# data[].attributes.body
After reading all of these articles and many different stories happening from guns, I believe that a lot of the time it's the people that play the video games or get involved in the bad military groups. So many little kids are playing these very violent games as kids and learning to not really care about other people in their city. I don't have a problem with guns as long as it's in the right hands and I definitely think people should have to go through intense background checks and stuff like that in order to get a gun, even though if you're a bad guy you will get a gun either way, but it could still be harder for the bad guy to get a gun to hurt other people. All in all, I just think that guns are okay as long as they're in the right hands.

# data[].attributes.body
At least nine people were killed and more than a dozen were injured. Police are saying that the gunman trapped some people in a building and set off a bomb right in front of the building where they were at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At least nine people were killed in an attack on Somalia's interior ministry and security forces continued to battle gunmen inside, police said on Saturday, as the al-Shabab extremist group claimed responsibility.

Gunfire could be heard amid reports that a number of people, mostly government workers, were trapped in the ministry on what had been a normal business day.

More than 10 people were wounded and the death toll could rise, Col. Ahmed Mohamed said. Witnesses said some ministry staffers died or were injured while leaping from windows or walls in an effort to escape.

The attack began in the morning when a suicide car bomber detonated at the gate of the interior ministry, which is close to the presidential palace and the headquarters of parliament, police Capt. Mohamed Hussein told The Associated Press.

Three gunmen were believed to be holed up inside the ministry, Mr Hussein said as shooting could be heard in the background. The compound also holds Somalia's security ministry.

Ambulance sirens echoed across the area as soldiers opened fire to disperse bystanders and motorists.

The Somalia-based al-Shabab, an arm of al-Qaida, often targets high-profile areas of the capital. It was blamed for the October truck bombing that killed more than 500 people in the deadliest attack in the country's history.

The ongoing threat from what has become the deadliest Islamic extremist group in sub-Saharan Africa has hurt efforts to strengthen Somalia's fragile government and stabilize the long-chaotic Horn of Africa nation.

The United States under the Trump administration has stepped up military efforts in Somalia, including dozens of drone strikes, against al-Shabab and a small presence of fighters linked to the Islamic State group. At least two US military personnel have been killed.

The US military and others in the international community have expressed concern about the plan for Somalia's security forces to take over the country's security from a multinational African Union force over the next few years, saying the local troops are not yet ready.
Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bomb and gun attack in Somalia kills at least nine people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At least nine people were killed in an attack on Somalia's interior ministry and security forces continued to battle gunmen inside, police said on Saturday, as the al-Shabab extremist group claimed responsibility. Gunfire could be heard amid reports that a number of people, mostly government workers, were trapped in the ministry on what had been a normal business day.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Harvard's study it shows that people in the work place are the most likely to have mental health issues. A lot of the times it's because people in the work force don't really want to get treatment to help with their mental health issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Low treatment rates imperil workers' careers and companies' productivity.

Mental health problems affect many employees - a fact that is usually overlooked because these disorders tend to be hidden at work. Researchers analyzing results from the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey, a nationally representative study of Americans ages 15 to 54, reported that 18% of those who were employed said they experienced symptoms of a mental health disorder in the previous month.

But the stigma attached to having a psychiatric disorder is such that employees may be reluctant to seek treatment - especially in the current economic climate - out of fear that they might jeopardize their jobs. At the same time, managers may want to help but aren't sure how to do so. And clinicians may find themselves in unfamiliar territory, simultaneously trying to treat a patient while providing advice about dealing with the illness at work.

As a result, mental health disorders often go unrecognized and untreated - not only damaging an individual's health and career, but also reducing productivity at work. Adequate treatment, on the other hand, can alleviate symptoms for the employee and improve job performance. But accomplishing these aims requires a shift in attitudes about the nature of mental disorders and the recognition that such a worthwhile achievement takes effort and time.

Here's a quick guide to the most common mental health problems in the workplace, and how they affect both employees and employers.

Key points

Symptoms of mental health disorders may be different at work than in other situations.

Although these disorders may cause absenteeism, the biggest impact is in lost productivity.

Studies suggest that treatment improves work performance, but is not a quick fix.

Stealth symptoms, tangible impact

Symptoms of common problems - such as depression, bipolar disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and anxiety - are all described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). But symptoms tend to manifest differently at work than they do at home or in other settings.

Although symptoms may go unnoticed, the economic consequences are tangible. Studies assessing the full work impact of mental health disorders often use the World Health Organization (WHO) Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, which not only asks employees to report how many days they called in sick, but also asks them to assess, on a graded scale, how productive they were on the days they actually were at work. The results are measured in days out of work (absenteeism) and lost productivity ("presenteeism").

