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

[CoalTrain49]

Why not just say that you're not interested in reading (or listening to) anything that doesn't support your opinion? It would save everyone (not least of all yourself) a lot of time.

So I would take that to mean that you think I have a prejudice regarding this issue. People read what they want to read and spend their time however they want, I have no control over that. I have plenty of time so don't worry about that. One can dig up lots of research in support of their beliefs and claim it to be gospel. I think substance abuse is likely more of a problem here than mental illness, but that's just my opinion based on what I read.

These prevalence rates may appear high. However, they are meaningful only in comparison to the prevalence of violence by other residents in the same communities. Studying one site, Pittsburgh, showed that the prevalence of violence among patients without symptoms of substance abuse is statistically indistinguishable from the prevalence of violence among others in their neighborhoods without symptoms of substance abuse. Substance abuse significantly raised the prevalence of violence in both patient and community samples. Among those who reported symptoms of substance abuse, the prevalence of violence among patients was significantly higher than the prevalence of violence among others in their neighborhoods during the first follow-up. The patient sample also was significantly more likely to report such symptoms of substance abuse than was the community sample.

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=203874

 

[danez71]

Coaltrain
After the text you quoted, the article later gives statistics that contradicts that statement.

Such as:

PREVALENCE RATES OF PATIENT VIOLENCE
The proportion of patients with at least 1 act of violence during the 1-year follow-up (ie, the period prevalence rate) was 4.5% using agency records alone; 23.7% adding patient self-reported acts that had not been in agency records; and 27.5% adding collateral informant–reported acts that had not been in either agency records or patient self-reports (Table 3). A similar increase is seen with other aggressive acts.

And if you refer to Tables 3-5 and 6 its not really supportive of the word "insignificant"


And that is a large part of my beef. That people are using subjective words of opinion like you have and you quoted rather than actual numbers and percentages.


BTW... your source is "very old"

 

[CoalTrain49]

Well then, lets disregard the substance and alcohol abuse issue and focus primarily on mental illness being the primary cause. You may want to do some research on how much money we spend here in the US for mental health. It isn't that much different than most countries with the same resources we have.

The issue here is you're trying to reduce violence by identifying certain sectors of the population. You have isolated the mentally ill and the media is pushing the same agenda. That's great but there are many other factors here to consider. I could give you a mountain of statistics that show that blacks have a higher percentage of violence with firearms than any other race in the US.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of all homicides committed between 1980 and 2008, 47.4 percent of the victims were black while 52.5 percent of all offenders were black. Of all felony murders during the same time period, blacks accounted for 44.1 percent of those murdered while accounting for 59.9 percent of the offenders. Blacks accounted for 56.9 percent of all gun homicides.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-real-truth-about-blacks-and-gun-violence/

But I'm not going to bluntly say that blacks are the the primary problem here. Many factors contribute to this statistic.

Discrimination comes in many forms, not just racial.

 

[danez71]

The issue here is you're trying to reduce violence by identifying certain sectors of the population. You have isolated the mentally ill and the media is pushing the same agenda. That's great but there are many other factors here to consider.

No I'm not.... and no, I'm not.

If your read my posts you should see that and that I've already said there are many other factors.

I also said I want them to get the treatment they need and keep their 2A Rights. Just read my posts to see.

I guess I should have expected that type of response though.

 

[BSA1]

It is important to realize how little understanding we have of the human body and how it works. Even worse is how Doctors interpret the same test results differently.

For example I had a older Dentist tell me I had the root of a tooth that was bad and too save what he could I needed to have a implant done. That Dentist retired and I went to a younger Dentist. I told him about what my first Dentist said. He took new x-rays and told me he didn't see a problem with the tooth and root.

Consider this more complicated example. The two primary treatments for most types of cancer. Doctors cut the patient open, look around and remove what they think is cancer. Then the usual follow-up is Chemotherapy which destroys the patients immune system. So basically they cut you, gut you and then nuke you. If medical science is so advanced why is it recommended that the patient get a second opinion?

Then we have at least 297 mental disorders according to the A.P.A. Mental Disorders can not be detected by x-rays, MRI's, CAT scans. Their symptoms can be shared with other illnesses such as alcoholism (which is not considered to be a mental illness).

