Time to ban the mentally ill

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The only thing that might work is banning mentally ill people from ever possessing any kind of weapon, be that a gun or whatever.

Anything beyond that is cruel and inhumane, unless you want mentally ill people to get the best treatment possible in the world without any monetary or resource limitations and then complain how the taxpayers are giving away too much money to them this time.




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Dispo
You're looking for around 20 percentage points worth of violent crime from non psychotic mentally ill individuals to even get close to proving your point though, so good luck.


That's a lot of points and my free time is about to run out.


I've found this:

Altogether, 42% of patients and 31% of non-patients had a criminal record. A higher criminality rate was found in bipolar patients and in patients suffering from unipolar minor or intermittent depression, whereas no increased criminality rate was found in patients with unipolar major depression.
link

Damn journals are all behind pay walls.


You seem to have misinterpreted that quote.

A certain percentage of group X having criminal records does not translate to that percentage of violent crime being caused by group X.

I'll try and explain it simply.

You have 100 mental patients and 100 normies.
42 of them have criminal records, 31 of the normies have criminal records.
It does not take in to account the type of crimes committed by both groups.
So again, please (re)define your criteria. Are we talking about all crime? Violent crime? What?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
List_of_rampage_killers
edit on 15-12-2012 by Zeta Reticulan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


All crime. Reducing all crime across the board.

I think Ive said that at least three times now.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Dispo
 


All crime. Reducing all crime across the board.

I think Ive said that at least three times now.


I don't think you have, I might be wrong though.

All I know is that you started by saying lock up all schizophrenics, then it was all types of mentally abnormal people, even though you didn't tell us what system you use to describe mental illness.

Then when we started arguing about guns, you said it was about reducing violent crime, then you discounted homicide statistics because it was about nonfatal violent crime, then you actually made a jab at me by saying "I'll look for stats on jaywalkers with guns" or something similar when I said "are we now talking about crime, not just violent crime?" and now it's back to crime, because it suits your figures.

Still though, if 42 people have a criminal record of "theft, 1 tin of beans" and 31 people have a laundry list of convictions, the group with the smaller number of criminals could still be responsible for more crime.

Arguing with you has been an unpleasant experience, you change the goalposts when you feel like and you ignore posts you can't answer after 5 seconds on google. You cite sources without reading the whole thing and then work to discredit your own source when called out on it.

You have not yet adequately proved a causal link between mental illness of any type and crime, at all. The earlier study based in scandanavia which concluded that psychotic sufferers accounted for 5% of all violent crime in the area is the closest you've come to making a coherent point.

If you want to try and substantiate any sort of correlation between mental illness (which type? all?) and crime (which type? all?) then I advise you to take some time to make a well thought out and researched post, which I'll happily read and digest.

Oh, I just had a thought, if you're trying to link this topic to gun control, how and why does anything but violent crime factor in to the use of guns in crime?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Maybe they should leave those kids alone? I mean when being told, something isn't right about you, where people watch you with a funny look, being told you are not ''normal''. The whole time.

Maybe some kids snap or later when becoming adults, by being told the while time; your are not normal/ok!!

They (some) never got in a fight, never had a big mouth, but they are not ''ok''.

Just my opinion of course.

"Leave those kids alone!''.


edit on 15-12-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-12-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I'm glad this post was made because this is how many people feel after the shooting.

I think the lesson the media wants to create for this is we need to fear people who are considered "mentally ill". It's not just the Holmes type either but we need to fear different and depressed people. It doesn't matter if you don't have a criminal or violent past.

What's important is "these" people need to be "investigated", "watch" and "confined" for the safety of children.


Le'ts just be aware the public thinks "crazy" people include posters on sites like ATS.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Time to ban the Mentally ill? I have a mental disorder, you going to throw me in an institution against my will even though I don't have any intention of hurting anyone including myself? you sound like you have German roots..



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


The real culprit is the pharmaceutical industry. That's the common thread to those shootings. You're stupid if you really believe what you just wrote especially hanging out on this site. What's the root cause of mental diseases? Institutionalization! That's it! The more you tell someone they're sick, they more they'll be. Put them all on meds and have their story told on this site eventually: www.ssristories.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


According to the DSM's criterias you probably have a mental disease and I bet you do. Whether its social anxiety, narcissistic personality disorder or anything. Even internet addiction is a mental disease according to the DSM. So you're saying that you would like to get caged too? So, how would you like that? Waking up in an asylum because you watch too much porn?
edit on 15-12-2012 by sebHFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by sebHFX
 


Sure thing. If some mental health professionals decide I'm not stable round me up and haul me off kicking and screaming to the funny farm.

