+
upworthy
Family

The next time someone blames mass shootings on mental illness, send them this.

As thousands across the nation prepare to take to the streets on March 24, 2018, for The March for Our Lives, we're taking a look at some of the root causes, long-lasting effects, and approaches to solving the gun violence epidemic in America. We'll have a new installment every day this week.

In the winter of 2012, an undergraduate student who'd just taken my abnormal psychology course sent me an email.

The note was short, containing a link to an article about Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook shooter) and two questions: Did mental illness drive him to do what he did? And if so, did that mean that what I'd told her in class, that the mentally ill were no more dangerous than the rest of the population, wasn't true?


It's a question I've heard with alarming frequency since.

By now, it's like clockwork: A tragedy happens, thoughts and prayers are deployed, gun control is quickly shouted down ("No way to prevent this!" and "Now is not the time to speak about gun reform!"), and then top politicians — including the president — demand and vow to treat mental health as a top issue.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

It all seems so intuitive. Because committing murder with an assault weapon isn't something most people would do, mental illness must be the cause.

"So many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed, even expelled from school for bad and erratic behavior," President Donald Trump tweeted shortly after the Parkland shooting in February.

But Trump offered no criteria for the shooter's mental illness. Nor did he recognize that mental illness has never been one thing. And he ignored the painful reality that conflating mental illness with violence stigmatizes the millions of people worldwide who live with psychiatric disorders.

He wasn't the only one: In a Washington Post poll conducted right after Parkland, 57% of responders cited "problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems" as the driving force behind mass shootings. "Inadequate gun laws" received only 28% of the vote.

Whenever mental illness is brought up, we act as if the conversation were over. It shouldn't be.

As a country, we know very little about mental illness. In fact, a recent study out of Michigan State University found that under 50% of respondents could identify signs of anxiety, a condition experienced by fully 18% of American adults. And most people had no clue about how depression was treated.

This lack of knowledge keeps us scared. It turns every psychiatric condition into a boogeyman that's lurking around the corner. And it makes those of us who live with mental illness hesitant to talk about our conditions openly to provide more knowledge.

That's right: us. I don't just teach and write about psychology; I've lived with depression and anxiety since I was a teenager.

And while I agree that mental health reform needs to take place, it's not because people who live with the conditions I do — or a multitude of other conditions — are more dangerous to others. It's because the system makes it so hard for so many to get help.

It's because so many people (up to 47%, according to a 2013 survey) would feel uncomfortable living close to someone with a "serious" mental illness. Most of them don't even know what a "serious" mental illness is.

The truth is that gun violence isn't a result of mental illness. But mental illness is an easy scapegoat.

A sign outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida. Photo by Rhona Wise/AFP/Getty Images.

As the Kaiser Family Foundation noted in 2013, it is impossible to know what kind of backlash mass shootings like the one that occurred at Sandy Hook (and the ones that have since happened in Las Vegas, Orlando, and Parkland) create against innocent people.

The mentally ill are no more dangerous than the rest of the population.

I get it. There's got to be a reason why bad people do awful things. We need something to grab onto in the wake of a tragedy. That's why one of the first places our brains go is mental illness.  

The results of a 2006 survey indicated that 60% of Americans believed that those living with schizophrenia were more likely to commit violence. A worrying 32% thought the same of those living with depression. It's why the news was so quick to seize upon the fact that Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock had been prescribed anti-anxiety medication, even though there's no evidence that it made any contribution to his crimes.

The reality is much more complex. While it's possible that those living with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may be slightly more likely to engage in violent behavior (not necessarily with firearms), getting rid of these disorders would prevent a tiny slice of violence at best.

Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a psychiatrist, professor, and researcher who studies the connection between mental illness and violence, told ProPublica that curing mental illness would only stem violence by 4%. "Most violence in society is caused by other things," he said.