So if two Dentists can even agree on a simple x-rays of a single tooth how much faith should we be putting in the opinions of mental health professionals?

 

[caribou]

Mental illness is one factor, but what seems to be the connecting dots to this problem is the psychotropic drugs the docs give to the mentally ill.

The crazies are among the public in numbers....The Mental institutions, for the most part, are now closed. People needing treatment to be able to meet basic needs are on the streets and in the prisons now.

Very few could ever afford a gun, least of all massacre a bunch of people, but theres the very few who do......

 

[CoalTrain49]

If your read my posts you should see that and that I've already said there are many other factors.

Well yes, I did read your posts.

In one you said;

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

Another;

So while a "majority" don't... and they tend to be a victim rather than the aggressor, the data still shows that they tend to be violent more often than non mentally ill people.

And another;

While it is true that "most" with mental illness don't commit acts of violence, all that says is that less than 50% of those with mental illness commit acts of violence.

Once you find all of the "mentally ill" in this country and restrict them from gun ownership, and there are still mass shootings by people who would never be placed in that group, and there are plenty, what group are you going for next?

 

[danez71]

Well yes, I did read your posts.

In one you said;



Another;



And another;



Once you find all of the "mentally ill" in this country and restrict them from gun ownership, and there are still mass shootings by people who would never be placed in that group, and there are plenty, what group are you going for next?

I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that when you accuse me of this you have twice now selectively omitted what else I said... which is this

I also said I want them to get the treatment they need and keep their 2A Rights

BSA1, funny you mention that. I have a friend that would say that Dr.s don't know what their doing... and they even say that they're "just practicing medicine".

I've long said that while your car has a manual on how to fix it... the human body never came with one.

 

[JTHunter]

BSA1 - this has been the mantra of "libs/progressives/antis" for decades. They learned it from their socialist founders 100 years ago.

"Divide and Conquer."

It is the warning the FF tried to warn us of with the idea that "United We Stand". Ever since, some malcontents have been trying to "segregate" different factions of our society ever since.

Why else would we have "African-Americans", "Native Americans", "WASPs", "Jews", "Christians", "Catholics", "Latinos", "Poles", "Germans", Czechs, Bosnians, Serbs, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc.

Then certain people or groups take it down a notch (or 2) with the derogatory names (no offense intended - demonstration only!) like Dago, Wop, Micks, Greasers, Wetback, Chinks, Japs/Nips, Slopes, Muzzies, "Gun-Nut", etc.

Then the left uses that anger/hatred to fuel the fires of dissolution.

How we can stop something like that is beyond me. It MAY be too late already. Keeping in mind the Biblical adage "an eye for an eye" comes to mind but considering what certain groups are doing (ISIS/ISIL, al-Queda, etc.), actions that are so heinous as to defy belief, how do you treat people fairly? Can you be fair to somebody whose philosophy in life is to destroy anybody different from them?

I don't know. Do you?

 

[JohnKSa]

So I would take that to mean that you think I have a prejudice regarding this issue.

That’s one possible explanation for the repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence, apparently without even examining it closely enough to realize that the attempts to do so have been blatant mischaracterizations of it. There are other possible explanations.

I think substance abuse is likely more of a problem here than mental illness, but that's just my opinion based on what I read.

Multiple sources indicate that untreated mental illness is a problem, even without substance abuse, however it is also clear from the evidence available that mental illness combined with substance abuse is even more of a problem. Ignoring or attempting to dismiss either factor will provide an inaccurate understanding of the situation.

But I'm not going to bluntly say that blacks are the the primary problem here. Many factors contribute to this statistic.

That is, of course, entirely correct. But that correct statement does not in any way justify dismissing (or attempting to dismiss) any of the factors.

That’s what I see happening here. The fact that there are many factors involved merely means that focusing exclusively on one factor won’t solve the whole problem. But it certainly does not mean that we can simply dismiss the factors that some groups find distasteful to address and expect to get a reasonable picture (or solution) for the problem.

Once you find all of the "mentally ill" in this country and restrict them from gun ownership, and there are still mass shootings by people who would never be placed in that group, and there are plenty, what group are you going for next?

I haven't seen anyone advocate that kind of an approach. In other words, this is a strawman argument. It's an approach used when a person doesn't want to discuss the reasonable arguments or evidence presented and instead creates a warped version of the other view to respond to. It's basically following in the same vein as your repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence I provided without even reading it carefully enough to realize what it really says.

