Mental health

[Prijador]

When the anti's say things like "there are lots of crazy people, and we can't predict which few are dangerous" - well actually, now we can:

"Computers Can Predict Schizophrenia Based on How a Person Talks"

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...eech-analysis-schizophrenia-algorithm/402265/




...and there is even a blood test to predict suicidal thoughts:

http://www.popsci.com/blood-test-predicts-whether-patient-will-have-suicidal-thoughts

 

[psyopspec]

Several studies of at-risk youths have found that doctors are able to guess with impressive accuracy—the best predictive models hover around 79 percent—whether a person will develop psychosis based on tracking that person’s speech patterns in interviews.

By itself, that would catch a lot of people in the net who don't belong there.

Solely to add context to the thread, keep in mind that most people with Schizophrenia are not dangerous, though a higher prevalence of drug use among those with the disease can contribute to acting violently as it does with many addicts. Doesn't mean that I think they should have access to gun; simply that it's good to remember that mental illness does not necessarily equal dangerous person, and is a false assumption in the vast majority of cases. On the contrary, people with Schizophrenia are at increased risk to be victims of crime.

 

[BigBore44]

79% isn't going to solve anything. That leaves 21% that gets through the net. Not to mention the ones that were inappropriately diagnosed by that computer model. The truth is that bad things happen. There will always be bad things that happen. Mental health is just another door for the anti's to try and use. And by in large, people are afraid of "the crazies". And those that are afraid of something they don't understand, sure don't want them having firearms.

 

[M-Cameron]

the thing you all need to remember is, the vast majority of people who suffer from mental illness are more of a danger to themselves than anyone else.

just because someone has some form of mental illnesss, whether it be Depression, schizophrenia, Multiple personality disorder, ect. doesnt mean they are "a crazy" or that they are going to go on a shooting spree.

now obviously if someone has expressed concerning or worrying thoughts, then they should be checked up on.......but there are far to many factors to determine who poses a danger, you cant just go on their mental health status.

 

[medalguy]

Let's just lock up all the crazies. Yeah, that ought to do the trick.

But who's gong to make the determination as who's crazy? To start, I think anyone who wants registration of guns should be labeled as crazy, but that's just my opinion. Oh, you don't want to go by my definition? Well, let's hear what the left wants to use as a determining factor. Remember the left were the ones who insisted on HIPPA so no one could see any medical information on them, or anyone else. How's that working out for them now?

I guess it's just easier to ban all guns than try to address the real issue here.

 

[danez71]

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/Microsi..._and_Coping/MentalIllnessViolenceRefFinal.pdf

 

[oneounceload]

Living in a free society means you have greater risks in everyday life and need to be willing to accept them.

 

[Prijador]

"Ban guns, and you may, or may not, reduce the death toll from a mentally ill person on a rampage with a firearm. Help the mentally ill, and you WILL reduce the death toll from mentally ill person using a firearm, bomb, arson, automobile, machete, etc."

The illness compels a few to kill, it doesn't compel a specific tool. Heck, James Holmes admitted that he considered different methods - what will the anti's do if/when they ban guns? Shrug their shoulders when a mentally ill person can't buy a gun and instead uses a bomb to kill 168 people (a la Oklahoma City) and say, "well at least he didn't use a gun"...?

Interestingly, there was a Stanford study that found Schizophrenic patients in India hear voices that didn't tell them to kill, but benign suggestions like "clean the house".
So there must be something that can be done about it.

So, I should have provided (much) more context in my original post.
I was somewhat surprised to see those articles, because they show some real *progress* towards identifying (and thence, coping, hopefully) with mental illness. Not perfect measures, but some progress.

I see on the comment boards out there, many anti's say "There will always be crazy people" (...and of course there is a broad spectrum of mental illness out there - and the vast majority who suffer with a mental illness pose no increased risk of harming others)

I don't share that bleak outlook - I think progress can be made, identifying mental illness and making things better - and I'm somewhat surprised that so many anti's just reject that idea, in their eagerness to get their gun ban.

I think showing knowledge of the subject (and even some compassion) and showing that it is (will be) an effective solution, might be good for convincing those on the fence to go the "solve mental illness" route, instead of going down the "gun ban" path...

Something that should also be accounted for in firearms law is the idea that at least some mental illnesses can be transient - the anti's don't give a rip if someone was going through a difficult time in their life and was committed briefly for depression - every person barred for life is a win for them, regardless of circumstances.

Some states do have a process for restoring rights after commitment, but the process is usually expensive and time consuming, as such processes usually are - and in other states, one commitment, regardless of circumstances, or the time elapsed, is a lifetime ban.

Lastly, the criteria for commitment, and even the transparency of the process, is downright scary in some states. I've read some horror stories where people didn't do anything that would get them convicted in a court of law, but did get committed and "poof", there went their rights.

 

[NY'er]

^^^

welcome to New York, Comrade

 

[JohnBT]

Their sample size was only 34.

I'll need to read the published article before I draw a real conclusion. They got the 34 from an "at risk" group. Details. I need details.

John

 

[JohnBT]

"Five participants transitioned to psychosis within 2.5 years of follow-up (CHR+), whereas 29 did not "

"Of the 34 participants, 5 were known to develop schizophrenia (or schizoaffective disorder) within 2.5 years. Respectively, their times to psychosis onset from time of speech sampling were 3, 4, 8, 12, and 16 months. Twenty-nine participants were known to not develop psychosis over follow-up, with 22 of these participants followed for 2.5 years, 4 participants followed for 2 years, and 3 followed for 1.5 years"

Fwiw, the 34 were referred by schools, clinicians or were self-referred through the web site.

Interesting, but it's too soon to tell.

 

[Tirod]

What the disarmament lobby claims is nobody should have guns and be victims of the known percent that will commit violence. The percent that no testing will find. In the meantime an even higher percent of misdiagnosed innocents would be committed for having pre-criminal thinking. No credit for having resisted it.

And if you force them to take testing, what percent will refuse on Constitutional grounds? Because losing their Rights has meaning to some. Those who care about our rising suicide rate among prior service are already fighting a losing battle with them - since detention and loss of Rights is possible, some are already refusing counseling services.

We are talking "Minority Report" - there would be huge legal repercussions if mass testing was instituted "just because you talk funny."

I have NO doubt said testing would also check for the illicit use of opiates, cannabis, and other controlled substances. Moderate use of drugs would increase as an excuse for behavior issues. Better a possession charge and drug rehab than a "criminal thinking conviction" and years in detention in a psych ward.

You can even get SSI for the drug after affects. Many already are.

We often focus on constructing an immediate plan of action to solve some societal issue but never consider the unintended consequences. Interning a million more pre-criminals won't be cheap, will incarcerate the innocent, and simply can't be financed on the taxpayers back. Financial stability is already an issue at the national level. Cities and even states are flirting with bankruptcy.

As with rescinding the 2A - It's not going to happen. It would be another spark starting a civil war.

The problem is cultural, and based on what we are teaching our children to admire and respect.

It's you.

Asking the government to fix it is asking the wrong people to take responsibility.