Got to keep us all safe. Safety trumps liberty every time in the land of the free.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Everyone just needs someone they can trust.

That way this trust can be exploited and these people can be detained before they can do any harm.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So you're essentially saying we should bring back mental institutions. That's an awful idea. We've tried them. They failed abysmally. We're just now getting rid of the stigma that institutionalization helped create.


It did fail, it could fail again, but I think it is necessary.

Look at the homeless mentally ill living in squalor on the streets what is worse?

Can't civilization run an adequate mental facility for gods sake?

2012 and we are still incapable of doing anything right.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
They are throwing the mentally in in prisons and on the streets, when what they need is treatment.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
They are throwing the mentally in in prisons and on the streets, when what they need is treatment.


Unfortunately it would seem most people prefer spending money on prisons and locking them up in cells than housing them and treating them because treating them and housing them is inhumane but letting them wander the streets or be thrown in with convicts is considered proper management.
edit on 15-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Ban them from what exactly?


Life. The OP wants to put all schizophrenics in a big apartment complex and let them live out their days there to protect us from them.


I knew a schizophrenic well, went to church with him, saw him waste away, he wouldn't eat and wandered the streets day and night, every-time I saw him I would break down and cry.

His parents tried to get him committed to save his life, they couldn't get him the help he needed because of all the bureaucracy.

We have no mentally institutions, but everyone I know is on psych meds, what ?

Am I in the twilight zone?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


The mentally ill who are often homeless do need apartments, townhouses, and suites, and they need some degree of care, assistance to independent living. And disabilities. Its a bit like what the OP sees except doesnt cost the family, since its not their responsiblity when a person turns adult, and no I AM NOT CONSERVATIVE. Conservative systems are ultra chauvanistic and social programs equalize women and children and I am very much for women and children, and any society that doesnt do this is evil, primitive and a hellzone.

This wouldn't be prison or punishment but healthy living for those who are not able to function on their own.
edit on 15-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


A lot of it are these preconceived notions of the "institution" of yesteryear. You can see it throughout the thread. Posters calling back to the 50's and neglect and abuses and torture.

Perhaps they're watching too much American Horror Story?

Institutions can be anything we want them to be. Not just a hole where ill people go to rot.

They can be well-staffed sprawling campuses encompassing programs and treatments on the leading edge of the field. I've no problem paying taxes for that. The overall burden in homelessness and crime be reduced would make up for the monetary expense in my mind.

But that's inhumane apparently.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
They are throwing the mentally in in prisons and on the streets, when what they need is treatment.


Unfortunately it would seem most people prefer spending money on prisons and locking them up in cells than housing them and treating them because treating them and housing them is inhumane but letting them wander the streets or be thrown in with convicts is considered proper management.
edit on 15-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


I know, I was posting some information on another topic.

How and when and why institution were closed.
bascom-new.brynmawr.edu...

www.pbs.org...


Thus deinstitutionalization has helped create the mental illness crisis by discharging people from public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they received the medication and rehabilitation services necessary for them to live successfully in the community. Deinstitutionalization further exacerbated the situation because, once the public psychiatric beds had been closed, they were not available for people who later became mentally ill, and this situation continues up to the present. Consequently, approximately 2.2 million severely mentally ill people do not receive any psychiatric treatment.

Deinstitutionalization was based on the principle that severe mental illness should be treated in the least restrictive setting. As further defined by President Jimmy Carter's Commission on Mental Health, this ideology rested on "the objective of maintaining the greatest degree of freedom, self-determination, autonomy, dignity, and integrity of body, mind, and spirit for the individual while he or she participates in treatment or receives services."8 This is a laudable goal and for many, perhaps for the majority of those who are deinstitutionalized, it has been at least partially realized.

For a substantial minority, however, deinstitutionalization has been a psychiatric Titanic. Their lives are virtually devoid of "dignity" or "integrity of body, mind, and spirit." "Self-determination" often means merely that the person has a choice of soup kitchens. The "least restrictive setting" frequently turns out to be a cardboard box, a jail cell, or a terror-filled existence plagued by both real and imaginary enemies.

· · ·

CHAPTER 3: JAILS AND PRISONS

Deinstitutionalization doesn't work. We just switched places. Instead of being in hospitals the people are in jail. The whole system is topsy-turvy and the last person served is the mentally ill person. -- Jail official, Ohio 1



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



If some mental health professionals decide I'm not stable round me up and haul me off kicking and screaming to the funny farm


live free or die
edit on 15-12-2012 by Zeta Reticulan because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join