General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI have a brother with schizophrenia and I am sick of the bigotry against the mentally ill
The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent, and the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people who are not mentally ill. Yet it seems that every time a mentally ill person does commit an act of violence people like my brother take the blame even though they would never do something like what the shooter did.
It seems that people are desperate to find something to blame besides guns and so they scapegoat a minority group and ask us what to do with that minority group. I have heard many people call for the mentally ill to be locked up even when they have not committed a single crime, it is disgusting to call for people who have done nothing wrong to be locked away because of their disability.
The problem is not mental illness, the problem is that there are a lot of people who are totally incompetent to own guns that are being allowed to purchase them and most of these people are not mentally ill. I have seen far too many people who seem to think it is acceptable to use guns to solve their problems and insist that people like George Zimmerman should be allowed to follow people in the dark and then shoot them, I see far too many people defending those who leave their guns unsecured before a child grabs them, I see far too many people who believe they are allowed to shoot someone over minor property crimes and call it self defense, most of these people are not mentally ill but they are people who should not own deadly weapons.
It is these very people whose tough talk about how they need to be heavily armed that are the very first to attack the mentally ill when a mass shooting happens. I don't ever hear these people advocate to help people with mental illness to get access to health care or social services, it is always about blaming the mental illness and then going back to advocating for their guns. If the NRA really cared about helping the mentally ill they would be lobbying to ensure that the mentally ill are able to get free access to health care, instead they just cast the blame on the mentally ill and then leave them to fend for themselves. They do work to ensure that their members have the right to shoot any mentally ill person who gets confused and walks onto their property even if that person was not threatening violence in any way however.
Those who are honestly working to help the mentally ill and advocating for better health care and social services, I salute them. Those who use the mentally ill as scapegoats to turn attention away from the problem of gun violence on the other hand are bigots, and as the brother of a person with a severe mental illness I would like to kindly ask the bigots who blame people like my brother to fuck off.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
me b zola
(19,053 posts)
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Mental issues doesn't result in mass shootings but to hear the NRA it is video games, Hollywood but never the guns. We see nuts like Jones running around mouthing off, sounding angry but yet he gets to keep his guns. We hear Wayne LaPierre saying we need more guns but he continues to run the NRA. I am a gun owner but I don't run around with folks like Bundy Militia aiming guns at people and threatening the public. My heart goes first to those with mental illnesses and then to their families. I would like to see more effort placed to treatments and research in the mental illness area. Hopefully your brother and many others could receive the treatment they deserve.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they are not in rational minds and are incompetent.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)JJChambers
(1,115 posts)To be dangerously mentally ill and not take one's medications
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But your posts seem to assume the mentally ill in general are "dangerous" which is totally wrongheaded.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)JJChambers
(1,115 posts)He had committed no crime but was "flagged" by his own actions, his therapists and his parents. They knew he was going to snap. The system failed. He should have been in a mental health facility, not free to stab and shoot whomever he wanted!
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)As for people like Rodger Elliot we should improve our mental health care and stop stigmatizing the mentally ill so that they can fell more comfortable in seeking help.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)He was obviously about to have a break and become homicidal. He broadcast his views online. His parents knew and reported him to police. But because he hadn't done anything yet, and because he answered the police's questions the right way (did he want to harm himself? No; did he want to harm someone else? No) he was not committed to an institution.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)As I said though I do support better mental health services and calling out people like you who stigmatize the mentally ill.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)How about involuntarily committing people who are know to have homicidal ideations?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If you want to lock up the mentally ill before they kill then I assume you are in favor of locking up gun owners who may use their guns illegally as well.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)Murder is a different ball game. I'm glad to know you do support involuntary commitment for those with homicidal ideation.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)he didn't have a record of crime, was not adjudicated incompetent, and stunk up the joint with his "minifusto" like plenty of other digital punks who learned how to use a keyboard, make selfies, and create a pop-up mythology about him/herself. It's not a crime. Had he specifically named a person who he promised to murder, that's a crime. But he didn't. He knew the ropes.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)JJChambers
(1,115 posts)uppityperson
(115,677 posts)How would you define "dangerously mentally ill" that refuse to take their meds so need locking up? I assume you mean to lock them up before they kill others and themselves.
