those of you who have not figured it out, here it comes.

First, I am not a supporter of the NRA – and I do not believe any of their rhetoric.  It is ludicrous for the NRA to say that guns do not kill people. 

Does anyone remember that old saying that we were all exposed to early in life?  If not, it goes like this, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”  If memory serves me right, little girls, to this day, teasingly sing that to each other.  I am not trying to single out girls – it’s just that girls sing it better.

If a person graduates from a stick to a 2 x 4 piece of wood, then someone could probably be killed.  If a person graduates from a stone to a rock and someone is hit hard on the head, there is a good chance that person could be killed as well. 

Take that logic one step further and progressively increase the weapon from sticks to rocks to slingshots and then to a bow and arrow and then to “bb guns” guns, pellet guns and then to handguns and eventually high powered rifles and assault weapons.

The progression in weaponry results in a higher degree of likelihood that victim(s) WILL die.  Also, as the capability of these weapons increase from a bolt-action rifle that can only handle a single shot at a time to an assault rifle that can fire off a 30 round clip in seconds, there is the likelihood of higher numbers of people dying in the process. 

If a person shoots another person with a small handgun, it might make page 5 of the local morning paper where the shooting occurred and the shooting will get less than 30 seconds on the local news.

But, if a person goes into a theater and shoots 10 or more people with an assault weapon, the shooting will make the headline on dozens of papers across the country and regular television news and talk shows will be interrupted to advise viewers that “x” number of people were killed and/or injured at a theater complex – even if that theater complex is a thousand or more miles away.  The mass shooting event will occupy time on almost every news and talk show for weeks.

The script is highly predictable – the media will do exhaustive research into the shooter, his family, his mental health history, along with a thorough analysis of his personality and we soon find out that this person was practically a genius, but a loner who recently dropped out of honors classes at a local university.  We also find out that, his grades were recently in a downward spiral and that he was seeing a psychologist or a psychiatrist and recently adjusted dosage or stopped taking his meds entirely.

I have avoided being gender and ethnic “neutral” because most mass shooters are white males – many are in their late teens up to their mid-twenties – few of them are older.

After a few days of background history of the shooter, the NRA chimes in with their canned response in an effort to blame everyone and everything BUT the gun – even though it is usually an assault weapon with some kind of high capacity clip or drum.

Frequently there is some reference to the shooter having mental health issues, but that discussion soon dissipates and the focus shifts to the gun and how we can outlaw certain guns and clips.  Advocates of tightening gun control are confident that the number of mass shootings will go down if we make assault weapons harder to get.

The recent shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School resulted in an increased discussion on mental health and that more money needs to be appropriated to provide funding in an effort to better identify and treat those with mental health issues – to get them the health care (and meds) to decrease the possibility of another mass shooting. Herein lies the rub – meds.

My question is this.  Why is it that the majority of those who commit mass shootings are white males?  Also, why do most of these mass shootings occurring in the United States?  Lastly, why is it that the majority of mass shooters is currently on, or has recently discontinued, antipsychotic meds?

At least 14 recent school shootings (not counting Sandy Hook) were perpetrated by individuals either who were on psychiatric drugs or who recently discontinued psychiatric drugs.

Other murders and murder suicides (other than done at schools – elementary to high schools to colleges) have been done by individuals who were on psychiatric drugs or had recently discontinued the same.

I am confident that there is a link between a shooter and the initiation, altering dosage level or discontinuing these dangerous drugs.  I believe these shooters, prior to planning a mass killing spree, were going through significant pain and each probably felt that an event such as a mass shooting was the only way to deal with the pain – resulting in causing significant pain and death to others and ending in taking one’s life in a dramatic grand finale to the tragedy.

I do not believe that Asperger’s was the cause of the shooting at Sandy Hook.  I do, however, suspect that the meds he was either taking or had recently discontinued possibly became the “trigger” behind the shooting.  It could even be that he might have adjusted his med dosage – either way, I believe the culprit behind the majority, if not all, of the mass shootings are meds taken to treat mental health issues.

We have a vicious circle going on – mental health professionals are not talking at all and the NRA is not blaming prescription drugs – even though they are saying that mental health issues are possibly behind the shootings.  Everyone is dancing around the real issue. 

Some professionals are suggesting that there should not be weapons in the homes of those suffering with mental health issues.  I am sure that the NRA would not like restrictions put on households where individuals are on antipsychotic medications because there are almost 50 million individuals in the U. S. taking meds for various mental health issues.  That number represents almost 16 percent of the U. S. population and that is a potentially huge market for NRA membership and gun and ammo sales at gun stores and gun shows. 