A 2001 study of adolescent mass murderers found that only 1 in 4 had any sort of psychiatric history. That's a worrying number to be sure, but it was far outmatched by their seemingly "well" counterparts. And Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist who maintains a database of mass shooters through the years has found that out of 350 mass killers, 65% had no history of severe mental illness.

His conclusion? That it's not the mental illness that's the problem. It's how much access the individual has to guns.

"In my large file of mass murders, if you look decade by decade, the numbers of victims are fairly small up until the 1960s," Stone told The New York Times in 2017.  "That's when the deaths start going way up. When the AK-47s and the Kalashnikovs and the Uzis — all these semiautomatic weapons, when they became so easily accessible."

A 2015 article published by The American Psychiatric Association found that "mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent less than 1% of all yearly gun-related homicides." The authors concluded that mass shooters were "unlikely to have psychiatric histories" and that focusing only on the mentally ill when considering gun control would be ineffective, considering the small size of the group.

And a 2003 paper published in World Psychiatry notes that "mental disorders are neither necessary nor sufficient causes of violence. Major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and economic factors."

It's a cold and inconvenient truth: Gun restrictions placed only on the mentally ill wouldn't change gun violence as we know it. They may not even make a dent.

As the #NeverAgain movement has reminded us over and over: Gun reform on a large scale is the only way we'll transform the problem.

Of course, more research would be great too. But a 1996 spending amendment prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using federal funds to conduct studies that would "advocate or promote gun control."

A student participates in the 17-minute walkout on March 14th. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

There are many more people living with mental illness than you'd probably guess.

Think about how many people you know. Now consider how many of those people may be struggling with their mental health in some way.

You're probably greatly underestimating that number. That's not just because there is a wide range of psychiatric disorders; it's because you can't tell who is mentally ill just by looking at them (that's just one of many myths) and because of the stigma those who live with these disorders face.

A 2003 survey conducted in England found that 60% of people believed only 10% of the population would be affected by mental health problems in their lifetime. But that's simply not true. Depression, for instance, is now reported to be "the leading cause of disability worldwide" by the World Health Organization. It affects more than 300 million people on Earth. And the National Alliance on Mental Illness reports that 18.5 million adults (that's 1 in 5) experience a mental disorder in any given year.

Do those numbers tell you something? They should.

Considering the disparity between the number of people who live with mental illness and the number of people who commit mass shootings, there's no way that we can blame the majority of gun violence — or any violence — on this group of people.

Those who are mentally ill are actually more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. They're also more likely to hurt themselves. As Bright Magazine notes, "mental illness plays a role in two-thirds of American gun deaths."

But those deaths aren't a result of mass shootings or homicide. They're the result of people with mental illnesses dying by suicide.

And that's why mental illness can't be the scapegoat.

If we're ever going to overhaul the mental health system, the first thing we need to do is create a climate where talking about mental illness isn't stigmatizing. Trump was proof that such an environment doesn't exist when he referred to the mentally ill as "sickos" while demanding we put more guns in schools:

It's in our nature to try to remove uncertainty. That's just the way humans work. And it's especially true when we consider gun violence. In the wake of a mass tragedy, we need some reasoning to grasp onto. Something that can point to a cause.

But just as "mental illness" is too broad a label to put on the myriad conditions and syndromes of its sufferers, correlating mass shootings to it only serves to other the millions that live with mental illness daily, making them feel (and be treated as) less-than. It's an incorrect conclusion drawn by oversimplification.

Here's how I try to talk about mental illness in my lectures: There's an insurance commercial I love (but can no longer find — that's how it always seems to go, right?). In it, a good driver is celebrated by color commentators, who gleefully yell about the driver using signals and turning correctly.

The idea is that we often don't reward people for their good behavior, that we only focus on the bad. It gives me a good feeling.

I mention this commercial because focusing on the bad is exactly what we do when we discuss mental illness. Where are the news stories that celebrate the ordinary people who are doing their best while living with anxiety and depression? The people who have stable lives because they're treating their schizophrenia? Because they see a therapist? Considering the numbers, they absolutely exist.