At what point is the diagnoses given and them locked up? I am serious here, not snarking.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)He broadcast his mental illness to the world in the days and weeks leading up to the killings. His therapists knew. His parents knew. Law enforcement knew. But the system failed because we don't have a system to commit people like him if they answer a few certain questions the "right" way.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)a mental health professional? I am trying to figure out what guidelines you would use.
I have been around long enough, worked as a nurse long enough, to have seen changes in involuntary commitment for mental health issues change several times and am wondering what criteria you would use beyond hindsight.
I am snarking elsewhere, being serious about this with you though.
JJChambers
(1,115 posts)It becomes apparent that person does not belong in society and should be committed for as long as it takes to ensure they are no longer a danger to those around them.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)threats with weapons? Have a board interview them?
Many of these seem like they are breaking the law so could be arrested now. The problem being you can't tell until they are actively in the process of hurting others. It would be good to be able to predict, I agree, just don't know how to do it beyond vague "when it is apparent".
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)He had a team of mental health professionals, was exhibiting signs of "extreme paranoia" and hearing voices, wouldn't take his meds, and was putting up youtube videos about killing people.
There should be some way to commit a person like that for observation.
But I do realize how hard that can be, because a friend of mine was never successful in getting guardianship of a mental ill family member, no matter how bent the family member was on destroying her own life.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)and hurting people who befriended them (financially and emotionally) when they had a melt down.
It has turned from locking people up for minimal cause to not being able to do so with maximum cause. I don't have an answer beyond hindsight and that is usually painful.
It is difficult to find the balance between individual autonomy and societal need.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)legally, if you had PSAs on the T.V., ads in the paper, and a Rose Bowl float and marching band preceding his wimpy-assed BMW. And he would have plowed right into everyone in sight until he was killed. He was THAT COMMITTED and unalterable.
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)pnwmom
(108,978 posts)refused to take his prescribed anti-psychotic meds, and put up youtube videos about killing people.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)killing people?
I've know a couple men "who heard voices, showed signs of extreme paranoia, refused to take his prescribed anti-psychotic meds" but this was before youtube vids. They functioned in society but one periodically broke the law and was put away for a while when he did so.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)triggered an involuntary commitment of some limited time period for observation.
That coupled with the family asking the police to take action.
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Lots of dangerous people are perfectly sane. Should we force feed them tranquilizers or something to make sure that they don't go out and do something violent?
Neoma
(10,039 posts)Oh no I can't, help me I can't... Help but go on a murdering spree! Nooooo!
CSStrowbridge
(267 posts)It wasn't mental illness that caused this.
It was extreme misogyny.
phil89
(1,043 posts)You seem to have jumped to that conclusion despite all evidence to the contrary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Dahmer was found guilty of serial murder in a court of law. No one here is advocating that we release known psychopathic killers back into society.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)It's not an on and off switch.
Even completely free of medication therapy, someone who is schizophrenic can exist in various states of lucidity much like everyone else.
Mental illness, of all possible fields of medical study, is one of the most ambiguous and hard to explain and treat. Largely because the perception of mental illness is in absolutist rhetoric. So the person who has a psychotic disorder is "insane" or "incompetent" despite the fact that neither labels are necessarily appropriate all or even most of the time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)monitoring their medication. Particularly when it comes to those suffering with Schizophrenia....they have the best success rates with proper medications....
phil89
(1,043 posts)since there is no evidence that mental illness causes violence, there is no reason to deprive people with mental illness of their choice of treatment. Many of the medications have horrible side effects that detract from their quality of life. Your premise is flawed.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Schizophrenia being one of ten more well documented- I posted one well citied link elsewhere in this thread.
Pretending this isn't true doesn't help anyone- not those suffering with mental illness and not society around them.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I am asking because I have never heard mental health professionals make the leaps from the data that you do and am very curious how you have made the connections you make?