There is a movement to require background checks before anyone can purchase a weapon – but regarding mental health, a person would have to have been adjudicated as “mentally defective” or have been committed to a mental institution before that person would be prevented from purchasing firearms and ammunition. 

The problem with the state and federal laws is that the percentage of Americans who either have been adjudicated as being mentally defective or have been committed to an institution is small compared to the “other” 50 million Americans on psychotic meds. 

When you read info on these meds, including warnings, it is scary.  The U. S. Drug Enforcement Agency has released warnings saying that use of these meds might result in some individuals feeling worse instead of better and they may experience unusual feelings of agitation, hostility or anxiety, or have impulsive or disturbing thoughts, such as thoughts of self-harm or harm to others.“

Terms hinting at the possibility of suicide or even murder are said in softer terminology like “psychiatric events such as visual hallucinations, suicidal ideation, psychotic behavior, as well as aggression or violent behavior.”

Many of the recent mass shootings have resulted in aggression and violent behavior, including death and destruction – ending in suicide as the final violent act.

Therefore, even though I support a ban on assault weapons, including a ban on high capacity clips as well as tighten background checks at gun shows, I believe we also demand Congressional hearings on antipsychotic prescription drugs.  Our pharmaceutical industry is now advocating prescription drugs for almost any emotional or mental health issue. 

Unfortunately, when one reads up on the drug or asks a medical or mental health professional how these drugs work – the frequent answer is something like, “we really are not sure exactly how these drugs work.”

To add insult to injury, people taking antipsychotic drugs are also taking a variety of prescription drugs for other ailments and many are taking a variety of nutritional supplements. 

The combination of all these pills being ingested could make a volatile cocktail, resulting in aggressive, or even violent and sometimes deadly behavior.

The following is from http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/17203627-452/too-unbalanced-to-be-armed.html

“Survey data from the National Institute of Mental Health indicate that nearly half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. Should half of us lose our Second Amendment rights, at least for the duration of whatever mental disorder (depression, anxiety, addiction, etc.) afflicts us? Assuming a prescription for Prozac, Xanax, or Adderall is not enough to disqualify someone from owning a gun, what should the standard be?

The malleability of mental illness was also apparent at a 2007 debate among the candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination.  After seeing a YouTube video in which Jered Townsend of Clio, Mich., asked about gun control and referred to his rifle as “my baby,” Joseph Biden said: “If that’s his baby, he needs help. … I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I’m being serious.”

So perhaps excessive attachment to your guns should be grounds for taking them away. Biden, by the way, is in charge of formulating the policies the Obama administration will pursue in response to Lanza’s horrifying crimes.”

My closing remark:

I really wonder if the first people who should lose their right to bear arms are those who say, “I will give up my gun when they pry my cold, dead fingers from around it” – a bumper sticker slogan supporting gun rights and dating from at least March 1972.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Kevin,

    Kudos for bringing up the link between mental health, psychiatric drugs and mass killings. However i have to agree with Amiee. Homicide by it’s very definition requires a minimum of 2 parties, one being the killer and the other the killed. It doesn’t matter what implement is used to cause the death it was still the killer who performed the act of killing.

    In the examples you use with the hunter and the mentally ill person you can remove the tool they used and the sentences remain true, but you can’t say the gun and the bullet killed the deer without it being understood that someone (the hunter) used the gun.

    Even when people are “accidentally” killed by a firearm the leading cause is human negligence whether it be improper storage, pointing the firearm in an unsafe direction, or violating rule number 1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.

    As for “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines (not clips) they have their utility. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car/2

    • Hi Sean; Thanks for the visit. I agree with much of what you said except for a few major items.

      Your last comment about assault weapons and high capacity magazines having utility, I agree, but the utility is only in wartime – not in hands of civilians.

      And as far as it not mattering what implement caused death, I strongly differ in opinion. If I had a youngster in first grade I would prefer a Chinese man in the room with a knife versus a deranged (usually white) man with an assault rifle with a handful of hi capacity clips. Do you know why, Sean? Mainly because there is a high degree of liklihood that all the kids would be alive if the weapon being used is a knife, but if the weapon is an ar-15, before the police even analyze the crime scene, they should order up a dozen or more hearses.

      So nobody calls me a racist, let me clarify one thing. The only reason I mentioned a chinese man is because around the same time of Sandy Hook there was a chinese man in China who went into a school and stabbed many young kids – fortunately, none of the kids died. In comparison, one unstable white man went into Sandy Hook and killed 20 kids and 6 adults with an assault weapon and an unknown amount of hi capacity clips. So, Sean, the method of implementation of murder does matter – very much.

