I was speaking in generalities and gave Columbine as an example of what I was talking about. That what the parenthesis mean.
When kids are not medicated and commit crimes that make the headlines, people complain that the parents didn't see the "obvious signs" and should have been medicating their children.
Now, you don't like the example I used? You'd prefer to ignore the point I was trying to make and would rather nit pick and say one of the Columbine killers was on meds? Fine, if that's all you got, go for it.
Of course that leads into my second argument that when kids ARE on meds and commit crimes that make the headlines, people blame the meds. My guess is that it's the same people. Probably people like you.
Ah. I was under the impression you should say true things, but I had forgotten basic English syntax: if you put ( on one side, and ) on the other, making stuff up becomes totally acceptible.
When kids are not medicated and commit crimes that make the headlines, people complain that the parents didn't see the "obvious signs" and should have been medicating their children.
This is strange. I've seen that up to the part about obvious signs. But the last part is new to me. Here, let me fix it:
When kids are not medicated and commit crimes that make the headlines, people complain that the parents didn't see the "obvious signs" (and should have been medicating their children).
Of course that leads into my second argument that when kids ARE on meds and commit crimes that make the headlines, people blame the meds. My guess is that it's the same people. Probably people like you.
Yet more. Paraphrasing your argument: you blame the lack of medication -- because I TOLD YOU that you blame the lack of medication! And if you tell me there was medication, then you're blaming the meds! Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
It would be helpful if you'd be willing to interact with what people are actually saying.