My first career was in nursing (prior to the birth of my children/ most of my nursing career was involved in Hospice care) ... in that career I spent three years as the nurse manager of a gero-psych unit. I do not claim to be an expert in anything, especially the field of mental health/illness. The issues involved in the geriatric population are quite different than in younger folk ... the solutions are also quite different. I could draw conclusions from my particular experience, but they would be very skewed and not reflective of the reality of mental illness in general.
I have never seen the data interpreted or conclusions drawn the way you have which leads to my curiosity
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)So yeah, my experience tends to make me look more at correlation- x groups tends to do y more often.
I've also been the one who had to respond to a lot is schizophrenic patients who were actively trying to harm people (including me) or to the aftermath of where they had.
When I see numbers such as the above that 10% of convicted murders are diagnosed with schizophrenia while the disease only affects 1% of the population, or that the murder rate of the general population is 1 in 100000 but of that same population is 1 in 10000 for schizophrenics, it is quite a startling and significant difference. Sure, there are many other factors that also can be indicative of increased likelyhood to commit a crime, criminologists study them all, but you can't deny that the statistics show that schizophrenics are much more likely than the general population to commit a violent act.
Here is another source of data:
http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html
The statistics are pretty obvious, it doesn't take an advanced degree to see there is a significant increase in propensity for violence in that population.
I am NOT saying to lock everyone with schizophrenia up, far from it. Just saying we need to acknowledge this reality and make decisions about how we go foward accordingly- for example a schizophrenia diagnoses should be something a practitioner should be required to immediately report to NICS to bar that person from buying a firearm.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)We are all influenced by our personal experience ... I would have no doubt that your experience would have brought you into contact with folk that were out of control (and that your training was that of law enforcement ... your task was not to treat or de-escalate the situation).
The data is not nearly as clear as you perceive it. How many of the violent episodes occurred during hospitalization? incarceration or during arrest? how many of the violent episodes were triggered by the acts of others (i.e. if a schizophrenic is taunted and attacked on the street, responds in a violent manner ... we both know that it will likely be the mentally ill person that is arrested and charged).
I know I provided many links that countered your interpretation, as have others.
All bets are off when alcohol and drugs (illicit) enter the equation ... whether the person is mentally ill or not ... I am positive your experience will reflect this.
The link you provide really does not say what you are purporting .....? (Dr. Matejkowski et al. are correct that he and his coauthors did not claim in their study that individuals with severe and untreated psychiatric disorders “are responsible for approximately 10% of the homicides in the United States.” )
That said, you are talking to a person that strongly believes in strict gun control ... what I do not believe in is laying the problem of violence and gun violence at the feet of the mentally ill.
Whether intended or not (I am going with it is NOT your intent) ... your posts have offended people that are slowly coming forward to share their experiences (and those of their family members) ... these are people that have witnessed the victimization of those that they love or themselves ... and having those very same people held up as the poster children for murdering psychopaths.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But we can't let sensitivity get into the way of rational discussion.
Fact is, statistics bear out, people with schizophrenia are much more likely to be convicted of assault of homicide. Some of that may lie in a higher conviction rate because they likely can't afford good representation or contribute well to their own defense, sure- but not enough to account for a 10x differential. I know many practitioners are very hesitant to actually come out and say as much for fear or stigmatizing everyone with a diagnoses, they dance around it, but the raw numbers still show it.
I am not claiming everyone with schizophrenia is a monster, or even more dangerous. I am saying that the statistics point out they are more likely to harm others, and my experience is congruent with that.
And yes, my experience different than many others. Most only experience this with one or two loved ones, seeing them all the time, where I have experienced it with dozens or more and only saw them at their worst.
FWIW, we were trained at least somewhat to de-escalate whenever possible. I wish we had more training than we got. That is a lot easier when you know going in what you are dealing with, much harder when you come across the random person in a psychotic break with no idea of their background or history or the caregivers won't give you an accurate history.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)One must look at the data ... the studies the separate concomitant substance abuse from psychiatric diagnosis do not indicate what you are saying at all. Substance use and abuse appears to be a far more predictive variable in mental disorders and the general populace.