      I am stealing something original I wrote today in another blog on this site that says it all, in my estimation. If anyone agrees or disagrees, it does not matter to me.

      “What is more important, Mr. President, allowing grown men to unnecessarily have assault weapons so they can act like kids or implementing sound gun control laws to save the lives of kids?”

      Please keep in mind that there are many “good” guys who have assault type weapons. Many of these good guys are active military, retired military, ex-military, police, FBI, or other law enforcement. From time to time any of these individuals might suffer from PTSD and they might be prescribed “happy” pills for them to cope – and any of them could snap and on a dime go from being a “good” guy to a “not so good guy” and unfortunately, they did not volunteer for the role reversal. In many cases it is way beyond their control. The end result is that others suffer

      All the arguements flying around about good guys and bad guys is a crock of bull.

  2. although I respect your opinion i disagree with your summary. you might as well go one step further and ban prescription drugs and white males according to your recipe for disaster . I do agree with you on the nra but for different reasons.. the NRA is making a crappy argument in defense of assault rifles by stating that they are good for hunting and home defense. I don’t know if they are secretly working with anti gun groups are just can’t or won’t state the real importance of assault rifle which is to protect us from a tyrannical government. lets be honest that is all they are good for. If a civil war broke out or our leaders were overthrown in a coup by the military and we had to fight- the citizens would be at a huge disadvantage. our 2nd amendment says nothing of home defense and hunting. all of the references that are in it refer to a well armed militia to combat a tyrannical government. I have another complaint against you as well as the rest of the media. whenever a white male shoots someone it is all over the news for a long time and it is drilled in everyone’s heads that white males with guns are responsible and we should do something to control the access to guns legally but when a minority shoots someone it is mentioned once by the local news and never repeated . no one advocates gun control because most would assume they bought off the black market so there is no control argument and the fact that they are minorities never gets a discussion. to tell half the story equates to the same as telling a lie which is what I wish the media would quit doing. you might be able to make the argument that most mass shootings are done by white males but the fact is that the majority of shootings are not . I live in lou ky and we average about 70 homicides a year and over half are drug or gang related involving minorities. chicago just had it’s 500th now do you that it was mostly white males doing it? wouldn’t you agree that most of the legal gun owners in the u.s. are white yet we don’t have the most shootings. but then again if you were to tell the whole story it would only prove the only outlaws have guns argument.

    • Hi Rick; Thanks for stopping by. The only point I was making about color is that most mass murders are WHITE, that is all. Sure, there are more murders in poor neighborhoods and most murders are committed by people of color but please work on not connecting dots that should not be connected.

      More white Americans are on health plans because the employment rate is higher for whites than it is for blacks and hispanics. Also, more minorities in lower paying jobs are not on health plans.

      As a result, there probably is a higher incidence of whites being on antipsychotic drugs that blacks or hispanics. My guess.

      As far as banning drugs, I said nothing of the sort and where you pulled that out of a hat what surely not from my blog. What I would like to see is the FDA to require drugs to have more thorough testing. Many in the FDA are in the pocket of big pharma and they are pressured by them to approve drugs quicker because pharmas have so much money invested in research and development and they want to start making money as soon as possible.

      As far as telling half truths or full truths, that is not the case here. I had a topic that I stuck to – if I let the topic get out of control, I would still be writing it. My focus was on psychotic drugs and the possible connection to mass shootings. I was surely not saying that good guys or white guys kill more people than minorities do. that was not the focus of the blog but if you need to imply that I am lying or telling half truths to make yourself feel better, then feel free to do so – except I will not let you get away with that on my blog.

      Come here with facts to support your comments and you will be welcomed. Stay on topic and the same applies.

  3. Kevin,
    I disagree with you guns don’t kill people, people kill people yes the guns was part of the problem. The problem is that these people that go postal do have mental problems.

    I disagree with banding the assault guns but I do agree with you on the size of clips that they can use. There’s one that newspaper, talk shows, and all of the media is that these guns were all brought legally by the people.

    I also agree with you on closing the loop holes on the gun shows. Plus there needs to be tougher back ground checks when buying any gun.

    Our lawmakers in the States are jerks and that also includes Washington D.C. The lawmakers need to get off their asses and tell the NRA to go to hell.

    I have also seen where some school districts are allowing their teachers to start to carry guns in their classrooms. Utah and Texas are letting them do this.

    I have mix feelings on this Kevin it’s like a catch twenty two because some of the Airlines are letting their pilots to carry a gun in the cockpit.

