The next time someone says mental illness causes crime...

Status
Not open for further replies.

BSA1

member
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
7,492
Location
West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
As regular members of THR know I frequently post warnings about being sucked into believing what I consider to be The Big Lie;

That mental illness (disorders) cause people to commit violent acts with firearms.

Yesterday there was a excellent article about a blog post from the American Psychiatric Association's president, Dr. Renee Binder that supports my position.

“As chief executive of the major lobby group that advocates for the interests of psychiatrists, Binder might have been expected to recommend an increase in psychiatric treatment for the mentally ill as a way to reduce gun violence. Amazingly, she not only did not make that recommendation, but she made the powerful—and well-documented—statement that people diagnosed with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it and that most of the mentally ill will never commit acts of violence against others. Thus, to pass laws to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns is no way to reduce the frequency of murders. In fact, as Binder pointed out, "Stronger indicators of risk include a history of violent behavior, domestic violence, and drug or alcohol abuse."

Two important points shed further light on this matter. One arises from the fact that the primary way that "the mentally ill" are identified is by having been given psychiatric diagnoses, but a vast body of work over three decades has revealed psychiatric diagnostic categories to be constructed and applied with little or no scientific support, so attempts to divide the populace into "the mentally ill" and "everyone else"—and aim to pass laws affecting the former—make no sense.

The other relevant point is that the ballooning numbers of categories and subcategories that are called mental illnesses has led to the psychiatrizing of our society, the tendency of therapists, media people, the public, even some novelists to try to explain every aspect of human behavior as caused by a mental illness…. As a result a confounding factor we will increasingly need to consider is that an artificially created correlation between a diagnosis of mental illness and commission of a violent act will result, as anyone charged with an act of violence is increasingly likely to be labeled mentally ill.”

Every gun owner should read this article as it perfectly exposes the fallacy of the Government's, the media and anti-2A organizations and Liberals propaganda campaign. (And sadly how successful they are with selling it to the public).

http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/10/top-psychiatrists-stunning-announcement-about-gun-violence/
 
I agree BSA1, we should have a bummer sticker made that says
"43 million mentally ill people harmed no one yesterday"


The problem is that it's easy to blame, and it's something people (incorrectly) think can be fixed with legislation. Put those two together, and as the saying goes "to a man with a hammer everything looked like a nail" or something like that.

In our current age we generally think legislation is our only tool, so we can legislate guns and mental health. Neither is the root of the problem, as a result no law about the two will fix the problem.
 
Agreed...very often modern society is simply providing a label excuse legitimizing deviant behavior (not legit mental illness).
 
Mental illness absolutely does not make people violent...as stated, they are more likely to be victims of crime than the perpetrators of it.


but i do believe a violent person suffering from mental illness is more apt to act on their violent tendencies, than they would be if they were healthy.

Mental illness is a huge stress factor on the person, now most people deal with stress in healthy ways or at least non violent, because most people are not naturally violent individuals........but if you take someone who is a "violent person", and apply a huge stress on them, like suffering from a mental illness, they would be more apt to deal with that stress in a violent way.

those are just my thoughts on the matter, i am not a psychologist and i didnt stay at a holiday inn last night
 
This info has been in the professional reviews for quite a few years.

There is some small indication that folks with paranoid delusion, antisocial personalities and substance abuse might be more dangerous. A recent review found that folks with autism spectrum problems (used to be called Aspergers) are not threats. However, the vast majority of folks with problems are not more dangerous. The substance abuse is a better predictor for anyone.

The best predictors for anyone are past violent behaviors and threats (perhaps coupled with secret arsenals). Whoa - what does that mean? Folks who have lots of guns but don't lent on they are gun folks the way we do. They may practice but not average gun owners. I grant you this indicator is tricky and doesn't mean a collector or a gun person with lots of guns is violent. Looking for the guns after threats is what they are talking about.

