So,what needs to happen?

comebackgirl

dimitrispearljam wrote:

thanksfor the links comebackgirl

You're welcome! I posted another article on another thread, but will post it here too. It talks about the narcissistic injury as a motivator for these types of killings.

http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/1/87.full

DS1119

peacefrompaul wrote:

Not saying you should drive under the influence, but in the real world people drive around drunk. It's much safer to be high in my opinion

How so? Since reflexes and judgement are reduced in both? How is driving around high safer than driving around drunk?

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

No they're not DS. I know it makes it easier to make sense of things like this, and it makes us feel safer by displacing the blame to a small, definable group of people. Only about 4% of violence in the US can be attributed to mental illness. The major determinants as to whether or not someone will be violent are being young, male and from a lower socio-economic status. Substance abuse increases the risk. Some research on the issue in case you're interested:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article ... leid=96905
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07 ... s-say?lite
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/26/forens ... s-mas.html

There's a lot of people that are mentally ill (and untreated) who don't kill, and lots of people who have access to guns who don't kill. There's also lots of untreated mentally ill people with access to guns who don't kill. So what the variable that changes the game? That's where the sense of entitlement and personality and cultural factors come into play. We as a society generally like quick fixes, and changing these factors would be anything but a quick fix.

SO what you're saying is someone isn't mentally ill to kill innocent people? On some level? A perfectly sane person is going to buy a rifle and walk into a mall and start shooting people? Maybe by some ridiculous mental health test that person may fall into a scale of being sane...but in the real world that person is a sick bastard. Even if someone is having a bad day and flies off the handle there are some deep seeded roots to their anger and they are mentally ill.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

No they're not DS. I know it makes it easier to make sense of things like this, and it makes us feel safer by displacing the blame to a small, definable group of people. Only about 4% of violence in the US can be attributed to mental illness. The major determinants as to whether or not someone will be violent are being young, male and from a lower socio-economic status. Substance abuse increases the risk. Some research on the issue in case you're interested:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article ... leid=96905
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07 ... s-say?lite
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/26/forens ... s-mas.html

There's a lot of people that are mentally ill (and untreated) who don't kill, and lots of people who have access to guns who don't kill. There's also lots of untreated mentally ill people with access to guns who don't kill. So what the variable that changes the game? That's where the sense of entitlement and personality and cultural factors come into play. We as a society generally like quick fixes, and changing these factors would be anything but a quick fix.

SO what you're saying is someone isn't mentally ill to kill innocent people? On some level? A perfectly sane person is going to buy a rifle and walk into a mall and start shooting people? Maybe by some ridiculous mental health test that person may fall into a scale of being sane...but in the real world that person is a sick bastard. Even if someone is having a bad day and flies off the handle there are some deep seeded roots to their anger and they are mentally ill.

Sure, there are deep seeded roots to their anger, but that doesn't equate to mental illness. In layman's terms we might say the guy had to be "crazy," but that doesn't equate to mental illness either. We do a huge disservice in falsely attributing responsibility to something that isn't the root cause in 96% of the cases. We're not addressing the core root of the problem and will keep spinning our wheels. But it's so much easier to blame the mentally ill. Also lazy and stigmatizing to do so.

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

Sure, there are deep seeded roots to their anger, but that doesn't equate to mental illness. In layman's terms we might say the guy had to be "crazy," but that doesn't equate to mental illness either. We do a huge disservice in falsely attributing responsibility to something that isn't the root cause in 96% of the cases. We're not addressing the core root of the problem and will keep spinning our wheels. But it's so much easier to blame the mentally ill. Also lazy and stigmatizing to do so.

Terms like 96% keep getting tossed around...lets remember 100% of people who kill using guns illegally obtained are criminals. Let's remember that...at the best estimates I can find on the internet 92% of all incidents using a hand gun are used in a crime. Some estimates are as high as 98%.


Instead of targeting the actual problems...the criminal and the mentally ill we concentrate on the innocent. Let's say all this ridiculous gun legislation gets passed (which it won't) it changes nothing. Zippo. All it does it make people feel warm and fuzzy.

peacefrompaul

DS1119 wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

Not saying you should drive under the influence, but in the real world people drive around drunk. It's much safer to be high in my opinion

How so? Since reflexes and judgement are reduced in both? How is driving around high safer than driving around drunk?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ohol_.html

Here's a study to browse if you desire... I plan on reading through it in its entirety tomorrow after work.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Sure, there are deep seeded roots to their anger, but that doesn't equate to mental illness. In layman's terms we might say the guy had to be "crazy," but that doesn't equate to mental illness either. We do a huge disservice in falsely attributing responsibility to something that isn't the root cause in 96% of the cases. We're not addressing the core root of the problem and will keep spinning our wheels. But it's so much easier to blame the mentally ill. Also lazy and stigmatizing to do so.

Terms like 96% keep getting tossed around...lets remember 100% of people who kill using guns illegally obtained are criminals. Let's remember that...at the best estimates I can find on the internet 92% of all incidents using a hand gun are used in a crime. Some estimates are as high as 98%.