    We need to find away to close some of these loops in the gun laws. Banding assault guns maybe one way but I like your way better as in reducing the size of the clips.

    Our maybe we need to go back to the OLD WEST where everyone carried a gun.

    • Hi Amiee;
      I truly don’t know where to begin responding to your comments, but I will try.
      The first thing that bothers me is your comment where you say that guns do not kill people. That comment is a typically overused comment by those who appear to not value human life. Twenty-six people, little kids and teachers and administrators in an elementary school were brutally shot multiple times – some of these kids had between 2 and 11 bullets in each of their tiny bodies, yet it appears that gun advocates care more about guns than people.
      Recently, a man in China invaded a school and stabbed dozens of children and they all lived because the knife he was using was not applied as fatally as the assault weapon that the shooter used in Sandy Nook Elementary School.
      To say that guns do not kill people is like saying our atomic bombs did not kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The high estimate of those killed is approximately 246,000. Were they killed by our President who ordered the attack or were they killed by the bombs themselves? Surely the explosives and the radiation of the bombs killed them – Our President simply ordered the raid and the generals directed the bomber flights and the crew flew over Japan and the bombardier opened the bomb bays and delivered the destructive bombs.
      All those “good guys” were involved but it was the bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens.
      In reality, bombs are just bigger bullets and bombs and bullets kill people.
      Same at Sandy Hill. True, the shooter obviously had some mental health issues – after all, he ended up killing his own mother to get access to her guns. After that, it was all downhill, but whether you like it or not, the reality is that he shot the gun and killed his mother and then he killed 26 others – but the gun and bullets killed them all. End of subject.
      When one goes hunting a deer – using a bow or a gun, the hunter shoots the deer but the arrow or the bullet kills.
      The NRA wants everyone to believe when a hunter shoots a gun at a deer, the “good” hunter killed the deer with the gun and bullets but when a “bad” mentally ill person shoots a gun and kills someone that the mentally ill person killed the other person and the bullets were innocent bystanders. It cannot be both ways.
      Hunters buy weapons and ammunition to kill animals for food or sport. Police protect us with guns and ammunition. I agree that police are usually considered the “good guys.”
      Police see a lot of violence and as a result they frequently end up with some kind of PTSD. I know some do not believe in PTSD, but I believe it is real – police are expected to cope with everything they see and experience while serving the public. But sometimes, police end up with emotional problems – they end up seeing medical professionals who prescribe them drugs to help cope with their memories of their experiences.
      At times, some of these police officers who are on meds end up “snapping” and become “bad guys” – hurting or killing their wife or kids or even neighbors.
      The crux of my blog here had to do with how some of the meds people are prescribed end up negatively affecting patients, resulting in them doing harm to others. If the good guy becomes the bad guy and he shoots his wife or kids, the gun and the bullets were the instrument that did the actual damage.
      For anyone to discount the death and destruction caused by the use of deadly weapons shows that they are in an alternate universe and not grounded in reality.
      Now, for my biggest concern. I do not believe you fully read the blog – you might have been watching television or doing something else, but I spent a whole blog saying that the weapons of choice – assault guns with high capacity clips are not the primary problem or issue – I believe when deranged people or those with mental health issues end up being prescribed certain medications to treat their issues and dosages are either increased or decreased or even discontinued, something goes terribly wrong. The patient goes through episodes where either voices are heard or extreme pain and suffering takes place that results in some kind of desperate need to ease the pain – and the patient then reaches out to offset the pain by inflicting pain on others – on family and/or strangers and then usually inflicting final pain on himself by committing suicide.
      It’s like you missed the entire purpose and focus of the blog and then focused on some IM’s we have shared where we disagreed about guns. I even said that I changed my position, yet you felt the need to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing with me.
      If this was a single occurrence, I would write it off but you usually take exception – not necessarily, to what you read in my blog, but you already have your answer before you ever start reading.

      • First question I thought after the shouting “I wonder what anti-depressants the killer was on.” no one wants to talk about the ssri drugs!
        Information I found searching the internet…
        Here’s how some of the drugging starts: Curricula in schools have been enriched and enhanced to the point where a kindergarten child is being exposed to the same kind of requirements which used to be delayed until 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th grade. For some kids, it works. For others, not so much.
        Teachers notice that 5 year olds- particularly boys- can’t sit still for long periods of times, and likely they can’t concentrate as hard as they need to master the more advanced skills. If there are several such boys in the class, the teacher decides that they are hyperactive or ADHD, or ADD.
        Teacher confers with parents and suggests same. Parents go to pediatrician with teacher’s suggestions, and a prescription is written. Sure enough, it helps somewhat. But what used to be accommodated in class- kids being kids- is no longer allowed. So your 5 year old is drugged, day after day, and then year after year. And no one really knows what the cumulative effect of this drugging might be.
        A child who could have been allowed to progress at a normal rate and who could have blended in when he matured a bit is now dependent on a drug. And when one drug has been prescribed, it becomes a bit easier to think that another might help also.