This entire article provides a lot of insight: http://www.hdbp.org/psychiatria_danubina/pdf/dnb_vol21_no3/dnb_vol21_no3_429.pdf
(snips do not do it justice or give an entire picture)
http://psychcentral.com/archives/violence.htm
The first stereotype to go down -- permanently, we hope -- is that people who suffer from depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, an eating disorder, or any other type of mental disorder, are somehow more violent than others. This simply isn't true, unless they are involved in substance abuse. Use and abuse of substances such as drugs or alcohol is often correlated with an increase in violence anyway (e.g., due to impaired judgment).
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)I have already said that lumping all forms of mental illness together under one blanket isn't doing anyone any justice, and in this case I think the same. Your second link does just that.
A person with an eating disorder is nowhere comparable with a schizophrenic when it comes to how they interact with society.
As I said, if you can show me studies dealing just with schizophrenia that show there is no increased likelihood of violence from the disorder, I will gladly admit I am wrong. Studies that lump all persons discharged from institutions into one block don't show that.
I am still looking over the first link, I will comment back when I am finished if anything changes my mind. I am open to having my mind changed, but people just telling me I am being mean won't do it. That study seems to only focus on cases where substance abuse is combined with psychiatric disorders- something we all can agree is a dangerous mix I hope. But it also says "The prevalence of substance abuse, mainly illegal drug abuse or misuse of prescription drugs and alcohol abuse, among diagnosed psychiatric patients is 85%"- a shockingly high number to me, but if accurate it means that we with that high a rate almost have to consider the mix as likely prevalent in such patients. And this probably comes from self-medication due to lack of proper care, but it is where it is until we do something to help make it better.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I also strongly believe that substance abuse precipitates violence in those without mental illness ... in those with mental illness it is even more significant and serious. I have stated this from the very beginning.
My main objection is laying violence .... specifically gun violence at the feet of the mentally ill. The mentally are again more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Replace "schizophrenic" with "black" and while the numbers would be similar (comparing who is convicted of murder by skin color/general population), it does not necessarily mean they are more likely to commit a violent act but convicted. Are those with severe untreated mental illnesses or those with dark skin more likely to be convicted? Or are they more likely to be violent? There is a huge difference there and it depends on how you put the numbers together.
As far as inaccurate, from your link in the post i am replying to: "In the first large study carried out in the United States, it has been reported that 10 percent of all homicides are committed by individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychotic illnesses, most of whom were not being treated. " You wrote "10% of convicted murders are diagnosed with schizophrenia". Unless you pulled that quote from another source, it says "schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic illnesses, most of whom were not being treated".
I see this as one of those "lies, damned lies, statistics" thing in which you can "prove" things with those numbers.
I could be wrong but am skeptical.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If you had read the whole thing instead of cherry picking;
In the first large study carried out in the United States, it has been reported that 10 percent of all homicides are committed by individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other psychotic illnesses, most of whom were not being treated. The study was carried out by Jason Matejkowski, Sara Cullen, and Phyllis Solomon, social workers in the School of Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania. It was published in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
The authors identified everyone in the Indiana state prison system who had been convicted of homicide between 1990 and 2002, a total of 1,397 individuals. The records of a random sample of 723 of these were examined, of which 518 had sufficient information to ascertain whether or not they had received a psychiatric diagnosis. Among the 518 individuals convicted of homicide, 53, or 10.2 percent, had been diagnosed with schizophrenia (n=27), other psychotic disorders not associated with drug abuse (n=14), or bipolar disorder (n=12). An additional 42 individuals had been diagnosed with mania or major depressive disorder, for a total of 95 individuals out of the 518 studied, or 18.3 percent, having a psychiatric diagnosis.
Not inaccurate.