Mental illness isn't the only factor in mass shootings. It's not a factor in all mass shootings--maybe not even most. But certain types of mental illness (especially when untreated) are a factor in a significant number of mass shootings and they are also a factor that significantly increases the likelihood of a person to commit violent acts in general.

Does that mean we should focus on mental illness exclusively? Does it mean we should pretend all mental illness is the same? Does that mean we should advocate restricting the gun rights of all mentally ill persons? Certainly not. But because mental illness is a factor in a significant number of mass shootings, it must be addressed if the goal is to come up with a workable solution. It should be obvious that it's not possible to come up with a workable solution if one ignores significant contributing factors.

 

[DeepSouth]

Once you find all of the "mentally ill" in this country and restrict them from gun ownership, and there are still mass shootings by people who would never be placed in that group, and there are plenty, what group are you going for next?

I haven't seen anyone advocate that kind of an approach. In other words, this is a strawman argument. It's an approach used when a person doesn't want to discuss the reasonable arguments or evidence presented and instead creates a warped version of the other view to respond to. It's basically following in the same vein as your repeated attempts to dismiss the evidence I provided without even reading it carefully enough to realize what it really says.

I have to jump in here.
If you haven't seen anyone advocate that kind of an approach you haven't been looking. That's essentially what this entire debate is about, if your still not convinced just google "should the mentally ill have guns" and read anything on the first 5 pages. Even the NRA supports keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill..... The question being posed here is how do these mentally ill everyone wants to disarm actually affect crime and mass shootings.

The question Coaltrain posed above isn't a straw man, it's a real and legitimate question that I believe you're avoiding by calling a it straw man. Likely because you don't have an answer.

 

[chipcom]

Once you find all of the "mentally ill" in this country and restrict them from gun ownership, and there are still mass shootings by people who would never be placed in that group, and there are plenty, what group are you going for next?

Da Juice

 

[GBExpat]

Da Juice

 

[CoalTrain49]

The question being posed here is how do these mentally ill everyone wants to disarm actually affect crime and mass shootings.

I don't know the answer to that question.

I'll leave everyone here with this link to support my statements.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

I have nothing more to say on this subject other than please be very careful who you decide to disarm. You may become a future scapegoat yourself.

 

[chipcom]

tough room

 

[JohnKSa]

If you haven't seen anyone advocate that kind of an approach you haven't been looking. That's essentially what this entire debate is about...

I don't doubt that there are many people in the U.S. who want to restrict gun ownership of anyone who is mentally ill--because there are people out there who want to restrict gun ownership of EVERYONE regardless of what group they do or don't fall into.

But that's not what's being advocated by anyone on this thread that I can see. If anything, the tendency in this thread is to completely dismiss mental illness as a significant factor. Which is just as much of an error as restricting the gun ownership of anyone who is mentally ill.

Blaming mental illness for the acts of a few is overly simplistic and ignores the evidence.

Pretending mental illness isn't a factor at all is also ignoring the evidence.

In fact, simply using the term "mental illness" without qualification in this regard is also ignoring the evidence and overly simplistic.

The point is that we can't overemphasize mental illness as a factor in violence/mass shootings, but we also can't pretend it's not a factor at all.

 

[barnbwt]

"Da Juice"
I know a joke, but the mentally incompetent actually were one of the Nazi's first targets in their rush to 'improve' society, so I'd argue it is an apt callback. Granted it was about making them serve the state (forced labor was the stated purpose of the camps) rather than safety, but the Fascists attitude towards them as 'less than human & deserving a lesser status under law' is identical.

TCB

 

[JohnKSa]

...the mentally incompetent actually were one of the Nazi's first targets in their rush to 'improve' society, so I'd argue it is an apt callback.

Hardly, it's just a classic example of Godwin's law.

1. "Mentally ill" is different from "mentally incompetent" in the same way that it's misleading assume that someone who is sick must automatically have ebola.

2. No one here is saying that people who are mentally ill are "less than human". It's true that some severely mentally ill persons may lose some of their rights as a consequence of their symptoms, but that's not the same as saying that they are less than human, nor is it the same as saying that all mentally ill persons should have their rights restricted.