But the only time we discuss mental health as a nation is in the wake of these tragedies, when baseless accusations trump facts. When it's easy to point fingers.

And when "mental health reform" is used as a convenient way to sidestep the role that assault weapons play in mass shootings, we all suffer.

All of us deserve better than that.

For more of our look at America's gun violence epidemic, check out other stories in this series:

And see our coverage of to-the-heart speeches and outstanding protest signs from the March for Our Lives on March 24, 2018.

Island School Class, circa 1970s.

Parents, do you think your child would be able to survive if they were transported back to the '70s or '80s? Could they live at a time before the digital revolution put a huge chunk of our lives online?

These days, everyone has a phone in their pocket, but before then, if you were in public and needed to call someone, you used a pay phone. Can you remember the last time you stuck 50 cents into one and grabbed the grubby handset?

According to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, roughly 100,000 pay phones remain in the U.S., down from 2 million in 1999.

Do you think a 10-year-old kid would have any idea how to use a payphone in 2022? Would they be able to use a Thomas Guide map to find out how to get somewhere? If they stepped into a time warp and wound up in 1975, could they throw a Led Zeppelin album on the record player at a party?


Another big difference between now and life in the '70s and '80s has been public attitudes toward smoking cigarettes. In 1965, 42.4% of Americans smoked and now, it’s just 12.5%. This sea change in public opinion about smoking means there are fewer places where smoking is deemed acceptable.

But in the early '80s, you could smoke on a bus, on a plane, in a movie theater, in restaurants, in the classroom and even in hospitals. How would a child of today react if their third grade teacher lit up a heater in the middle of math class?

Dan Wuori, senior director of early learning at the Hunt Institute, tweeted that his high school had a smoking area “for the kids.” He then asked his followers to share “something you experienced as a kid that would blow your children’s minds.”


A lot of folks responded with stories of how ubiquitous smoking was when they were in school. While others explained that life was perilous for a kid, whether it was the school playground equipment or questionable car seats.

Here are a few responses that’ll show today’s kids just how crazy life used to be in the '70s and '80s.

First of all, let’s talk about smoking.

Want to call someone? Need to get picked up from baseball practice? You can’t text mom or dad, you’ll have to grab a quarter and use a pay phone.

People had little regard for their kids’ safety or health.

You could buy a soda in school.

Things were a lot different before the internet.

Remember pen pals?

A lot of people bemoan the fact that the children of today aren’t as tough as they were a few decades back. But that’s probably because the parents of today are better attuned to their kids’ needs so they don't have to cheat death to make it through the day.

But just imagine how easy parenting would be if all you had to do was throw your kids a bag of Doritos and a Coke for lunch and you never worried about strapping them into a car seat?


This article originally appeared on 06.08.22

Parenting

Mom creates a stir after refusing to drop her child off at a parent free birthday party

"I loved drop off parties. I didn't want to sit at some kids party."

Photos by Ivan Samkov and Gustavo Fring|Canva

Mom refuses to let kid go to "drop-off" birthday party

There are many Millennial moms that were raised on "Unsolved Mysteries" and "America's Most Wanted" during formative years, which may or may not have influenced the way they parent. It can be hard to think clearly when Robert Stack's voice is echoing in your head every time your child is out of eyesight. The jokes about what is responsible for the average Millennial's parenting style resembling more like a helicopter are endless. But sometimes additional caution is warranted where others may find it unnecessary.

At least that's what many folks on the internet believe after one mom seemingly split parents into two camps with her revelation about children's parties. Liv, who goes by the TikTok handle Liv SAHM, takes to social media to explain that her seven-year-old son was invited to a birthday party but when she went to RSVP, she noticed the invitation said, "drop off only."

The mom explains, "It's at someone's house. I don't know these parents. I don't know that there's actually going to be other adults besides this child's parents."


Liv states that she would not be dropping her young child off alone with strangers. To many parents this seems like a reasonable response. If you don't know the parents or any other adults then how can you ensure your child will be safe. Other parents felt like Liv was completely overreacting with a helicopter parenting style.