I am open to studies showing otherwise, but I think if we all just pretend this isn't an issue because we don't want to hurt somebodies feelings we are not doing anybody any good.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)having diagnosed mental illness, but this does not mean people with diagnosed mental illness will be homicidal. People in prison for homicide have a higher rate of having darker skin, but that does not mean people with darker skin will be homicidal.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)NIMH Director Rethinks Standard Psychiatric Treatment for Schizophrenia
Posted: 10/28/2013 4:48 pm
BY Bruce E. Levine
The director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) now recognizes what treatment reform activists have been talking about for years: People diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses are a diverse group who need diverse approaches. NIMH director Thomas Insel recently acknowledged:
It appears that what we currently call "schizophrenia" may comprise disorders with quite different trajectories. For some people, remaining on medication long-term might impede a full return to wellness. For others, discontinuing medication can be disastrous.
NIMH director Insel now agrees with treatment reform activists that many people diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses could be better served by a more selective and limited use of drugs and more diverse treatments. Such an approach has been utilized in Finland, which has produced the best long-term outcomes in the developed world.
Drug companies have profited enormously from the current standard treatment protocol that calls for lifetime antipsychotic medication after a single psychotic episode. Because of this treatment protocol and the increasing use of antipsychotic drugs for nonpsychotic conditions, antipsychotics grossed over $18 billion a year in the United States by 2011. The antipsychotic Abilify became the highest grossing of all drugs in the first quarter of 2013, and it is on track to gross $6 billion this year (entire corporations that only grossed approximately $5 billion last year include Facebook and Yahoo).
For several decades, mental health treatment reform activists, comprised of mental health professionals (including those at the International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry) and "psychiatric survivors" (who themselves had received nonproductive and counterproductive treatments), have been engaged in an uphill battle for truly informed choice -- that includes multiple options which reflect the diversity of the population diagnosed with schizophrenia and other psychoses.
<>
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22266-psychiatry-now-admits-its-been-wrong-in-big-ways-but-can-it-change
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/14/psychiatrys-manufacture-of-consent
“It is always refreshing to find someone who stands at the edge of his profession and dissects its failures with a critical eye, refusing to be deceived by its pretensions. Bruce Levine condemns the cold, technological approach to mental health and, to our benefit, looks for deeper solutions.”
-Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States
Very fascinating, IMO.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)You can't judge all mentally ill people based on one person's actions. Or, even a few mentally ill people. It's far too complicated for such simplistic platitudes.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... to support someone's twisted agenda.
"I would like to kindly ask the bigots who blame people like my brother to fuck off." ... I would like to ask them to do the same thing!
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)The trouble is due process and privacy issues.
No one is claiming that all mentally ill people are dangerous, but some are and there are professional who know who they are.
Blaming the NRA for not advocating for mental health issues is ridiculous.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If the NRA were not making an issue of mental illness then I would not expect them to stand up for the mentally ill, but when they scapegoat the mentally ill and do nothing to help those who have mental illness then they need to be called out.
People with mental illness are no more likely to be dangerous than the general population, there are also plenty of people who are not mentally ill but are known to be dangerous by professionals.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)I understand that those concerned with helping the mentally ill are worried about broad brush blame and discrimination, but one can still talk about trying to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people with mental health issues without damaging the civil rights/liberties of the rest of the mentally ill or gun owners.
Do you really want to the NRA advocating for the mentally ill? You want Ted Nugent on your side?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The NRA and their ilk want to lay gun violence in the US at the feet of mentally ill citizens.
I have grudgingly come to accept that it is possible to be liberal and also really 'like your guns." (I respectfully will agree to disagree and will continue to vote my conscience and donate my money to those that support my goals). It is not possible to be liberal and support the NRA.
The NRA has very successfully trotted out the "mentally ill meme" in the wake of every highly publicized gun tragedy. There is no evidence to suggest the mentally ill play a significant part in gun violence in the US (with the exception of suicide by gun, which I do consider part of gun violence and mental illness).
Something to keep in mind:
Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada.3 Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)There are legitimate questions about the relationship of mental illness in mass murders. And it not just the NRA that speaks of this issue.
No one is claiming that mental illness is behind all or most general violence.
