How prevalent is mental illness in mass shootings? (just asked)

www.foxnews.com...

The most recent mass killing in Florida last month has reignited the debate over the extent to which mental illness plays a role in such violence, and even about what is meant by mental illness. The horror at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High also is shining a light on the contradictory views among prominent criminology and mental health experts about mental illness as a risk factor in mass shootings.

Now that we have exhausted the study on why guns continue to force people to pick them up and use them to kill innocent folks, we have to ask, is there something we missed? Anything? Is it even remotely possible that there is more to this issue than ebil gunz?

Now, here is a challenge for anyone here. Find what options exist for mental health assistance in the US at this point. I know someone who needs care, and in my state, it's just not there. The way it works here, you have to claim that you wish to do harm to yourself in order to get admission to a care facility. Then, once you are there, they throw drugs at you until they get you calmed down. You spend a week or two at the facility, and you leave. The person I know has a drug problem, and uses this system to obtain pills to be sold. Plus it's a bed for a couple weeks as opposed to a couch. There isn't a real system in place at all.

I just wonder how long we will continue like this before we start to ask the really hard questions. Until we are ready for that conversation, the questions are irrelevant.

But after all this, at the very least, someone has finally started the dialog.

Im going with 100 percent on this. Unless you are in the military. I think that is exempt.

a reply to: network dude

My assessment is that anyone who hurts other people is insane. I also think if you are a thief you are insane too. Yes I realize they are idiots too but all of their screwed up thinking (idiocy) manifests as crimes against others, which is still insane.

You can show me any killer, even claiming they were 'of sound mind', but I will disagree. I don't think any sane person would kill anyone or risk themselves going to that hellhole known as jail/prison.

They're all nuts.

a reply to: network dude

What do you view as some of the hard questions? SSRIs? Poverty? Location?

a reply to: network dude

Oh and the attempts to tie in "mental health" with these shootings is a secret way in for the gun grabbers. It's like an unlocked window on the side of the house.

Once they can ban guns from the 'mentally ill', they can ban guns from everyone. It's easy to diagnose someone with creative vague language. The mental health diagnosis system isn't really based on science at all. It's based on how creative the doctor is and how good they are at painting a picture.

Anyone can be labeled and pigeonholed into some form of "mental illness". So therefore anyone with a gun can be tried in a court of mental health and found guilty of "not thinking the way we want" and so therefore their gun rights rescinded extra-judicially.

I have always wondered that with the mentally ill, where does their free will stop and a communities/societies free will begin? If the mentally ill trespass on the rights of others, how many rights should they be allowed? Are we as a society able to determine what is healthy and what is not?

a reply to: network dude

I'm with the others who believe that anyone who would inflict such grievous harm on another is mentally ill, to put it kindly.

Sorry on the topic though.. true there are very few resources and even those don't work in cases where a kid's mental instability goes undetected or underestimated.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Just curious. Say there is a long term mental patient that has been hospitalized for 10 years, half of which they were relegated to a straight jacket. Budget cuts happen and that patient is released into the wild. Would you support them in attempts to obtain a firearm? If no, where do you draw the line. How would you put that into writing or a code of law?

I am still trying to figure this one out.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: network dude

What do you view as some of the hard questions? SSRIs? Poverty? Location?

the really hard questions come long after we agree that mental illness is a real problem and needs attention. Then you have to ask, how do we restrict 2nd amendment rights to the mentally insane? Who gets to make that call? What illnesses should restrict gun rights?

If you think pandoras box has been opened, it hasn't. But in this case, it's going to have to happen. And if gun grabbers try their usual stunts, the NRA will do what they do, and we will get to chase that wonderful tail a bit more, while more kids die.

And once you have opened that door, you have to look at all of us. Who out there DOESN'T have some form of diagnosable mental condition? I don't know anyone I can say for sure doesn't, however small they may be.

We have a serious problem, and it's festered for a long time. The fix is going to be hard. But it has to happen. how is that for tough questions?

a reply to: network dude

Those are very difficult questions. Add in the fact that any type of restriction goes against one of the founding documents of this country. Were we better prepared for this in the past with state sponsored mental institutions? Or was it more of out of sight out of mind without actually addressing the issue.

How would you deem someone mentally ill with hostel intent? Would there be some type of mental exam or would the person only be subject to examination after a wrongful action?

From my view, it is just easier to deal with the aftermath than it is for preventative actions. If we do restrict based on mental health, the state will abuse it so fast.....