As far as the focus on mental health - there are two paths to use this is the political debate:

1. Progun folks want to take the evil onus off the guns and say is mental health. Kind of a double edged sword because:

2. Antigun folks might agree and start a general and broad classification of mental illness to take guns from thousand or millions. Look at the SAFE act, debates about veterans, etc.

Are the rampage shooters and terrorists folks that have disorders - probably. However, the tremendous false positive problem from any know diagnostic measure makes diagnosis and gun removal problematic - except for the explicit threat and violent behavior histories.
 
Great article. I've known a few mentally ill people. None of them were violent. I've also known some who were addicts that were violent. I'll go with the violent prone, drug/alcohol abusers as the first group to watch and interrupt. Assault, DUI, domestic abuse charge, well no gun for you.
 
The number of people with some form of classified mental illness in the U.S. is in the millions. Those people are primarily harmless. Only a very small fraction of a percent carry out the media attention grabbing violent crimes. It is too simplistic to make the shallow assumption that all mentally ill are dangerous.
 
The victimization of the mental ill is basic and covered Criminology 101. Even the hospitals at the turn of the century victimized patients as many of those incarcerated did not have the mental capacity to complain to get changes for fair treatment. The same occurs today but by criminals in the open and not by doctors in concrete buildings.

Look at how many people suffer from some sort of mental illness, in all its variations. I am willing to bet if everyone on this forum went to the doctor today, about half of us would be diagnosed with depression, anxiety or some other illness based off a questionnaire and a hip pocket diagnosis.
 
So, does this mean they (mental health workers) don't want to help identify the patients who do suffer from mental health problems which involve episodes of anger/violence, and who do have a history of violent behavior, and/or who may experience anger management issues and act violently when they aren't taking their medications?

Also, are they willing to help make sure that such patients are included on state lists of people who ought to be prohibited from buying/possessing firearms?

If it's only a very minute percentage of persons suffering mental health issues who are violent, and/or have a known history of violent behavior, does that mean it ought to be easier to help identify them and make sure they're prohibited from owning/possessing firearms?

In one way, this is a bit reminiscent of how law-abiding citizens seem stigmatized because they own guns, even though the significant majority of them don't commit criminal acts using firearms, and are more often the victims of criminal acts. On the other hand, it is possible to eventually identify such persons convicted of violent criminal acts and prohibit them from further ownership/possession of firearms.

If the average citizen continues to read how some shooting suspect was allegedly known (reported by family and friends) to have suffered from mental health problems which ostracized him(her), and how they made lists of planned violent acts or persons whom they wanted to kill, it won't be surprising if the public is going to think they see a bit of fire through all the smoke and makes increasing demands of lawmakers "do something".

Can the mental health profession do anything to try and get out ahead of any 'panic' legislative efforts, and help recommend relevant, sensible actions to help prevent patients with violent tendencies from being able to get and use firearms to act out their tendencies?

Not a simple question, let alone anything with a simple answer.
 
Mental illness doesn't cause crime, but criminal activity can be the result of a mental illness. Still isn't something that can be legislated away.
"...hospitals at the turn of the century..." The 20th. It's still happening in retirement homes. Sometimes by the employees.
 
I think that you have failed to define your terms.

Is someone who kills several people, and has no regret, not mentally ill by definition?

Can you make a compelling case that anyone who commits a mass killing is sane?

Mental illness comes in many forms. And note that nearly everyone who is caught red-handed attempts to employ the "insanity" defense to at least partially absolve themselves from guilt....not that I accept that tactic.

We (as a society) have been forced by PC to "back away" from labels of all types. We cannot call a spade a spade, as it were.
 
The number of people with some form of classified mental illness in the U.S. is in the millions. Those people are primarily harmless. Only a very small fraction of a percent carry out the media attention grabbing violent crimes. It is too simplistic to make the shallow assumption that all mentally ill are dangerous.

Completely agree. In contrast to the OP's boldfaced quote, however, whether or not mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime isn't a valid argument against the mentally ill perpetrating crime. The statement presupposes that being a victim of crime (behaviors performed by others) somehow determines that the mentally ill won't or don't commit crime. One does not determine the other and so the likelihood relationship is misleading to the issue.