In one study examining the financial impact of 25 chronic physical and mental health problems, researchers polled 34,622 employees at 10 companies. The researchers tabulated the amount of money the companies spent on medical and pharmacy costs for employees, as well as employees' self-reported absenteeism and lost productivity, using the WHO questionnaire.

When researchers ranked the most costly health conditions (including direct and indirect costs), depression ranked first, and anxiety ranked fifth - with obesity, arthritis, and back and neck pain in between.

Many of the studies in this field have concluded that the indirect costs of mental health disorders - particularly lost productivity - exceed companies' spending on direct costs, such as health insurance contributions and pharmacy expenses. Given the generally low rates of treatment, the researchers suggest that companies should invest in the mental health of workers - not only for the sake of the employees but to improve their own bottom line.

Depression is the mental health disorder that has been best studied in the workplace, partly because it is so common in the general population. One survey of a nationally representative sample reported that about 6% of employees experience symptoms of depression in any given year.

Although the DSM-IV lists low mood as the defining symptom of depression, in the workplace this disorder is more likely to manifest in behaviors - such as nervousness, restlessness, or irritability - and in physical complaints, such as a preoccupation with aches and pains. In addition, employees may become passive, withdrawn, aimless, and unproductive. They also may be fatigued at work, partly as a result of the mood disorder or because they are having trouble sleeping at night. Depression may also impair judgment or cloud decision making.

Researchers who analyzed employee responses to the WHO questionnaire found that workers with depression reported the equivalent of 27 lost work days per year - nine of them because of sick days or other time taken out of work, and another 18 reflecting lost productivity. Other research has found that employees with depression are more likely than others to lose their jobs and to change jobs frequently.

Part of the problem may be lack of treatment. In one study, only 57% of employees with symptoms of major depression said they had received mental health treatment in the previous 12 months. Of those in treatment, fewer than half - about 42% - were receiving treatment considered adequate, on the basis of how consistent it was with published guidelines about minimal standards of care. The researchers estimated that over all, when lack of treatment or inadequate treatment was taken into account, only about one in four employees with major depression received adequate treatment for the disorder.

Bipolar disorder is typically characterized by cycling between elevated (manic) and depressed moods. In a manic phase, employees may appear highly energetic and creative, but actual productivity may suffer. And during full-blown mania, a person may become self-aggrandizing or disruptive, flout workplace rules, be overly aggressive, and make mistakes in judgment (such as overspending a budget). During the depressive phase, an employee may exhibit depressive symptoms as described above. Although mania may be more noticeable at work, the research suggests that the depressive phase of bipolar disorder can impair performance more than the manic phase.

One nationally representative study estimated that about 1% of American employees suffer from bipolar disorder in any year. Based on employee responses to the WHO questionnaire, the researchers estimated that employees with bipolar disorder lost the equivalent of about 28 work days per year from sick time and other absences, and another 35 in lost productivity. The authors note that although bipolar disorder may be more disabling to employees on an individual level, the cost to employers is still less than that attributed to depression, because the latter is more common in the population.

In a departure from findings about treatment rates for other mental health disorders, about two-thirds of employees with bipolar disorder said they had received treatment for it. But the likelihood of receiving adequate care depended on the type of clinician they saw. Only about 9% of those who sought care from general practitioners received care in keeping with published guidelines for bipolar disorder, compared with 45% of those who sought care from mental health professionals.

Anxiety disorders in the workplace may manifest as restlessness, fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and excess worrying. Employees may require constant reassurance about performance. Sometimes, as with depression, physical symptoms or irritability may be noticeable.

Anxiety disorders affect about 6% of the population at some point in life, but typically go undiagnosed for 5 to 10 years. And only about one in three individuals with a diagnosed disorder receives treatment for it. At the same time, the studies suggest that people with anxiety disorders are more likely than others to seek out medical care - but for problems like gastrointestinal distress, sleep disturbances, or heart trouble rather than for anxiety.

It is probably not surprising, then, that anxiety disorders cause significant work impairment. Generalized anxiety disorder, for example, results in work impairment (as measured by sick days and lost productivity) similar to that attributed to major depression.

ADHD is often considered a problem only in childhood, but it also affects adults. An international survey in 10 countries (including the United States) estimated that 3.5% of employees have ADHD. In the workplace, symptoms of ADHD may manifest as disorganization, failure to meet deadlines, inability to manage workloads, problems following instructions from supervisors, and arguments with co-workers.

Workplace performance - and the employee's career - may suffer. Studies estimate that people with ADHD may lose 22 days per year (a combination of sick days and lost productivity), compared with people without the disorder. In addition, people with ADHD are 18 times as likely to be disciplined for behavior or other work problems, and likely to earn 20% to 40% less money than others. They are also two to four times as likely as other employees to be terminated from a job.

Treatment rates among employees with ADHD are especially low. In the United States, for example, only 13% of workers with ADHD reported being treated for this condition in the previous 12 months.

An investment in health

The literature on mental health problems in the workplace suggests that the personal toll on employees - and the financial cost to companies - could be eased if a greater proportion of workers who need treatment were able to receive it. The authors of such studies advise employees and employers to think of mental health care as an investment - one that's worth the up-front time and cost.

Most of the research on the costs and benefits of treatment has been done on employees with depression. The studies have found that when depression is adequately treated, companies reduce job-related accidents, sick days, and employee turnover, as well as improve the number of hours worked and employee productivity.

But the research also suggests that treatment for depression is not a quick fix. Although adequate treatment alleviates symptoms and improves productivity, one study found that in the short term, employees may need to take time off to attend clinical appointments or reduce their hours in order to recover.

To overcome barriers to accessing care, and to make it more affordable to companies, the National Institute of Mental Health is sponsoring the Work Outcomes Research and Cost Effectiveness Study at Harvard Medical School. The researchers have published results from a randomized, controlled trial of telephone screening and depression care management for workers at 16 large companies, representing a variety of industries.

During the two-phase study, mental health clinicians employed by an insurance company identified workers who might need treatment, provided information about how to access it, monitored adherence to treatment, and provided telephone psychotherapy to those workers who did not want to see a therapist in person. The outcomes of 304 workers assigned to the intervention were compared with 300 controls, who were referred to clinicians for treatment but did not receive telephone support.

The researchers found that workers assigned to the telephone intervention reported significantly improved mood and were more likely to keep their jobs when compared with those in the control group. They also improved their productivity, equivalent to about 2.6 hours of extra work per week, worth about $1,800 per year (based on average wages) - while the intervention cost the employers an estimated $100 to $400 per treated employee. The researchers are conducting additional research on how to improve access to mental health care in the workplace, and to quantify costs and benefits for employers.

Studies such as these suggest that, in the long term, costs spent on mental health care may represent an investment that will pay off - not only in healthier employees, but also for the company's financial health.

Hilton MF, et al. "The Association Between Mental Disorders and Productivity in Treated and Untreated Employees," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Sept. 2009): Vol. 51, No. 9, pp. 996-1003.

Kahn JP, et al., eds. Mental Health and Productivity in the Workplace: A Handbook for Organizations and Clinicians (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).

Loeppke R, et al. "Health and Productivity as a Business Strategy: A Multiemployer Study," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (April 2009): Vol. 51, No. 4, pp. 411-28.

Wang PS, et al. "Making the Business Case for Enhanced Depression Care: The National Institute of Mental Health-Harvard Work Outcomes Research and Cost-Effectiveness Study," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (April 2008): Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 468-75.

For more references and a list of resources for employees and companies, please see www.health.harvard.edu/mentalextra.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mental health problems in the workplace - Harvard Health

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Low treatment rates imperil workers' careers and companies' productivity. Mental health problems affect many employees - a fact that is usually overlooked because these disorders tend to be hidden at work. Researchers analyzing results from the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article it shows that most of the massive shootings happen on gun free zones like schools. Some states are even trying to get the government to allow guns in places like schools or airports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A sign declaring Stillwater Junior High School as a drug free and gun free zone is pictured outside the school in Stillwater, Okla., Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2012. A 13-year-old student shot and killed himself in a hallway at the schooll before classes began Wednesday, police said, terrifying teenagers who feared a gunman was on the loose. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

On the heels of the shooting in Fort Lauderdale that took the lives of five people, a new report has surfaced with some breathtaking statistics about where mass shootings take place.

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950's through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.

The research was actually updated from a previous figure in response to an article written by the gun-control advocacy group Everytown.org, which attempted to dismiss the CPRC's research, saying "the gun lobby's claims that so-called "gun-free zones" endanger Americans are inconsistent with evidence." The CPRC says that Everytown.org used both incomplete information, and used criteria that falls outside of what the FBI considers as qualifications for mass shootings.

The FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes " shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence" or that were part of some other crime. The FBI also defines "public" places as " includ[ing] commercial areas (divided into malls, businesses open to pedestrian traffic, and businesses closed to pedestrian traffic), educational environments (divided into schools [pre-kindergarten through 12th grade] and IHEs), open spaces, government properties (divided into military and other government properties), houses of worship, and health care facilities. "

The CPRC dismisses claims of "mass shootings" if they do not meet the FBI's criteria, and gives an entire list of mass shootings that have occurred within the United States. It then debunks Everytown.org's claims.

While the first part of the discussion here goes through each mass public shooting from 2009 to 2014 discussed in the Bloomberg report, further down in this post we have updated cases up through 2015 and the sources of older cases dating back to 1950. At the end of the post we have a response to Everytown's response to our post. Using the data from 1950 through February 2016 has three mass public shootings in places where general citizens are allowed to have guns - that is just over 1 percent of the shootings over that period.

To see the list for yourself, follow the link here.

Very recently, state lawmakers have begun moving to eliminate gun-free zones in various places, including two bills introduced into the Florida Senate and House that allows for carry within airports and government buildings, as well as one in Kentucky to allow firearms to be carried in schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Over 98% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the heels of the shooting in Fort Lauderdale that took the lives of five people, a new report has surfaced with some breathtaking statistics about where mass shootings take place.According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950's through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article I found that right before the Sandy hook shooting there were 242 million guns in civilians hands. Right now there's an estimated 40 million more guns then people because so many people have more then one and they're being brought over from other country's.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's tough to know exactly how many guns we have in the United States. Most estimates of the number of guns in the U.S. use federal tallies of the firearms manufactured, imported and exported by U.S. gunmakers. A 2012 Congressional Research Service report published exactly one month before the Sandy Hook school shooting put the number of civilian firearms at 242 million in 1996, 259 million in 2000, and 310 million as of 2009.

If that 310 million number is correct, it means that the first year of Barack Obama's presidency was an inflection point: It marked the first time that the number of firearms in circulation surpassed the total U.S. population.

Data on gun manufacturing from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives now goes through 2013. If we were to update the CRS numbers with the most recent data, we'd get a chart that looks something like this:

Adding up new guns and imports and subtracting gun exports, in 2013 there would have been roughly 357 million firearms in the U.S. - 40 million more guns than people. This is just an estimate. These numbers are blind to firearms that enter and exit the country illegally, and to guns that break down, or are lost or destroyed.

Philip J. Cook of Duke University suspects that estimates based on the ATF numbers don't properly account for this type of attrition. He's estimated that roughly 1 percent of the American gun stock gets destroyed, lost or broken in a given year. Applying that factor retroactively back to when the ATF first began keeping records in 1899, that would put the civilian firearm total at something like 245 million as of 2011, he said.

Other estimates downplay the effect of attrition. In 2007, the global Small Arms Survey estimated there were 270 million civilian firearms in the United States. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, says it's difficult to model the effects of attrition.

"Guns are simple machines made of extremely durable materials," he said in an e-mail, "yet are both dangerous and valuable enough that their owners would take more-than-average care to avoid losing them." His numbers produce an estimate nearly identical to the one in the chart above.

Regardless of the actual number of civilian firearms in circulation, there's no ambiguity around one crucial fact: U.S. gun manufacturers have drastically increased their output during the Obama years. In 2009, according to the ATF, gunmakers produced 5.6 million guns. By 2013 their annual production had just about doubled, up to 10.9 million guns that year.

FSU's Kleck calls this an "Obama effect." High-profile shootings and talk of changing gun laws "motivates gun owners to get more guns, and perhaps some non-owners to get one 'while the getting is good,'" he said. This is despite the fact that Congress has not passed any changes to federal firearm legislation since early 2008.

It's important to note that even as the number of guns has increased since the early-to-mid-90s, the per-capita gun homicide rate has fallen by nearly half over the same time period. On the other hand, it's also true that when you make comparisons between states and countries, you see that places with more guns have more gun homicides, as research from the Harvard School of Public Health shows.

These two seemingly unreconcilable facts form the factual basis for much of the contemporary gun policy debate. Defenders of gun rights can point to falling homicide rates and rising gun numbers and argue that the solution to gun violence is more guns. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, can point out the correlations between gun ownership and gun crime and push for tighter restrictions on gun ownership.

Compounding the difficulty is that now, after years of high-profile killing sprees and vitriolic public debates, each side is deeply skeptical that the other is acting in good faith. Even modest policy proposals, like expanded background checks supported by many members of the National Rifle Association, fail to make it through Congress.

