blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
You advocated repealing the second amendment didn't you? That's taking away my rights as a gun owner.
You advocated repealing the second amendment didn't you? That's taking away my rights as a gun owner.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
Did I misunderstand this?
And one more time:
Do you really believe that a medical professional who thinks a person may commit an act of violence due to their mental health issues should keep it to themselves?
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Yes, you did misunderstand that. I stated what would be more effective.
As for your second question: There are laws in place already dictating what to do if they make threats. Further reading, since you want to demonize the mentally ill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/h...-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html
And since you're fine with taking away my rights, I hope NYC further restricts yours. All's fair in love and war, right?
As for your second question: There are laws in place already dictating what to do if they make threats. Further reading, since you want to demonize the mentally ill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/h...-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html
And since you're fine with taking away my rights, I hope NYC further restricts yours. All's fair in love and war, right?
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
It's never simple to determine whether someone have "mental health issues" or not. A person can live up in an environment they are perfectly calibrated for and break down as soon as things change. A person can be great until they end up in an environment they aren't adapted to. It's difficult to imagine a mental health issue that doesn't include some form of stress. Criminal insanity is as far as I concern more of fiction and popular myth.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
My apologies for misunderstanding. What is your solution then?
I don't want to demonize the mentally ill at all. I want to address an issue, preferably with treatment, not incarceration unless necessary.
And I'm not surprised that a NY Times article is biased against guns. It of course goes to overall gun violence to make its point, but in doing so ignores the issue that mass killing of unrelated people (IE not people involved in an event that includes the violence) is done primarily by mentally unstable people.
It'd be like saying we should stop having speed limits on roads, because the vast majority of highway deaths are related to drunk driving, ignoring that excessive speed, while not a primary cause of death, is still a killer on roads.
That's a pretty petty attitutde. I'm not interested in taking away anyone's rights.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Again, my solution to a problem that doesn't really exist? There isn't one. The mentally ill aren't the ones shooting everyone. If you actually want to address mental health problems, make treatment free and stop stigmatizing mental illness and treating us like second class citizens.
And I'm sorry if you find my attitude petty, since I find yours bigoted, uninformed, and insulting. Also: Yes, you do want to take away people's rights, nor do you actually care about the mental health issue. Ciao.
And I'm sorry if you find my attitude petty, since I find yours bigoted, uninformed, and insulting. Also: Yes, you do want to take away people's rights, nor do you actually care about the mental health issue. Ciao.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
As usual, you try to confuse the issue. We will never elminate all breakdowns by people, but there is a big difference between someone with a history of treated mental health issues and someone who is just stressed, whether you want to confuse it or not.
blatantninja
Resident Redneck Facist
The facts beg to differ. Denying that most mass killings are done by people with mental health issues doesn't change the facts.
Mentally ill people are responsible for nearly every mass shooting in recent US history. Wake up. Just because mass shootings make up a small percentage of overall gun violence doesn't make it any less important to address.
I don't have a problem with that.
Bullshit, you just want to act like a victim instead of actually addressing the issue.
Rithrandil
SasqWatch
Excuse me, when did I say that most mass killings weren't carried out by the mentally ill? Now you're lying about my positions? Cool deal - and you'd rather demonize the mentally ill rather than address the vast majority of gun deaths, because it's a lot easier to strip the rights of disadvantaged groups than deal with actual issues. Go fuck yourself. On the ignore list you go.
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
I'm only pointing out that the line is difficult to make. You said; "most mass killings are done by people with mental health issues" but it's also true that "people who commit mass killings are said to have mental health issues"? If we are to predict mass killings I do not believe a dichotomy between "history of treated mental health issues" and "just stressed" works. Stress is often seen as a sign of mental health issues and often is a part of the diagnosis.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
dteowner
Shoegazer
You're reading things that bn didn't type while denying things you did type, Rith.
Pretty much every highly publicized mass shooting in recent memory was committed by someone deemed mentally ill. There's simply no way around that. Now, you might feel that it's a lazy or even bigoted after-the-fact diagnosis, and you might even be right, but nowhere have you even implied that as your position. Your words are that said observation is both errant and sinister, which simply does not agree with easily documented reality.
Pretty much every highly publicized mass shooting in recent memory was committed by someone deemed mentally ill. There's simply no way around that. Now, you might feel that it's a lazy or even bigoted after-the-fact diagnosis, and you might even be right, but nowhere have you even implied that as your position. Your words are that said observation is both errant and sinister, which simply does not agree with easily documented reality.
dteowner
Shoegazer
To some extent, I agree with you--there's an extremely fuzzy zone between "harmless nuts" and "dangerous nuts". (my apologies ahead of time, I seek not to be insulting but to be brief). That said, I'm not a fan of absolving people from taking responsibility for dealing with the stresses in their life. To minimize the psychological distance between "having a really bad month" and "shooting a bunch of people" strikes me as rather insulting to people that DO deal with the multitude of stresses in their lives without becoming violent.
P
pibbur who
Guest
Some statistics from Norway (oh, not again!!!) where 30-40 people are killed each year. 10-20% of the perpetrators were judged to be criminally insane, which means they were considered to be psychotic when comitting the crime.