Also misleading is the comparison between committing a crime and violence against others. There is a considerable amount of crime that goes on with mentally ill people and non mentally ill people that does not involve violence.

I agree with the notion that we can't group everyone with a mental condition as being "mentally ill" as a total categorization for separation from guns, but this sort of gross generalization is what is done in describing the likelihood of crime involving the mentally ill (against or performed by).

Mental illness does not cause crime. However, some forms of mental illness result in behaviors that are not acceptable by societal standards and some of those standards are codified legal issues.
 
Is someone who kills several people, and has no regret, not mentally ill by definition?

It depends on their culture, value system and the values of society that they commit the killings in. The fact that they don't share the same set of values that you do doesn't make them mentally ill. One only needs to look at how criminals are punished in other countries.

Closer to home contrast the values of folks that live in highly populated urban areas to those that live in small cities and towns in rural areas.

Regret is something that can be influenced by how a person is treated by others after the deed. A person that is treated well by the police, in a positive manner by the media and by people in the community, neighbors, friends and family makes a big difference when compared to negative treatment by the police, negative media reports and the reaction and treatment by neighbors, friends and family.

The values of America in the 1920's and 1930's were different than today. Lynchings of accused criminals (not based on race such as the in the Deep South) was not uncommon during that era. The general public expected violent criminals to be hanged. Capital punishment was the law of land, and was commonly carried out. Lynchings saved taxpayer dollars, ensured the defendant would not get off due to Judge and Jury being bribed, gave a swift trial and execution.

Can you make a compelling case that anyone who commits a mass killing is sane?

Absolutely. The terrorists that highjacked and flew the planes into the Twin Towers and Pentagon on 9/11. Their actions were rational, required a high level of training and education, well planned and involved group effort and coordination with members in other airplanes and within their group.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Binder makes the mistake of taking her statistics from secondary sources that are Antis and lacks focus. She muddles the rare mass school murders and the generally constant ongoing violence in some areas (not even all of Chicago is the massive murder center we often depict it) together and doesn't get down to parsing them to suggest solutions. She only takes a shallow approach to murders and instead focuses on trying to remove the stigma from the mentally ill, who there are millions of in this country. She doesn't try to address the mental health issue of the school murderer nor does she try to address the mindset of the culture of violence.

She fails to offer any suggestions other than to not take the overly simplistic approach of blaming people with mental illnesses for the acts of a few.
 
In contrast to the OP's boldfaced quote, however, whether or not mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime isn't a valid argument against the mentally ill perpetrating crime. The statement presupposes that being a victim of crime (behaviors performed by others) somehow determines that the mentally ill won't or don't commit crime. One does not determine the other and so the likelihood relationship is misleading to the issue.

Exactly.


I posted the below over a month ago.


If this is going to discussed.... allowed to be dicussed.... let's keep it fact based instead of spouting off unsupported opinion.

Here is some data from a reputable source.


2-6 times more likely to commit violence against others

5-15% of violence committed is by the mentally ill

Commit 10-20% of the homicides

Multiple victim homicides in public locations, about 50% are committed by the mentally ill.

http://www.nami.org/Content/Microsit...ceRefFinal.pdf


The mentally ill are the far minority of the population but are committing 50% of 'Multiple victim homicides in public locations'.


It's not in anyones best interest to keep diverting away from this data by using overly generalized statements of "people are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime".
 
^
Your link didn't work for me so I wasn't able to read it.

NAMI's official position seems to be fewer laws directed at the mentally ill, not more.

http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Public-Policy/Violence-and-Gun-Reporting-Laws

This is a witch hunt. Nothing more than finding an easy target to legislate against. Gun owners should know better. After all, we seem to be a group that continues to be discriminated against by the general public and the media. I think the media and AG crowd has found a new whipping boy here.
 