        Time after time after time it turns out these shooters are on some prescribed drug. But there seems to be a prohibition on discussing that fact in the mainstream.
        And then the other point: what is the effect on children, period? The numbers of children being forced onto pharmaceuticals for quite ordinary and sane responses — being bored, agitated, and feeling cooped-up in school! c’mon! — is horrifying.
        Prozac, Luvox, Paxil, and Zoloft belong to a class of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRI’s. These drugs can induce akathisia – mental and physical agitation that sparks self-destructive, violent behavior. They can also induce dissociative reactions. The one taking the drug becomes insensitive to the consequences of his behavior.
        The combination of these effects can lead to anti-social behavior of the worst kind. In one study, 6% of the children on Prozac became psychotic (1). Here are the sad results.

        Serial killings due to medical drugs? You decide.

        · Eric Harris was on Luvox before he murdered over a dozen children in the shooting at Columbine High School in April 1999.
        · Fifteen-year-old Shawn Cooper was on an SSRI anti-depressant when he opened fire on students and high school staff in Notus, Idaho in April 1999.
        · Thirteen-year-old Chris Fetters of Iowa killed her favorite aunt. He was on Prozac.
        · Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old, first shot his parents, then killed two and wounded 22 fellow students at Thurston High School in Oregon. He was taking Prozac.
        · Joseph Wesbecker was on Prozac when he killed seven people at a printing plant in Kentucky, before taking his own life.
        · In September 1999, Buford O’Neal Furrow, Jr. fired 70 rounds at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles wounding 5 people.
        · A month earlier Mark Barton murdered his wife and two children and then methodically gunned down 21 people in two brokerage firms in Atlanta.
        · Jeff Weise was another school killer in Red lake, Minnesota. His dose of Prozac had just been increased to 60 mg daily.

        The story goes on. Ann Blake Tracy, PhD has studied Prozac for ten years. She researched 32 murder cases involving women and their children. In 24 of the cases, the women were taking Prozac or another SSRI.
        Why isn’t this on the news? Perhaps because drug company advertising supports most TV and radio stations, newspapers and medical journals. Drug companies spend $11 billion a year on advertising. An article in California Lawyer, Dec. 1998, reported that Eli Lilly, manufacturer of Prozac, settled nearly a dozen cases involving Prozac out of court in one year. They did this to avoid unwanted publicity that would unleash an avalanche of Prozac horror stories.

        Below… More information on SSRI drugs!

        http://cegant.com/commentary/school-shootings-and-psychiatric-drugs-update

        http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/25-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-the-entire-u-s-health-care-industry-has-become-one-giant-money-making-scam

        • Hi Gayle; Welcome and thanks for your indepth analysis. I read all the various websites that went into mass murderers and the various meds they were on and it scred the hell out of me. A little over a decade ago I was married to a woman who was a 5th grade teacher and she later became an assistant principal and she kept going up the food chain and ended up Asst Superintendent of one of the largest school districts in Texas. Many kids in her school were on a variety of meds. You are also correct that kids cannot be kids any more in school – if a kid acts out that stuent might be taken to the office and ultimately his/her parents are soon in school and the nurse and the administration are recommending some kind of mental health analysis that usually results in psychotic meds to turn the kid into a walking zombie.

          My biggest concern about “head” drugs is that the drug manufacturers usually say that they have no idea of how they work and my “gut” feeling is that regular MD’s on many occassions prescribe drugs without really understanding them. The bottom line is that if drugs “might” help – they do not know until they keep increasing the dosage and if the drugs do not help, they might also hurt the individual – who then turns to weapons to commit suicide – but first hurt a bunch of people in the process, i.e. Columbine, Aurdora, Virginia Tech, Waco, UT Texas, Ft. Hood, and so on and so on and so on. I rambled but I meant well. Drug companies will sell anything to anyone. They also run many ads suggesting that viewers ask their doctors about this drug and that drug. People cannot even lose weight on their own or stop smoking on their own because they are lazy and do not want to focus on what is needed – they live for one crutch to the next crutch – a pill to sleep, to stay awake, to focus, to diet, to get stronger, to get an erection, it never ends.

          thanks for stopping by. Kevin


Comments appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: