To stop the bleeding, we must first stop the breeding.

Too many unprepared single moms are breeding offspring that end up violent due to the lack of family structure and/or parenting skills.

@Obama - Where in the article above does it say that these were children of a single mother, or that this was caused by the offspring of single parents. According to what I read a man and a woman were killed; and that "no suspects had been identified". Did you even read the article?

Another thing you might want to consider is that the only single mothers who are ever "prepared" are the ones who intentionally go to the sperm bank.

Now, I don't have a bunch of statistics, but not every violent crime is commited by someone who was brought up in a single parent family. The suspects in Columbine were the products of two parent homes, as was the most recent Colorado shooting.

I will give you this though, Michael Phelps "killed" at the Olympics and he was brought up by a single mother. Adam Levine, from Maroon 5, was also brought by a single mother. Ty Pennington, Tom Cruise, Bill Clinton, Lance Armstrong, Pierce Brosnan, Russel Brand, and Al Pacino were all brought up by single mothers ... oh wait you might be thinking about race ... well let me continue how about Shaq, Martin Lawrence, Bernie Mac, Kanye West, Drake, Maxwell, Malcom X.... AND our current president Barack Obama!!!

GLAHC,

Broaden your reading sources. You'll find out more about the incident than what's written here in NBC's website.

Statistically the offspring of unwed teenage mothers have more troubles than the offspring of married, older, women. You site individual examples to discredit statistics while admitting you don't have a bunch of statistics. Again, broaden your reading.

I mentioned nothing about race nor did I state that every violent crime is committed by someone brought up by a single parent. You really didn't understand what I wrote.

Obama, a failed experiment

GLAHC,

Broaden your reading sources. You'll find out more about the incident than what's written here in NBC's website.

Feel free to provide a link to ANY source that has more information on THIS case. As of 5 PM eastern time the most recent story outside of here is huff post and still no details.

Let's look at some of the people you hold up as a "good" example.

Bill Clinton: perjurer and philanderer. All around dirtbag (unless you're on the Left).

Shaq: domestic violence issues.

Tom Cruise: certifiable nut who believes that meditation instead of medicine cures people.

Russell Brand has faced felony charges over a conflict with a reporter.

Malcolm X's teachings were violent on their face.

Need I go on?

Not all that are raised in a single parent family are bad, but the odds are stacked against them.

To..jim""""

Why are the odds stacked against them ....could it be maybe because of people like you

Trust_Verify,

Google: Shawna Girod avondale murder victim, there's numerous articles presented.

It's because scumbag men have children with mothers they have no intention of marrying though they say so to get what they want and women believe what they want to believe. There are stereotypes for a reason and it isn't because they aren't true. The truth isn't politically correct but the truth still doesn't change. I was put up for adoption as an infant because my dirt bag father didn't want to marry my mother and she couldn't handle it and my adoptive father died when I was nine so either way I would have been raised by a single mother. I haven't been to jail but I was a teenage mother. My husband died and my kids are being raised by a single mom. You never keep a man by having his baby, this is something they need to drum into young girls heads. You can not keep a man period. They are scum and it would be better to go to a sperm bank once you have been educated well enough to support a child. And God Loves all his children, they don't have to say this was a young woman who was in with the wrong man, we see this crap on a daily basis though usually not this terrible. Glad the kids are okay and hope they have a life away from the violence.

Actually it's about scumbag women who spread their legs for scumbag men, like my dad and mother. My dad ended up beating my mom, who then spread her legs for him so I could be born and beat just like her. Men can't have kids, you f*****g idiot. Be careful who you spread your legs for, and maybe try THINKING first.

@Jim - My response to "Obama" was based on this part of his comment

"single moms are breeding offspring that end up violent"

Now I don't know what your definition of "violence" is, but there is nothing violent about Bill Clintons philandering or Tom Cruises religious beliefs. Russel Brand attacked a reporters cell phone, and did not harm the human using it, and I couldn't find anything on Shaq and domestic violence. Maybe you could direct me to the link you found that information in.