Instead of targeting the actual problems...the criminal and the mentally ill we concentrate on the innocent. Let's say all this ridiculous gun legislation gets passed (which it won't) it changes nothing. Zippo. All it does it make people feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm addressing your response to me that all killers are mentally ill, and if you read the articles you also saw that the mentally ill are responsible for only 4% of violent crime. I think we need an entire culture shift. I think gun control and mental health are 2 other components and the ones that get the most attention because they would be quicker fixes. Blaming the mentally ill for a crime that's committed largely by those who aren't mentally ill does nothing to resolve this problem. I would be very grateful to see better access to mental health services for those who need it though. If falsely blaming the mentally ill results in improved services, fine. The stigma is devastating however and part of the reason people don't access services in the first place. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

peacefrompaul

I apologize, the link to the study is also contained within the Slate article itself...

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Sure, there are deep seeded roots to their anger, but that doesn't equate to mental illness. In layman's terms we might say the guy had to be "crazy," but that doesn't equate to mental illness either. We do a huge disservice in falsely attributing responsibility to something that isn't the root cause in 96% of the cases. We're not addressing the core root of the problem and will keep spinning our wheels. But it's so much easier to blame the mentally ill. Also lazy and stigmatizing to do so.

Terms like 96% keep getting tossed around...lets remember 100% of people who kill using guns illegally obtained are criminals. Let's remember that...at the best estimates I can find on the internet 92% of all incidents using a hand gun are used in a crime. Some estimates are as high as 98%.


Instead of targeting the actual problems...the criminal and the mentally ill we concentrate on the innocent. Let's say all this ridiculous gun legislation gets passed (which it won't) it changes nothing. Zippo. All it does it make people feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm addressing your response to me that all killers are mentally ill, and if you read the articles you also saw that the mentally ill are responsible for only 4% of violent crime. I think we need an entire culture shift. I think gun control and mental health are 2 other components and the ones that get the most attention because they would be quicker fixes. Blaming the mentally ill for a crime that's committed largely by those who aren't mentally ill does nothing to resolve this problem. I would be very grateful to see better access to mental health services for those who need it though. If falsely blaming the mentally ill results in improved services, fine. The stigma is devastating however and part of the reason people don't access services in the first place. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

100% of people who commit violent crimes are mentally ill. Maybe not by some standard studied in colleges but they are. These people are sick...on some level to do that.

comebackgirl

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Terms like 96% keep getting tossed around...lets remember 100% of people who kill using guns illegally obtained are criminals. Let's remember that...at the best estimates I can find on the internet 92% of all incidents using a hand gun are used in a crime. Some estimates are as high as 98%.


Instead of targeting the actual problems...the criminal and the mentally ill we concentrate on the innocent. Let's say all this ridiculous gun legislation gets passed (which it won't) it changes nothing. Zippo. All it does it make people feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm addressing your response to me that all killers are mentally ill, and if you read the articles you also saw that the mentally ill are responsible for only 4% of violent crime. I think we need an entire culture shift. I think gun control and mental health are 2 other components and the ones that get the most attention because they would be quicker fixes. Blaming the mentally ill for a crime that's committed largely by those who aren't mentally ill does nothing to resolve this problem. I would be very grateful to see better access to mental health services for those who need it though. If falsely blaming the mentally ill results in improved services, fine. The stigma is devastating however and part of the reason people don't access services in the first place. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

100% of people who commit violent crimes are mentally ill. Maybe not by some standard studied in colleges but they are. These people are sick...on some level to do that.

Well...no...but it's clear you are invested in believing that despite the research, so that's on you. Can you find any peer-reviewed research supporting that claim? I think there's also a lot of confusion about what mental is. There's good information here: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness Just as there are people who do things that are physically unhealthy (overeat, smoke,not exercise) and it doesn't mean they're physically sick, there are a lot of people that do things that are mentally unhealthy, but they don't meet criteria for mental illness. We have that criteria for a reason.

I do know that 100% of the people who commit murder with a gun...do it with a gun. However, I also know that just because the gun is the tool of choice doesn't mean it causes people to be violent. It's one element that needs to be addressed, but the issue is a much larger cultural issue.

peacefrompaul

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

Sure, there are deep seeded roots to their anger, but that doesn't equate to mental illness. In layman's terms we might say the guy had to be "crazy," but that doesn't equate to mental illness either. We do a huge disservice in falsely attributing responsibility to something that isn't the root cause in 96% of the cases. We're not addressing the core root of the problem and will keep spinning our wheels. But it's so much easier to blame the mentally ill. Also lazy and stigmatizing to do so.

Terms like 96% keep getting tossed around...lets remember 100% of people who kill using guns illegally obtained are criminals. Let's remember that...at the best estimates I can find on the internet 92% of all incidents using a hand gun are used in a crime. Some estimates are as high as 98%.


