NBC says mental illness isnt a major factor for gun violence

May 28th 1998 - NBC's own Phil Hartman (of SNL fame) walked into his home in Los Angeles, California where guns are illegal or highly restricted and was shot to death by his mentally ill wife.

That is all.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

What it boils down to is this: Yes, we do need to have some sort of alert system to identify people who are at high risk for going off the deep end. No, we do not need to start taking guns away every time someone has a "red flag" pop up.

It seems everyone is looking for the easy way to fix the shooting problem. Just ban the guns, that's easy enough... except there's that pesky Second Amendment, and those haters at the NRA, and illegal guns and homemade guns and black market guns... OK, just pass a Red Flag Law... except there's this same Second Amendment problem, and people thinking they are being attacked because they didn't know they had a complaint against them, and political shenanigans to use the law to target people one doesn't like...

I'll go on record right now: Trump needs to pull back that support for a Red Flag law. He promised not to come after our guns, and by damn, that is coming after our guns! The only thing that might possibly be legal under the Constitution would be to use the red flag data for observance only. No arrests, no confiscation of weapons based on flags of any color. Just eyes on. Now, if someone is found trying to do something exceptionally bad during those eyes on, that is an action that can be prosecuted.

Of course, knowing how our government works, I want to see that prohibition against direct action taken only via flags written into the law clearly and completely. There can be no grey area on this. Anything less I oppose and will consider a promise broken.

TheRedneck

I would like to see a study done from the reverse perspective. Study people who are gun owners, esp. the collector types that have strong political opinions and people with CCW permits, that are responsible gun owners that have never shot anyone or even think about shooting people. Find out what characteristics are common with the responsible gun owners who would never fire their weapon at another human being or would only if they are duty bound like LEOs or military.

What makes a person a good gun owner vs a bad one, what are the differences? If they can figure that one out, it will make it easier to identify the potential lunatics that could commit a mass shooting as well as keep the law abiding gun owning citizens safe from draconian gun laws.

Statistically mentally ill people not only tend to be less violent than other demographics but they are actually more likely than others to be victims of violence..

There are specific diagnosis and cases of comorbidity ( Example: A mentally ill person using street drugs to self medicate ) that can result in skewing the statistic - but this is the exception and not the rule.

It's a complex issue but mentally ill people often remain hyper focused upon their symptoms and will over self-report any transient thoughts they feel to be irrational or dangerous.

With that said, most spree killers plan for weeks, months or in some cases years for it. They usually make complex preparations: The researching of targets, comparing and securing weapons etc. They write manifestos that very often cite the manifestos of previous spree killers. They study. They deliberate. They exhibit intent and resolve over varyingly long periods of time.

I'm fully aware that many will simply say that none of that matters as only crazy people could be capable of such acts and I get why people feel that way. I really do. However that does not make it so. Mental illness tends to manifest in irrationality - and the structure and determination these shooters exhibit doesn't match up with that.

So these guys are not nutjobs, then?

a reply to: TheRedneck

We've had lots of amendments to the constitution.
Removing the second unneeded amendment is nothing.
We sure do not need a militia any longer do we?
We can do this easily.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Why would a study like that be needed?

We already know that most people dont shoot up crowds. Now dont we?

a reply to: Hefficide

While I admit there are studies that back you up, those studies, and your post as well, are not looking at the situation in the same light I am. I would say that the act of planning, researching, and executing a mass shooting is itself a qualification for a kind of mental illness. Normal people simply do not do that. Normal people may, under certain conditions, undertake a crime of passion or act in self defense, but this is neither. We are discussing cold-blooded murder for murder's sake. If that does not fall under the heading of mentally ill, I suggest we need to broaden that heading.

Mental illness is not a single disease, any more than being physically ill indicates a specific disease. I would roughly define mental illness as a condition which prevents the individual from exercising normal, reasonable participation in society due to an inability to participate in or react appropriately to social stimuli. That covers phobias, learning problems, murderous psychopaths, and the dude that walks up and down the street talking to sewer rats about invisible aliens that want to anal probe him.

It's a general term, and therefore unsuitable for specific discussion, just as it would make no sense to say that someone with a common cold needs hospitalization for medical issues. What kind of mental illness are you referencing?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme

Fine. The procedure is clear. Revise the Constitution. Remove the Second Amendment.

The simple fact is that not enough people agree with gun control for an amendment to pass; otherwise it would have been done long ago.

I certainly will not support it, nor will I support any leader who does.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Normal people do all sorts of things when they feel threatened or justified in doing it.

As I said it's a complex issue that requires nuance. For example of the two shootings in discussion I'd vehemently argue against the Texas shooter being mentally ill but would not do so in regard to the Ohio shooter. The fact that he potentially targeted a family member could indicate some sort of underlying issues.