Is there a way to reconcile these divisions? It's hard to tell. I keep coming back to this quote, from the Economist earlier this year in response to the Charleston massacre.

Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [mass shootings] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
There are now more guns than people in the United States

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's tough to know exactly how many guns we have in the United States. Most estimates of the number of guns in the U.S. use federal tallies of the firearms manufactured, imported and exported by U.S. gunmakers.

# data[].attributes.body
Doctors are saying that it could cause aggression and cause you to not really have empathy for anyone. Doctors say that if you were ever in the situation to help someone then you would try your hardest not to help them because the video game has trained you to not really care about other people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lauren Goldbeck and Alex Pew, National Center for Health Research

After mass shootings, the media and public officials often question the role of the shooter's video game habits.

The American Psychological Association (APA) considers violent video games a risk factor for aggression.[1] In 2017, the APA Task Force on Violent Media concluded that violent video game exposure was linked to increased aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, as well as decreased empathy. However, it is not clear whether violent video game exposure was linked to criminality or delinquency.

Do Violent Video Games Increase Aggression?

Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in both the short-term and long-term.[2] Violent video games can also desensitize people to seeing aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behaviors such as helping another person and feeling empathy (the ability to understand others). The longer that individuals are exposed to violent video games, the more likely they are to have aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. These effects have been seen in studies in both Eastern and Western countries. Although males spend more time than females playing violent video games, violent video game exposure can increase aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in both sexes.

Aggressive behavior is measured by scientists in a number of ways. Some studies looked at self-reports of hitting or pushing, and some looked at peer or teacher ratings on aggressive behaviors. Other studies looked at how likely an individual was to subject others to an unpleasant exposure to hot sauce or a loud noise after playing violent video games.

Unfortunately, few studies have been completed on violent video game exposure and aggression in children under age 10. There is also little information about the impact of violent video game exposure on minority children.

There have not been many studies on the effects of different characteristics of video games, such as perspective or plot. However, some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence.[3]

Do Violent Video Games Increase Violence?

Violence is a form of aggression, but not all aggressive behaviors are violent. Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chances of later delinquency, criminal behavior, or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct, and require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also results in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, but there is no clear evidence to support that assumption.

Policy

In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018, policymakers are again questioning the influence of violent video games. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) affirms that their rating system is effective, but the APA Task Force on Violent Media recommends that the ESRB revise their rating system to make the level of violence clearer. The Task Force also recommends that further research must be done using delinquency, violence, and criminal behavior as outcomes to determine whether or not violent video games are linked to violence.

Bottom Line

It is important to keep in mind that violent video game exposure is only one risk factor of aggressive behavior. For example, mental illness, adverse environments, and access to guns are all risk factors of aggression and violence.
All articles are reviewed and approved by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff. The National Center for Health Research is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research, education and advocacy organization that analyzes and explains the latest medical research and speaks out on policies and programs. We do not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers. Find out how you can support us here.
References:

1. The American Psychological Association Task Force on Violent Media. (2017). The American Psychological Association Task Force Assessment of Violent Video Games: Science in the Service of Public Interest. American Psychologist. 72(2): 126-143. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040413. Accessed on March 9, 2018.

2. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, Rothstein HR, Muniba. Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin. 2010.

3. Adachi, PJ and Willoughby, T. (2013). Demolishing the Competition: The Longitudinal Link Between Competitive Video Games, Competitive Gambling, and Aggression. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 42(7): 1090-104. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9952-2.

4. Sanstock, JW. A Topical Approach to Life Span Development 4th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Ch 15. 489-491

5. Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM, Peter J. The Effects of Pathological Gaming on Aggressive Behavior. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 2010.

6. Huesmann LR, Moise J, Podolski CP, Eron LD. (2003). Longitudinal relations between childhood exposure to media violence and adult aggression and violence. Developmental Psychology. 35:201-221.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Violent Video Games and Aggression | National Center for Health Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lauren Goldbeck and Alex Pew, National Center for Health Research After mass shootings, the media and public officials often question the role of the shooter's video game habits. The American Psychological Association (APA) considers violent video games a risk factor for aggression.[1] In 2017, the APA Task Force on Violent Media concluded that violent video game exposure was linked to increased aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, as well as decreased empathy.

# data[].attributes.body
Some pastors are saying that because less people are coming to church or some other form of prayers that people aren't trying to connect with god/ other religion people. This could be causing people not really trying to do good in their community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do We Need Religion to Have Good Morals?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do We Need Religion to Have Good Morals?: Is moral behaviour dependent upon religion? Do non-religious countries have worse morality? What's the evidence?