The prevalence of schizophrenia, one of the major psychotic associated illnesses, is 0.55%. Which means that there is around 25000-30000 people with that diagnosis in Norway (how much the diagnosis affects them varies). There are other types of psychoses such as paranoid psychosis, mania or depression with psychotic symptoms (a minority), and what we used to call reactive psychosis. The latter cover conditions not part of a chronic disease like schizophrenia, but is a severe reaction to traumatic events (goes beyond just not handling the stresses of life).
All in all, there are a lot of people who need or at some time have needed active psychiatric treatment for a psychotic condition. And I have not even started considering other conditions which may be associated with murder, such as what-we-used-to-call psychopathy and borderline conditions.
The fraction likely to commit severe violence among people with a history of severe mental illness or other mental disturbances, is extremely small.
BTW, in Norway (sigh!!!), alchohole is involved in up to 50% of murders, more if you count combination with other substances.
Breivik who murdered more than 70 people in Norway was not mentally ill. Afaik (but i may be wrong) neither was Timothy mcVeigh, at least not more disturbed than a lot of conspiracy advocates (as seen with european eyes, again i may be wrong).
Pibbur who admits that some of his terminology is not up to date. And whose typos are not the result of severe mental disturbance.
The prevalence of schizophrenia, one of the major psychotic associated illnesses, is 0.55%. Which means that there is around 25000-30000 people with that diagnosis in Norway (how much the diagnosis affects them varies). There are other types of psychoses such as paranoid psychosis, mania or depression with psychotic symptoms (a minority), and what we used to call reactive psychosis. The latter cover conditions not part of a chronic disease like schizophrenia, but is a severe reaction to traumatic events (goes beyond just not handling the stresses of life).
All in all, there are a lot of people who need or at some time have needed active psychiatric treatment for a psychotic condition. And I have not even started considering other conditions which may be associated with murder, such as what-we-used-to-call psychopathy and borderline conditions.
The fraction likely to commit severe violence among people with a history of severe mental illness or other mental disturbances, is extremely small.
BTW, in Norway (sigh!!!), alchohole is involved in up to 50% of murders, more if you count combination with other substances.
Breivik who murdered more than 70 people in Norway was not mentally ill. Afaik (but i may be wrong) neither was Timothy mcVeigh, at least not more disturbed than a lot of conspiracy advocates (as seen with european eyes, again i may be wrong).
Pibbur who admits that some of his terminology is not up to date. And whose typos are not the result of severe mental disturbance.
Last edited:
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Breivik was not mentally ill? I very much doubt that's true.
He probably wasn't psychotic - but there's no way he was mentally healthy.
He probably wasn't psychotic - but there's no way he was mentally healthy.
P
pibbur who
Guest
He's a psychopath, which is a personality disorder and not an illness. So by all means not healthy, and a very disturbed person. But we don't consider/call it a disease. An example of how the meaning of words often differ beween "professional" use and among the general public.
Pibbur
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Have they ruled out all mental disorders for that guy? That surprises me. AFAIK, mental disorders and mental illnesses are considered the same thing.
As for his personality disorder - I actually thought that was considered a subcategory of mental disorders - but I'll trust you
P
pibbur who
Guest
...
As for his personality disorder - I actually thought that was considered a subcategory of mental disorders - but I'll trust you
Maybe you shouldn't. I've checked a bit, and it's not as clear-cut as I thought anymore. Although there (once) was a difference, it's debated, and i've found several references not separating the two. I'll check some more (because it interests me) and come back to you later. Perhaps JemyM can contribute?
Anyhow it's mostly semantics. Breivik is still a severly disturbed person.
Pibbur who can see the advantages of cross-checking before posting, and not indiscriminately rely on things he learned and later forgotten 30+ years ago.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Well, it's not a big deal
But if you find something more concrete, I'd be curious to know. I'm not a professional - but I do take great interest in the human condition.
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
Stress isn't a condition in itself, it's a normal and often a healthy reaction. The difference is relief and time. Relief can or cannot be accessible due to many factors. Having friends. Having a fulfilling hobby or job. Visiting a psychotherapist. Playing games. With a good amount of stress relievers it's easy to monitor stress at an ok level. Some conditions however remove ones ability to get away from stress. Bad social experiences lead to problems in social interactions and make it harder to relieve stress through socialization. Lack of time due to lost sleep over stress lead to more stress, lack of time due to work, too much to do, being unable to say "no" to responsibilities in everyday life etc. These can all lead to a bad week or a horrible month.
But what about a year? The person is still healthy, but they are in a situation where stress relief just do not happen.
There's a lot of stress in people who are obsessed in doing everything perfect. They solve every task (or try to) and always get preoccupied with what they need to do, all the time. They can't shut off. In a good environment, these people works just great as they can do a great job. Ask them to slow down and they won't, they can't think about anything else than what they have to do. Ask them if they are responsible and they would say hell yeah, look at everything they are doing. Yet they have the risk to end up in a cycle where eventually their body (or brain) begins to shut down.
The problem with stress is that there are so many factors involved, yet factors are often just as important as the person. But stress is also a statistical problem which is why you can see fluctuations in statistics when something happened or changed in a city. One thing I have examined myself are those small cities built around a single factory. What happens when that factory is closed down? You can see the statistical fluctuations in drug abuse, domestic violence, murder, crime etc. They are always there.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027