You say that no one has blamed the NRA for not advocating for mental health issues, but there it is in the OP:
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The NRA appears to support databases of the mentally ill (providing a clear scapegoat) vs actually caring about "the mentally ill. This is trotted out by the NRA routinely.
In his Friday morning news conference, National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre floated the idea of a national registry of the mentally ill as one way to stem gun violence.
"How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?" he asked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/21/the-nra-wants-an-active-mental-illness-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now/
Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy in May 2007, Rachel Brand of the Department of Justice stated that, “In addition to the databases searched by the NICS, State databases may also be checked by [Point of Contact (POC)] States for disqualifying information. These State databases include the State’s own criminal history records, which generally have more complete information on arrest dispositions, including information on whether the charges were dismissed or the person was convicted of the arrest charge or some different charge. POC States may also check State records that have not been provided to the FBI on individuals who have a disqualifying mental health record or are under a domestic violence restraining order.” That same month, a report by the organization Third Way entitled “Missing Records” found that the NICS database was missing millions of records that should disqualify individuals from purchasing firearms, including ¼ of felony conviction records and nine out of ten disqualifying mental health records.
http://vacps.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:nra-seeks-to-weaken-background-check-system-in-virginia&catid=36:posts
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)But you're right that its not in their interest to restrict guns from everyone just to help keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill who would use them.
It will help to improve the existing system of including mentally ill in NICS (e.g., missing records), but also expand them to include people whose mental illness makes them dangerous. Again, due process and privacy are tricky issues here.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I believe in due process for the mentally ill, even when it comes to guns. Yet, since VT, controllers have called for better data collection in NICS, and have called for psych evaluations to get licenses. Screw the NRA. Most pro2A DUers have stood up for the due process rights of the mentally ill, even at the "cost" of receiving hide-proof smears for our position. Frankly, some controllers here need to firm up a consistent position on due process.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)(I make no secret about my personal opposition to guns, my position on ALL folk that are gun enthusiasts has evolved).
I do not believe in registries for folk with mental illnesses ... period. It is well studied and well documented that people with mental illnesses are no more prone to violence than the general populace.
In general the use and abuse of drugs/alcohol are far greater predictor of violence than mental illness is (I am not suggesting that those that drink alcohol are violent, but alcohol abuse and addiction a greater predictor than mental illness).
I think the NRA is clearly being disingenuous in their campaign and unduly stigmatizing the mentally ill. It deflects from larger issues associated with guns and attempts to discourage any talks related to common sense regulations associated with guns. There is ground between free and unfettered access to all guns and ammunition and banning guns.
Clearly, databases of the mentally ill will further stigmatize the illness and will likely have the effect of reducing those seeking treatment Do you really think that people would be inclined to seek help if the help will land them on a database?
The issues of mental health and guns are two separate and distinct issues, they do occasional intersect in tragic and horrible ways (I count suicide by gun as a tragic intersection , as well) ... what form of due process will actually be helpful in this scenario?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)on the subject of psychological evaluations being given to all citizens prior to obtaining a gun (presumably to meet equal protection concerns). This evaluation would also presumably have due process protections; right to counsel, hearing, appeal, etc. should the citizen object to a negative finding. What do you think about that?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)(again I hate guns, blah, blah, blah)
I want sensible gun restrictions based on guns ... not some boogeyman (mental illness, etc)
While I believe your guns should be registered and tracked ... I do NOT believe your mind and psychological well being is the government's or anyone else's business (for purposes of anything but receiving assistance and treatment).
At any given point in time 1/4 of the US population suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder (depression, anxiety and serious mental illness) ... what do we then?
I do not think the mentally ill "should" have guns (importantly including depressed folk, because again, suicide is part of the gun violence tragedy) ... but linking America's problems to mental illness serves only to stigmatize a group of folk and will do nothing to stem the problem of violence in the US.
Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada.3 Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)an evaluation prior to purchase/licensing would really provide a code to prevent the stuff people say they want to prevent. I don't brook registration of arms, though as a practical matter some agency somewhere in our government probably has a detailed list of gun-owners. Funny how the NSA-era makes paranoia so hum-drum.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)We are all already on a list for something
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)A lot of people are tired of how we broad brush many people and sell fear.