2. No one here is advocating restricting the gun rights of all mentally ill patients. Pointing out that mental illness is sometimes a factor in violence isn't at all the same as saying that anyone who is mentally ill shouldn't have guns.

 

[BSA1]

Schizophrenia is mentioned often. The first step is to arrive at description of the illness that satisfies the medical community and withstands legal muster.

Having come to medical and legal description of schizophrenia the next step is deciding whom is the authority qualified to diagnose a person as having schizophrenia. Is it going to be the sole opinion of mental health professionals? Is the diagnosis by a psychiatrist enough to meet the legal standard? Or how about a panel of psychiatrists? If the diagnosis is solely based on the opinion of psychiatrists how do you rule out any biases they could have such as being against ownership of firearms by citizens? We know that in general the AMA is anti-gun.

The next hurtle is the court process. Since the standard of evidence in civil court is lower than what is required in criminal cases we will go with civil proceedings. The defendant has the right to confront the evidence against him but how is he going to get different opinions by other psychiatrists? Are they going to be willing to go against the medical licensing board and risk their careers testifying that the defendant is not a threat to others?

So the best solution is for the defendant to be examined by a board of psychiatrists. What is the difference between those that take medicine for their illness vs. those that refused medical treament? Since we can’t be sure how much of a threat the defendant is to others the safest thing to do is to commit the defendant to a mental institution while he is being evaluated. As we are concerned about future behavior the longer the evaluation period the better.

So the defendant is committed without bail to a locked mental institution for a undetermined period of time by evaluation by psychiatrists that could have a bias against firearm ownership by citizens.

Anybody remember scene in the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" where the panel of psychiatrists are discussing that the character played by Jack Nicholson is not showing any signs of mental illness and he should be returned back to jail. Nurse Ratched speaks up and says she thinks he is sick and they can help him.

So all it take is for one dissenting vote.

 

[Gaffer]

SACO, Maine —A Saco resident accused of killing a 59-year-old woman in a random attack at Shaw's Supermarket in Saco earlier this week will undergo a mental exam.Investigators said MacAlister confessed to killing Boudreau, saying he followed her from the parking lot to the ice cream aisle of the store, where he grabbed her from behind and slit her throat.
The employee, along with two EMTs who were shopping nearby, rushed over to help Boudreau. When the employee asked the assailant why he had attacked Boudreau, the assailant, later identified as MacCalister, responded, "She looked at me funny," according to court documents. MacCalister told Kennedy that he planned to go to the store and kill several random people.

Kennedy quoted MacCalister as saying he "wanted to target a small elderly female," who would not resist. Court documents said MacCalister saw Boudreau in the parking lot and followed her to the ice cream aisle where he grabbed her from behind and slit her throat.MacCalister is a transgender man, formerly known as Tanisha Hopkins.

This was back in August and when asked why he did it he said he was off his meds. To me that is just another case of system putting innocent people in danger through lack of keeping these people in some kind of observation. My guess is that the violent rate is considerably greater if you compare sane against those who are mentally unstable. Our system is broken and has been for 30-40 years when the liberals started closing down she mental institution and putting those people back on the street.

 

[BSA1]

This was back in August and when asked why he did it he said he was off his meds. To me that is just another case of system putting innocent people in danger through lack of keeping these people in some kind of observation.

Then you would agree with my post that people that have being diagnosed with mental disorders should be rounded up off of the streets and placed in locked facilities without bail simply because we don’t know if they may be a danger to the community.

One incident however tragic does not prove a pattern. Many would of us would observed that it was no accident that he targeted a unarmed female to start his plan for mass killings.

In fact one article reported that "MacCalister was planning the random attack for a month and was "angry with life and wanted to get back at someone," the suspect told police. The 31-year-old, who was wearing camouflage and had a shaved head, was targeting small elderly woman "whom she knew wouldn't resist," the document said

When the witness asked MacCalister the reason for the attack, the suspect responded, "She looked at me funny." Another witness told police that MacCalister told him: "I'm off my meds and I didn't mean to do it."

Really? He had been planning his attack for a month and targeted small elderly woman “whom he knew wouldn’t resist” but then says "I didn't mean to do it."


http://news.yahoo.com/mother-5-dies...wZmh2BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwM1BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--