Instead of targeting the actual problems...the criminal and the mentally ill we concentrate on the innocent. Let's say all this ridiculous gun legislation gets passed (which it won't) it changes nothing. Zippo. All it does it make people feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm addressing your response to me that all killers are mentally ill, and if you read the articles you also saw that the mentally ill are responsible for only 4% of violent crime. I think we need an entire culture shift. I think gun control and mental health are 2 other components and the ones that get the most attention because they would be quicker fixes. Blaming the mentally ill for a crime that's committed largely by those who aren't mentally ill does nothing to resolve this problem. I would be very grateful to see better access to mental health services for those who need it though. If falsely blaming the mentally ill results in improved services, fine. The stigma is devastating however and part of the reason people don't access services in the first place. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Mental health issues are far too often ignored in the fact that our way of dealing with criminals that have these issues is to simply throw them into a jail cell.

Not to mention many of our homeless have mental issues and certainly don't have access to the help that they need. They are left on the street to fend for themselves... a great deal of them also have drug problems that coincide with their mental illness... say they get in trouble, they go to jail and sit... often times repeat... this would certainly be more expensive than simply treating the issue...

Then again, treatment isn't exactly cheap... and it doesn't always work all the time. The girl I fancy from work had a brother that was bipolar and a heroin addict... her dad spent thousands of dollars for his 4 stints at Hazelden in MN, only to have him OD and die in June.

And I guess that would be more of a drug related issue... I just want to make the point that treatment doesn't always work, but we need more of it instead of ignoring the issues... as you said DS.

comebackgirl

peacefrompaul wrote:

comebackgirl wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Terms like 96% keep getting tossed around...lets remember 100% of people who kill using guns illegally obtained are criminals. Let's remember that...at the best estimates I can find on the internet 92% of all incidents using a hand gun are used in a crime. Some estimates are as high as 98%.


Instead of targeting the actual problems...the criminal and the mentally ill we concentrate on the innocent. Let's say all this ridiculous gun legislation gets passed (which it won't) it changes nothing. Zippo. All it does it make people feel warm and fuzzy.

I'm addressing your response to me that all killers are mentally ill, and if you read the articles you also saw that the mentally ill are responsible for only 4% of violent crime. I think we need an entire culture shift. I think gun control and mental health are 2 other components and the ones that get the most attention because they would be quicker fixes. Blaming the mentally ill for a crime that's committed largely by those who aren't mentally ill does nothing to resolve this problem. I would be very grateful to see better access to mental health services for those who need it though. If falsely blaming the mentally ill results in improved services, fine. The stigma is devastating however and part of the reason people don't access services in the first place. Better to be part of the solution than part of the problem.

Mental health issues are far too often ignored in the fact that our way of dealing with criminals that have these issues is to simply throw them into a jail cell.

Not to mention many of our homeless have mental issues and certainly don't have access to the help that they need. They are left on the street to fend for themselves... a great deal of them also have drug problems that coincide with their mental illness... say they get in trouble, they go to jail and sit... often times repeat... this would certainly be more expensive than simply treating the issue...

Then again, treatment isn't exactly cheap... and it doesn't always work all the time. The girl I fancy from work had a brother that was bipolar and a heroin addict... her dad spent thousands of dollars for his 4 stints at Hazelden in MN, only to have him OD and die in June.

And I guess that would be more of a drug related issue... I just want to make the point that treatment doesn't always work, but we need more of it instead of ignoring the issues... as you said DS.

You're right - mental health is often ignored far too often. We're starting to see some parity, but we have a long way to go. When the state hospitals closed, many of the chronically mentally ill became homeless. There has been a huge gap in services and the system has failed them in a lot of ways. I don't think people should be institutionalized for life when it is far from necessary, but I also don't think they should be left with huge gaps in services that don't meet their needs. I also don't think family members should have to wait until the person is at a crisis state (a danger to self or others) before they can get them help (and then it's usually only for 72 hours so the person can be stabilized). Many mental health issues are chronic...we don't have "cures" for many of them, so treatment will be long-term and that will be costly...but no one wants to pay. The other problem is that when people start to feel better, they often stop treatment.

That's really sad about her brother. My guess is that he starting using drugs to try and mange his bipolar symptoms - so it likely began as a mental health issue that either went undiagnosed or wasn't properly treated before his drug issues began.

When it comes to the mentally ill and violence though, they are much more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator of a crime. The stigma has just got to stop.

dimitrispearljam

comebackgirl wrote:

When it comes to the mentally ill and violence though, they are much more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator of a crime. The stigma has just got to stop.

so true

DS1119

comebackgirl wrote:

Well...no...but it's clear you are invested in believing that despite the research, so that's on you. Can you find any peer-reviewed research supporting that claim? I think there's also a lot of confusion about what mental is. There's good information here: http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness Just as there are people who do things that are physically unhealthy (overeat, smoke,not exercise) and it doesn't mean they're physically sick, there are a lot of people that do things that are mentally unhealthy, but they don't meet criteria for mental illness. We have that criteria for a reason.

I do know that 100% of the people who commit murder with a gun...do it with a gun. However, I also know that just because the gun is the tool of choice doesn't mean it causes people to be violent. It's one element that needs to be addressed, but the issue is a much larger cultural issue.

I don't need any study to tell if someone is bat shit crazy. And neither does anyone else. You commit violent crimes like the ones being debated your crazy. Plain and simple.