You're viewing a single thread.
Well, to be fair, what they meant to say is "There is no way to prevent this while not changing gun law, state of mental healthcare, income inequality in economic classes, or criminal law and policing issues." which is correct statement overall.
I mean i generally agree with your point and i know its a small detail but it kinda rubs me the wrong way when people always bring up mental health when talking about mass shootings. There isn't much of a link between mental illness and violence despite common belief. And i have ptsd, bipolar and psychosis which are often associated with violence but i and nearly everyone else with these illnesses just these shooters as nazi assholes. I don't believe you had any wrong intentions or anything and i believe that healthcare is a human right, but i thought i should clarify.
So you don't think a lot of these mass shooters went with untreated and ignored mental illness which sprouted in to things worse than most people could ever understand and it was too late? It's a huge issue that these people would show signs beforehand and nobody did anything about their mental health or bullying.
It is a huge problem that people with mental health issues go undiagnosed and untreated. It's also very disingenuous the same people who want to blame mental health for all gun related violence will do absolutely nothing to provide care for people with mental health issues AND actively oppose providing care.
Despite all of that, if mental health was truly the main driving force behind mass shootings you would expect a higher rate of violence among the documented populous of people with mental health issues. That alone isn't conclusive of anything but when you do look at the data and it shows the exact opposite you have to question the original hypothesis.
Maybe, not generalizing all mental health to be the cause for people to be violent, would be a place to start? Possibly. Are there specific disorders that contribute whether or not someone is capable of violent acts? Who knows but I can guarantee to you the people pointing the finger at mental health do not care, in the slightest, to find out.
It is a huge problem that people with mental health issues go undiagnosed and untreated. It's also very disingenuous the same people who want to blame mental health for all gun related violence will do absolutely nothing to provide care for people with mental health issues AND actively oppose providing care.
Truly. It's sickening seeing Americans advocate even harder for gun laws while completely ignoring the mental health or bullying scenarios that cause these..
I don't accept their premise that gun proponents oppose health care. I think that is true of Republicans in general, but while I would concede that Republicans are better for gun rights, I do not accept that they are actually "pro gun".
Trump was certainly not pro-gun. He supported broad gun control before he was a presidential candidate. As president, he infamously called for taking guns first, due process later.
Previous Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney promoted and signed a state-level gun ban into law; Romney was certainly not pro-gun. Most Republican lawmakers are wishy-washy at best on guns. They pay lip service to the second amendment, and then fail to support any pro-gun issues whatsoever.
The greatest measure sought by pro-gun advocates is national reciprocity - 50-state recognition of any state's concealed carry license. Republicans do not support that measure.
The Firearm Owners Protection Act adopted a uniform set of transport rules for people engaged in interstate travel. So, even if a gun was prohibited in a specific state, a traveler could possess that gun while passing through the state. Gun proponents offered an update to FOPA to allow traveling licensees to carry on the interstate if they were legal at their origin and destination. This would be a compromise to the desired 50-state reciprocity; Republicans refused to advance it.
Another big one was the Hearing Protection Act, which would have delisted silencers from the national firearm registey, and re-regulated them in the same way as pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Republicans refused to support it.
Republicans are better on guns than Democrats, but Republicans are still pretty terrible on anything gun proponents actually want.
Republican opposition to universal health care is yet another way that Republicans fail gun owners, who regularly call for such measures.
Despite all of that, if mental health was truly the main driving force behind mass shootings you would expect a higher rate of violence among the documented populous of people with mental health issues.
There is. There is no question that mental illness strongly correlates with a propensity for violence.
From the source:
A meta-analysis of 204 studies of psychosis as a risk factor for violence reported that “compared with individuals with no mental disorders, people with psychosis seem to be at a substantially elevated risk for violence.” Psychosis “was significantly associated with a 49%–68% increase in the odds of violence.”
A review of 22 studies published between 1990 and 2004 “concluded that major mental disorders, per se, especially schizophrenia, even without alcohol or drug abuse, are indeed associated with higher risks for interpersonal violence.” Major mental disorders were said to account for between 5% and 15% of community violence.
Among 3,743 individuals with bipolar disorder, 8.4% committed violent crimes compared to 3.5% of the general population in Sweden.
A 2014 study in Israel identified 3,187 patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. They committed four times more violent crimes compared to the general population, and this difference was even more pronounced among women.
A 10-year follow-up of 1,056 severely mentally ill patients discharged from mental hospitals in Sweden in 1986 reported that "of those who were 40 years old or younger at the time of discharge, nearly 40% had a criminal record as compared to less than 10% of the general public." Furthermore, "the most frequently occurring crimes are violent crimes."
The best study used the Danish psychiatric case register, covering the whole country, and convictions for criminal offenses. Between 1978 and 1990, 6.7% of males and 0.9% of females with "major mental disorders" (psychoses) were convicted of a violent crime ("all offenses involving interpersonal aggression or a threat thereof") compared with 1.5% of males and 0.1% of females among individuals with no psychiatric diagnosis.
A Swedish study examined the criminal records of all individuals born in Stockholm in 1953 and still living in the city 30 years later. Men and women with severe mental illness were 4.2 times (men) and 27.5 times (women) more likely to have been convicted of a violent crime compared to individuals with no psychiatric diagnosis.
I think you source is valid, I think your point is relevant but at the same time your leaving out some important details.
To start you say
There is no question that mental illness strongly correlates with a propensity for violence.
While that's true, it's is misleading going all the way back to my original post. The article you linked goes through great lengths to specify 'severe mental illness.' In most cases schizophrenia. Also, the article states in the studies cited that it it's usually untreated schizophrenia coupled with substance abuse.
Caution: the person I was responding to is your typical troll.
Also, the article states in the studies cited that it it's usually untreated schizophrenia coupled with substance abuse.
Universal healthcare would go along way toward addressing the "untreated" part of your criticism.
Mental illness means a lot of things catch up with me later and I will link some research that show amoung all cases of mental illness violence is less likely.
Ok. Let's run with that for a moment: mentally ill people commit less violence than mentally stable people. If that is the case, then "therapy" should increase rates of violence. If your thesis is correct, we should not treat mental illness, because doing so will increase violence.
Surely, you are not arguing for that absurdity. Surely, you agree that among those mentally ill people who do commit acts of violence, effective treatment should reduce the rate of such violence. Universal healthcare, then, addresses violence by providing broader access to such treatment.
Troll bait.
Well, I agree that someone is trolling.
Im not doubting that bullying isn't involved (i mean its kinda a stereotype that its always the bullied quiet kids who shoot schools, but it happens) but mental illness symptoms no matter how severe don't really cause you to plot and attempt a school shooting. I mean maybe antisocial personality disorder could cause it but i've never heard of such a case.
No, of course not.. but they can cause things like disassociation, hallucinations, paranoia and loss of ones value in life. I'd hate to think anybody meant that mental illness inherently means you have a high chance of being a school shooter, because I bet 95%+ of people with mental illness would never wish harm on others and only their selves
You do have a fair point on problem of association. I don't think diagnosed mental condition have significant prediction power either. Instead, I believe that occasional mental healthcare counselling on people who we find to be normal will be the one that improve this situation.
That title is what the Onion (a satirical/parody news site) uses every time there is a major mass shooting in America.