Last edited:
"The substance abuse is a better predictor for anyone"

Tragic, isn't it? Neither gun control, mental health preventative care, nor the war on drugs seem very effective at stopping incipient evil in reality. It's almost as though we need to come to grips with evil men as a part of our existence, and prepare for them accordingly :confused:

TCB
 
The mentally ill are the far minority of the population but are committing 50% of 'Multiple victim homicides in public locations'.


It's not in anyones best interest to keep diverting away from this data by using overly generalized statements of "people are more likely to be victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime

you also need to keep in mind that 20% of the population suffers from mental illness....so statistically, 20% of those that commit crimes are going to have mental illness right off the bat.....and chances are that 20% number is significantly higher due to people not being diagnosed/ seeking treatment.

the number of low income/ welfare recipients with mental illness is 35% (according to the florida council for mental health).......that is especially important when you figure that multiple homicides in a public location are likely attributed to gang violence.

and that makes even more sense when you take into account that gang members are more likely to suffer from some form of mental illness (according to a UK study)

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/0...ffer-high-levels-of-mental-illness/57156.html
 
Tragic, isn't it? Neither gun control, mental health preventative care, nor the war on drugs seem very effective at stopping incipient evil in reality. It's almost as though we need to come to grips with evil men as a part of our existence, and prepare for them accordingly

Well said. We all have a responsibility to defend ourselves and our families, in this country especially. We can regulate, legislate and incarcerate to minimize the violence done to innocent people but it reaches a point of diminishing returns. We have reached that point. When will people wake up to that simple fact. People have rights in this country and if we want to keep them we are going to have to take some more personal responsibility with these issues at home and in our own communities. That doesn't mean more federal or state laws. We've gone done that road and it doesn't work.
 
...people diagnosed with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it and that most of the mentally ill will never commit acts of violence against others. Thus, to pass laws to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns is no way to reduce the frequency of murders. In fact, as Binder pointed out, "Stronger indicators of risk include a history of violent behavior, domestic violence, and drug or alcohol abuse."
I'm sure that most of this is true. But it doesn't really provide any useful information.

First of all, one could make many of the same statements about many different large groups. It's true in general that in most large demographic, most of the demographic will never commit acts of violence against others.

Second, "mental illness" is a term that casts a wide net. There are many different kinds of mental illnesses and it's foolish to group them all together when answering the question.

The real question is:

Do some types of mental illness predispose a person to commit violent crimes at a rate higher than the general population and, if so, what types?

The answer is that there are certainly some types of mental illness that, if not properly treated, predispose people to commit violent crimes at rates FAR higher than what is encountered in the general population.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/resources/consequences-of-lack-of-treatment/violence/1381
 
Last edited:
The answer is that there are certainly some types of mental illness that, if not properly treated, predispose people to commit violent crimes at rates FAR higher than what is encountered in the general population.

I would like to see some research that has been published to back that up.

Most of the people who are incarcerated for violent crimes have never been diagnosed with a mental illness. I would like to think that even if all of them had seen a mental health professional that most still wouldn't have been diagnosed with a mental illness, but I guess we'll never know. So what are the chances that everyone in the US who is legally qualified to purchase a firearm be examined for that type of mental illness and treated? The way the health care system is set up here insurance or medicare/medicaid will have to pay for it. So who's going to pay for it? The taxpayer? It's one thing to complain about it and quite another to decide to actually pony up the money and pay for some change.
 
Last edited:
The answer is that there are certainly some types of mental illness that, if not properly treated, predispose people to commit violent crimes at rates FAR higher than what is encountered in the general population.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/resources/consequences-of-lack-of-treatment/violence/1381

interesting to note one of the points from the link:

6. All of the above statements are true, but it is also true that a small number of individuals with serious mental illnesses commit acts of violence, including 5 to 10 percent of all homicides. Almost all these acts of violence are committed by individuals who are not being treated, and many such individuals are also abusing alcohol or drugs.

now who is to say that their mental illness had anything to due with their violent crime?.....it seems to me that their abuse of alcohol or drugs would play a FAR greater factor in their tendency to be violent than their mental illness would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top