"Little kids have been going to peoples birthday parties without clingy parents for decades," one person declares.

"I'm a drop off kinda house. I want the parents to leave that is one less person I have to feed. I don't wanna have to make small talk with other parents," another says.

"That's a big no for me too! And I always try to take my kids to classmates parties because people never show up," someone writes.

"That's so worrisome. I completely agree with you mama bear, same with my son," a commenter says.

"Yeah, that would make me uncomfortable too! It's always a little interesting to me when parents drop off their kids at parties," someone else adds.

@livsahm

No thank you! I don’t feel comfortable with that. #mom #momsoftiktok #momlife #sahm #sahmlife #birthday #birthdayparty #celebration #controversial #parenting #parentingtips #parents #no

There's no right or wrong way to throw a party for a kid because there's no rulebook. Generally parents are accustomed to seeing invitations that say no siblings or the offer of parents staying or leaving. Many commenters pointed out that it seemed odd that the invitation was worded in a way that sounded like parents staying wasn't an option.

Some parents noted that the world has changed since they were children and wouldn't feel safe dropping their kids off either. Others found no issue with it and think fellow parents are overreacting. What do you say, odd or perfectly fine?

via Pixabay

A sad-looking Labrador Retriever

The sweet-faced, loveable Labrador Retriever is no longer America’s favorite dog breed. The breed best known for having a heart of gold has been replaced by the smaller, more urban-friendly French Bulldog.

According to the American Kennel Club, for the past 31 years, the Labrador Retriever was America’s favorite dog, but it was eclipsed in 2022 by the Frenchie. The rankings are based on nearly 716,500 dogs newly registered in 2022, of which about 1 in 7 were Frenchies. Around 108,000 French Bulldogs were recorded in the U.S. in 2022, surpassing Labrador Retrievers by over 21,000.


The French Bulldog’s popularity has grown exponentially over the past decade. They were the #14 most popular breed in 2012, and since then, registrations have gone up 1,000%, bringing them to the top of the breed popularity rankings.

The AKC says that the American Hairless Terrier, Gordon Setter, Italian Greyhound and Anatolian Shepherd Dog also grew in popularity between 2021 and 2022.

The French Bulldog was famous among America’s upper class around the turn of the 20th century but then fell out of favor. Their resurgence is partly based on several celebrities who have gone public with their Frenchie love. Leonardo DiCaprio, Megan Thee Stallion, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, Reese Witherspoon and Lady Gaga all own French Bulldogs.

The breed earned a lot of attention as show dogs last year when a Frenchie named Winston took second place at the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and first in the National Dog Show.

The breed made national news in early 2021 when Gaga’s dog walker was shot in the chest while walking two of her Frenchies in a dog heist. He recovered from his injuries, and the dogs were later returned.

They’ve also become popular because of their unique look and personalities.

“They’re comical, friendly, loving little dogs,” French Bull Dog Club of America spokesperson Patty Sosa told the AP. She said they are city-friendly with modest grooming needs and “they offer a lot in a small package.”

They are also popular with people who live in apartments. According to the AKC, Frenchies don’t bark much and do not require a lot of outdoor exercise.

The French Bulldog stands out among other breeds because it looks like a miniature bulldog but has large, expressive bat-like ears that are its trademark feature. However, their popularity isn’t without controversy. “French bulldogs can be a polarizing topic,” veterinarian Dr. Carrie Stefaniak told the AP.

american kennel club, french bulldog, most popular dog

An adorable French Bulldog

via Pixabay

French Bulldogs have been bred to have abnormally large heads, which means that large litters usually need to be delivered by C-section, an expensive procedure that can be dangerous for the mother. They are also prone to multiple health problems, including skin, ear, and eye infections. Their flat face means they often suffer from respiratory problems and heat intolerance.

Frenchies are also more prone to spine deformations and nerve pain as they age.

Here are the AKC’s top ten most popular dog breeds for 2022.