@Obama - The comments on this link should be related to the article and the information within that article. This article does not name the victims. Based on your reply to me and Trust, the 4 year old and 4 month old of the victims will become violent because their mother was not married to the man in the car? That must be what you are saying, since the police had not identified the suspects and if they had you surely would have informed us. As far as me referring to race, I noticed that you commented on a previous article with this:

4-year-old boy shot dead on NYC playground

Mon Jul 23, 2012

• To stop the bleeding, you have to stop the breeding

The victim in this shooting was an african american ... and this

The pictures are of African Americans and the article mentions young african americans... but your only comment on the shooter of the movie theater in Colorado was

In police work these are called clues

hey whats up bobleswagger ,,,if your the bobleswagger i think you are,,,from lost clan.......my gamertag is Immortal Apache...you probabaly recognize it....

None of these control options addresses the millions of guns already in commerce, many of those used to commit violence being obtained illegally. Has the control of pharmaceutical painkillers effectively removed those (or other dangerous drugs) from the hands of those who illegally use and sell them? No. So long as there is a demand, supply always manages to find a way.

A more practical solution is to deliver a speedy trial (as guaranteed by the constitution), and swift, public executions for murderers. The current 15-20 years of legal delay tactics have crippled the deterrent that capital punishment once was.

Public executions?

We already have the death penalty and the possibility of life imprisonment. We actually have much stiffer punishments than most of the rest of the world (e.g., (i) Norway, where Brevic would only be subject to 20 years and (ii) we've been accused of human rights violations by many other countries for our sentencing).

If you look at the European countries with the lowest murder rates, they generally have the most lenient sentencing. The two are just not correlated.

Harsher sentencing = not working. Your proposals fail because they assume "deterrence in sentencing" is something that works. It doesn't (look at the "three strikes" laws and murder felony laws; also compare homicide rates in states with the death penalty to states without). Criminals either don't know or don't care about the harsher sentences. Reverting to medieval punishments is just more "deterrence in sentencing". More of something that doesn't work is more of the same; it still doesn't work...

I also love that you folks would, apparently, rather have our children and the rest of the world witness America engaging in public floggings and hangings (a la the Taliban) than titling your guns and being responsible in who you sell them to. Pretty telling.

And, yes (1), (2) and (3) above do address guns in circulation. You give everyone 6 months to get their guns titled; afterwards any gun found in someone's possession that's not titled has an illegal firearm. Your hypothetical "law abiding citizen" will get their gun titled. True, the criminal contingent with weapons currently won't get theirs titled, but (i) the titling of all legal/new guns will eliminate the supply of guns falling into criminal hands going forward and (ii) the law abiding citizen is not harmed by having to get his or her gun titled/only sell to other law abiding citizens.

Where did you locate the history of those killed? I've looked and can't even locate their names.

Do you by chance have paranormal abilities or an in with the NOPD?

I take it from your comment that the members of the Hispanic gangs and the blacks in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, etc., are all Republican TeaBillys as well?

Has anyone informed them all that they are Republicans?

They get prayed that way by santorum, similar to mitt and dead mormons.

Really ?? Really ? Teabilly violence strikes again huh... ah thanks for the cup of Koo laid , tastes great

hmdicowii

Excellent post. You touched on many issues and did so with an intelligence and lack of emotion seldom seen. I applaud you.

However, I do have one question, with the exception of One-Eyed Undertaker, who I will admit normally uses logic and does NOT denigrate others when posting, do you honestly anticipate any dyed-in-the-wool anti-gun fanatic will also be as reasonable?

Have a wonderful day and be safe!!

Another problem is that the media seems to be cherry picking firearm incidents in which guns are used in the commission of a crime and almost totally ignoring the daily incidents in which firearms are used legally to defend against criminal attacks. This lopsided coverage gives the impression that there is an epidemic (in the clinical sense as well) of gun violence that is a purposefully unbalanced presentation.

FYI, my grudge is against hand guns. My position is that hand guns need to be regulated same as machine guns. The laws that govern machine gun purchases show how effectively gun control can work.

If you look at the FBI crime stats, you'll see that there are about 300 justifiable homicides each year. Most people who kill justifiably in self defense use a gun, but not all. The FBI crime stats also show there are about 10,000 murders each year where the murder weapon is a gun, about 7,000 when the weapon is a hand gun. So, the stats show that getting shot to death means that you were probably murdered, and not a bad guy who got shot by a law abiding gun owner.

I do not have stats that track gun injuries. That is, if you were shot but did not die, were you an innocent victim, or were you a bad guy who got shot while you were committing a crime? Similar for gun brandishments -- if you pulled a gun, were you 'waving the magic wand' to make a bad guy go away, or were you committing some criminal intimidation?