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: network dude

Those are very difficult questions. Add in the fact that any type of restriction goes against one of the founding documents of this country. Were we better prepared for this in the past with state sponsored mental institutions? Or was it more of out of sight out of mind without actually addressing the issue.

How would you deem someone mentally ill with hostel intent? Would there be some type of mental exam or would the person only be subject to examination after a wrongful action?

From my view, it is just easier to deal with the aftermath than it is for preventative actions. If we do restrict based on mental health, the state will abuse it so fast.....

yep, which seems to be one reason the system decided to punt to begin with. Unfortunately, when you punt on first down, you don't show the fans that winning strategy they like to see.

But those are a long way off. First and foremost, we have to agree that sane people don't kill innocent folks, but crazy one's might. Baby steps.

a reply to: muzzleflash

just so you know, this is one of those cerebral type threads that won't get much attention. Like you mentioned in the other one. I know what you mean.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: muzzleflash

Just curious. Say there is a long term mental patient that has been hospitalized for 10 years, half of which they were relegated to a straight jacket. Budget cuts happen and that patient is released into the wild. Would you support them in attempts to obtain a firearm? If no, where do you draw the line. How would you put that into writing or a code of law?

I am still trying to figure this one out.

The US Constitution says all men have a right to bear arms, it doesn't say anything about *except for lunatics*.

I think you are charging them with a pre-crime before they even commit a crime.

The Constitution was already written, the only thing I'd add is a few Amendments specifying that "all men" means "everyone" including felons. Everyone has a right to self defense.

You do realize that even if someone is prohibited from legally having a weapon than they can get it illegally pretty easily right? If they are determined to hurt others they will one way or another. We should just make it a fair playing field and honor our original Constitution, that's all.

a reply to: network dude

Mental Illness and Prescription Drugs , a Deadly Combination . Mental Health Officials are to Blame for the Policies they set , and the Laws the do not Enforce . Result , Needless Deaths caused by Stupidity ...........

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: muzzleflash

just so you know, this is one of those cerebral type threads that won't get much attention. Like you mentioned in the other one. I know what you mean.

I am going to take the hardline Constitutionalism approach and maybe this will be so foreign and bewildering to your readers that they will flip out and argue incessantly against me, lol.

Well, I can dream at least, can't I?

a reply to: network dude

I agree. So if you had the reigns of control, what do you think? Would you require mental screening yearly of everyone or would there be some type of threshold violation before examination is required? If we waited until the mentally ill person commits the act, it would kind of defeat the entire experiment of prevention.

How could you tell through screening that someone is so sick in the head that they will transgress against someone's free will? Do you show them pictures and monitor brainwaves to see what type of response those images inspire? Say you show someone a scene of destruction and the pleasure areas of the brain light up, would you label them at that point? Do we even have the understanding necessary to perform that judgement?

How the hell could we make sure that competent and righteous people were in charge of the program? I can't imagine if the system were setup where the populaces approval and then it fell into the wrong hands.

Almost like doing nothing is the correct path with our current level of maturity.

I live in the Great State of Jefferson and I see rampant mental illness all the time from Grants Pass to Crescent City.

These folks, at least many of them, are stark raving mad, however none of them have possesion of anything, much less a gun, or the where-withall to formulate a mass murderous rampage.

I think there is a combination of sociopathic tendancies, and pharmaceutical inducement at the heart of the younger adults that attack schools for instance.

The older adults, combine alcohol, drugs and undeveloped emotional coping mechanisms for family murders, or workplace violence.

In the end, I dont know if a mechanism could exist to mitigate all the varied forms of mental illness, much less the degree where someone is qualified as dangerous to others without trampling the rights of everyone else.

Difficult dillema, but no i see very little to no aid being given to seriously mentally ill characters for instance in Lithia park Ashland...they are just observed by some 50 meters, and allowed to carry on screaming and hitting themselves, while you try to walk by unassuming with your wife and daughter.

a reply to: ClovenSky

I couldn't begin to figure out a solution to this. One thing I do know is the mental health system is badly broken. If we start there, try to get some people help, and offer some realistic solutions to this problem, I think we might inadvertently help several issues at once.

Homelessness.
Drug Addiction.
Veterans living on the street due to mental illness and drugs.

If we start at step 1, we might find a way to look at step 2.

I'm in the staunch Constitutional crowd on all things constitutional. So I'm not much help.

a reply to: network dude

Im with you constitution wise. A return to santariums, in some manner might have to be a start, sadly history shows how terribly wrong that can go.

I’d say it’s pretty prevalent.

Normal, well adjusted individuals don’t go around shooting places up after all.