1 French Bulldogs

2 Labrador Retrievers

3 Golden Retrievers

4 German Shepherd Dogs

5 Poodles

6 Bulldogs

7 Rottweilers

8 Beagles

9 Dachshunds

10 German Shorthaired Pointers


This article originally appeared on 03.17.23

Family

Dad shares what happens when you give your child books instead of a smartphone

The key to fostering healthy habits in children is to be wholly present and reject the “pressures of convenience”

via Armando Hart (used with permission)

Armando Hart and his son, Raya.

One of the most pressing dilemmas for parents these days is how much screen time they should allow their children. Research published by the Mayo Clinic shows that excessive screen time can lead to obesity, disrupted sleep, behavioral issues, poor academic performance, exposure to violence and a significant reduction in playtime.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limiting screen time to 1 to 2 hours daily for children over 2. But American children spend far more time in front of screens than that and the situation is only worsening.

Before the pandemic, kids between the ages of 4 and 12 spent an average of 4.4 hours a day looking at screens, but since 2020, the average child’s daily screen time has increased by 1.75 hours.


A father in Long Beach, California, is getting some love for his TikTok video sharing what happens when you give your kid books instead of an iPhone. Armando Hart posted a video showing his 10-year-old son, Raya, reading a book in the back of a car and it’s been seen over 8 million times.

"Give them books instead of phones when they are little and this is the result," the caption reads. "Thank me later."

We’re so blessed with our son Raya. I think he’s read more books than I have.

@lifeinmotion08

We’re so blessed with our son Raya. I think he’s read more books than I have. #Books #Read #Fyp

Hart and his wife started reading to their son every night before bedtime, hoping to instill a love for books. "It was all about leading by example and creating a nurturing environment where reading was celebrated," Hart told Newsweek. These days, Raya is an avid reader who enjoys just about anything.

“My son likes novels, fiction, nonfiction, and realistic fiction,” Hart told Upworthy. “He also likes informative content, such as reading the almanac and other informative magazines. He loves to build, cook from recipes, and make art.”

For Hart, reading is all about creating a sense of balance in his son’s life.

“It's not about being against technology but about fostering a balanced approach that prioritizes meaningful experiences and hands-on learning,” he told Upworthy. “By instilling a love for reading, creativity, and exploration early on, we're equipping Raya with the skills and mindset he needs to thrive in an ever-changing world.”

Hart believes that the screen time discussion isn’t just about technology but a trend that goes deeper. “It speaks to a broader societal problem: our youth's lack of self-esteem, confidence and fundamental values. While screen time may exacerbate these issues, it is not the sole cause,” he told Upworthy.

“In contrast, physical activity, such as exercise, promotes joy and well-being. Spending hours scrolling on a phone can detract from genuine moments of happiness and fulfillment,” he continued. “Therefore, we must address the deeper underlying issues affecting our youth's mental and emotional health rather than solely attributing them to screen time.”

Hart believes the key to fostering healthy habits in children is to be wholly present and reject the “pressures of convenience” that encourage parental complacency.

“We prioritize quality time together, whether exploring nature, sharing meals with the best available foods, or engaging in meaningful conversations. In today's rapidly advancing technological world, staying grounded in our humanity and embodying integrity in everything we do is crucial,” he continued. “This means staying connected to our authentic selves and teaching our son the importance of honesty, kindness, and respect.”

Joy

Watch as this couple experiences a lifetime together in a single day

Watch a couple age a lifetime together in a single day.

Couple prepares for their physical transformations.

In this super-cool video from Field Day and Cut Video, a young engaged couple is given a rare opportunity to see how they might look 30, 50, and 70 years in the future. With the help of some seriously talented makeup artists, the couple ages before each other's eyes.

But, it's the deep emotional impact of imagining a life shared together that is far more striking than their physical transformation.


Their love seems to strengthen as they see each other age, and the caring they display for one another is likely to make even the most cynical person a little emotional.

This article originally appeared on 05.15.15