I see no reason why the ratio for murder/justifiable homicide when a gun was the weapon should not also hold for gun injuries and gun brandishments. That is, if the overwhelming number of gun-related deaths are murders and not justifiable homicides, then if an injury is inflicted by someone with a gun, then it is probably a crime. And, if someone shows another person a gun, there is likely a criminal intent.

I do realize that there are legitimate, real defensive gun uses. But the bad guys are using their guns more than the good guys.

Gun registration in other countries has lead to confiscation. How will this be prevented in the USA once firearms are titled?

How will the information on titled firearms be kept from criminals so that they will not know where firearms are likely to be stored?

What will prevent title information from being given to the media under the Freedom of Information Act?

Wow, do you sleepwith your precious guns???

Logic .......... that doesn't work around here.. add some magic and smoke with mirrors for effect.

I won't be a victim of any type of crime, I will fight back.

My children won't be rapped or murdered, they will fight back.

You and your children will be victims.. and will not be able to fight back.

I admire your spunky, dim, spirit.

XDm9mm:

To answer your question, no, I don't expect hard core, anti-gunners whose reasons for their position on guns is based primarily on emotions, to be reasonable. I can sympathize with them as I get an emotional and physical reaction at the solar plexus when I see a handgun strapped to someone's hip when I do not know them. That happens even with uniformed peace officers. Having thought about this reaction, I think it has to do with the potential lethality of the firearm that is a physical world reminder of my vulnerability and mortality.

However, I'm able to look past the emotional reaction to see the logic behind the position I take on firearms. Some people (I suspect most people) don't bother to use logic. It's far more easy to just let emotions rule as they pretty much come and go on their own with no active participation required from the person experiencing the emotion.

Logic, on the other hand, requires work. You must have either and innate sense of logic or have studied it (or both), and you must be sufficiently disciplined (another virtue in short supply these days) and honest to allow yourself to go where the logic takes you, even if it takes you to where you do not want to go.

WilliamOfRites:

If you are an intelligent person, you certainly must be able to engage in discourse at a higher level than what amounts to name calling.

True, you didn't call me a name, but you imply through the tone of your post that you disagree with my previous post and that I must be a terribly insecure person who sleeps with an arsenal. Perhaps instead you could take what I wrote point by point and offer your counter points? I promise to give them due consideration though no promise of agreement unless you can present a compelling argument.

TDQB1:

Rather than give me your opinion, to which you are totally entitled, about my post being a rambling one and my mental condition being unstable (again, this constitutes a form of name calling) why not counter what I consider a logical argument with your own logical argument?

TDQB1:

Thanks for the additional time to add another "bullet" in my magazine of guns compared to automobiles: Road rage. A licensed driver becomes emotionally upset to the point that his or her vehicle becomes a weapon with the potential lethaily of a 40mm cannon and that is aimed at another motorist, passenger, bicyclist, pedestrian. I recall seeing one statistic (can't recall where, though) that in California alone, on an annual basis, this happens 1,200 times.

What's to be done? Do we outlaw privately owned automobiles and consign everyone to using public transportation? Do we put legal limits on how much a vehicle can weigh, engine output, and how fast it is able to travel? How do we detect when a previously responsible, well balanced driver is about to cross the line into irrationality?

Just another point in my case. Can you provide logical counterpoints to my argument? Are you still there?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/alabama-woman-shoots-home-intruder-to-protect-herself-and-her-ax-and-knife-wielding-daughters/

Hope that works better for everyone.

To..champ""""

Truth is a liberal concept and bias ..you know conservatives will have nothing to do with anything liberal

And glen beck ...really

who is it that's laughing at who ...

Nice try, but this is about 32.4 miles away and on the other side of that big ditch called the Mississippi River.

Do me a really big favor. As I stand a much greater chance of getting killed while driving, please do something about that first.

I don't drink much less drink and drive, I don't "text" nor do I make cell phone calls while driving. Can you address that first as the death rate is more than double that of the rate of death by firearms?

Thank you.

TDQB1

A little reading comprehension might help you out a little bit. He has never blamed cars for gun violence. He just stated that there are more deaths due to drunk drivers, distracted drivers, etc than there are gun deaths. Take a chill pill dude

That, of course, is important to show any "positive" thoughts for the shooter(s). Grow up!