The incredibly oversimplified version of my personal viewpoint is that thanks to our 24/7 news cycle that's focused on sensationalism and fear mongering for views, clicks and ratings... People wind up drowning in a non stop sea of stress and anxiety - and some of those people react poorly to it.

ETA: I'll take this chance to voice one of my personal concerns...

We live in a nation that's been at constant war for nearly two decades. A huge segment of our population is comprised of young people who served abroad and who saw combat.

Many of these young people have subsequently been treated for anxiety and / or depression as a result of what they sacrificed and endured.

Follow that slippery slope to where it inevitably leads.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: TheRedneck

We've had lots of amendments to the constitution.
Removing the second unneeded amendment is nothing.
We sure do not need a militia any longer do we?
We can do this easily.

It can be done but it won't be as easy as you think. Ask Venezuelans about disarming citizens and how well it worked out for their socialist state.

a reply to: Hefficide

That's probably where we are seeing apparent disagreement. You see, I do consider the El Paso shooter to be mentally ill. I do not believe he is insane, nor is he demented, nor is he learning retarded. He is psychopathic.

I would suggest that a psychopath could be identified by such things as road rage, hateful statements, an obsession with the macabre, etc. But then again, many people experience road rage, make hateful statements, and try to get a glimpse of the dead bodies in that wreck they are passing. The vast majority of those will never go on a shooting spree; their illness is not severe enough. That does not mean they do not experience some psychopathy.

That's what worries me about the Red Flag laws and any mental examination laws. That net can be broadened quite easily. It is one thing to stand against a concept; many people will do that. But once that concept is passed into law, it becomes much harder to convince people to stand against a redefinition in the law that would do the exact same thing that would have been considered unconscionable at the beginning of the law.

For example, let us say, for sake of argument, that a Red Flag law was passed to target individuals with at least three documented examples of fascination with the macabre. Not too bad, right? Few people will fall into that category, and all of them likely have a propensity for future violence. But then, a few years later, buried inside another bill, a Congressman includes a paragraph that adds, "Be a regular contributor to conspiracy Internet sites," and it gets passed. Suddenly, everyone in ATS is subject to having their right to keep and bear arms removed, by force if necessary, without even realizing the rider was even in the bill until it was passed.

That's an extreme example; in reality, the change would not be so drastic, but it could easily be done in several smaller steps.

TheRedneck

Killing is becoming acceptable in society. We are surrounded by it. The US has spent trillions doing it for profit. Inner cities are full of it. It is a way of life there.

It is a change in beliefs not mental illness.

Operation Gladio is what is going on.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Apparently, a former White Nationalist who helps to reform others doesn't agree with NBC...

Picciolini: It’s a whole lot of listening. I listen for what I call potholes: things that happen to us in our journey of life that detour us, things like trauma, abuse, mental illness, poverty, joblessness. Even privilege can be a pothole that detours us. As I listen to those—rather than debate or confront them about their ideology, but creating a rapport with them—I start to fill in those potholes. I will find resources in their community to help them deal with the trauma, with whatever it is that was the motivation for them to go in that direction. Nobody’s born racist; we all found it. Then I leverage the community around them to try to engage them and support them, and try to find ways for them to crawl out of that hole. Typically what I found is, people hate other people because they hate something very specifically about themselves, or are very angry about a situation within their own environment, and that is then projected onto other people. So I’m really trying to build resilience with people.

www.theatlantic.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck

Might want to get a smaller brush. You're gonna hurt yourself painting with one that wide.

So wise. So, when the President of the United States says that "mental illness" pulled the trigger, that's a wide brush, right? And, when Ivanka, First Daughter and Presidential advisor divine, tweets out promotions for red flag laws targeting the mentally ill, that her father famously jumped on the first time he was confronted with this issue, saying "take the guns first, and then" yada, yada, yada, Due Process.....that's a dangerously heavy brush for those hands to wield?

We're having this conversation, in this thread, not because of the NBC's opinion piece, but because of President Trump's failure to grasp the gravity and the girth of his wide brush.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You make many assumptions. And as usual, they are wrong.

I do not control what Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, or anyone in government does, except through the power of my vote. I do have strong opinions, but not the opinions you seem to think I have. I firmly oppose the Red Flag laws.

I know that's hard for you to believe.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You should work at CNN with spin like that. How about you actually quote him.

mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.

So are you claiming the gun pulls it's own trigger? And why did you leave hatred out?

Well, now that we know mental health is not a factor in gun violence, I guess it doesn't make any sense to push for any laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Red flag laws would be useless.

What we should be focusing on is keeping guns out of the hands of sane people. Law enforcement, military, national guard, secret service, private security, etc. That should stop all those mass shootings at police stations, army bases, gun stores, pawn shops, etc.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

So if mental illness is not a factor...why do they want red flag laws???