We make out every gun owner to be a 'gun humper' who is going to kill anyone everyday now (when less than one percent use their guns to harm anyone). We are sure most males are just sexist guys who hate women and belong to local chapters of mra anonymous. We hear how muslims are all terrorists just waiting to blow us all up or convert us and how christians are even worse (It's ok though to say it about one group, that's not hate, just facts you see).
So yeah, I could go on an on about how we talk about folks because of their race (well, one race), gender, personal choices, etc and so on - but this is DU. A place which oozes compassion and shoots down biases and bigotry...well, sometimes. Other times we just love it and run with it.
So bigotry against the mentally ill? If greater than 0 percent are involved we can find stories everyday of how someone with a mental illness did something bad and post it here. That's not bigotry or hate, it's just facts. I am sure there are 365 crimes a year we can attribute to someone with a mental illness, shouldn't be too hard to whip up some hate in fear in the ole progressive style 
Response to The Straight Story (Reply #10)
Post removed
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Christians and Islam are a choice, same still applies.
And, uh, no I wouldn't post stories like that everyday because I do know it is bigoted.
Point was, no one else seems to care about such bigotry when it applies to others. Why is that and why do we put it up with it all?
Funny how that works.
1000words
(7,051 posts)As a juror, I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the last one:
===========================================
On Sun May 25, 2014, 03:52 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I have a brother with schizophrenia, fuck you for trying to call mental illness the problem
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4999092
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Personal attack
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun May 25, 2014, 04:01 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree that mental illness shouldn't be stigmatized (as one with my own personal history, and advocacy), but do not agree with the foul language. Completely unnecessary.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: wtf?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Poster needs to calm down. Really, this post should not be hidden because we need to face all the issues squarely whether we agree or not. Maybe try not to take it so personally. Sometimes, the mentally ill are not easy for families or communities to deal with. We have to work together.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
==================================
Please find a more civil way to express yourself, mkay?
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)That's all I'm allowed to say.
Just...ugh.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Nobody blames all of the mentally ill. It seems to be a part of the consideration in who does a crime. We tend to think a person has to be mentally ill to do a thing like that.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)And, of course, the violently mentally ill constitute a very small proportion of that group.
There is little or no correlation between mental illness and violence. Scapegoating violence on mental illness reflects a general ignorance of the field of mental health. While this persons crimes may have been a consequence of his mental health issues, that doesn't mean we can point at those who suffer from mental illness and call them all violent. Far from it, actually. The VAST majority of people who have mental health issues are non-violent.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)discussing these things is around incidents is like here.
But my reactions were honestly coming from reading his bio and his behavior. It is so similar to behavior I grew up watching, and have seen again recntly. I am very saddened too many people cannot get good treatment, that options are so limited. Stigma is part of it too, I know that as well as you do.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I can see that whatever you said you are at least thinking about it however and your response to me was kind so whatever you said I won't hold it against you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)subject has a lot more - or different - political angles than I have considered in light of events like this. But I had a "there but for a roll of the dice" moment. Meant no harm, just speaking from my own experience. Sorry if it was ill timed, but it is unlikely I'd have posted about it if this tragedy had not happened. Wishing you and yours well.
klook
(12,155 posts)And I've had relatives with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses who'd never murder or harm anyone.
for you and your brother
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I had posted Michael Moore's recent statement on the Santa Barbara shootings, and this is the piece of crap comment I received from a female lawyer who's on the state Democratic Committee:
"The mass shooting are all done by men who are on or in the process of trying to get off psych meds. We are 5% of the world's population but we consume 80% of the world's psych meds. Psych meds can cause people who have no suicidal or homicidal tendencies into mass killers. Don't blame the NRA for this unless you are willing to blame the true culprits, Big Pharma and the unscrupulous doctors."
My jaw hit the floor! I'd never heard this preposterous spin before - blame the mentally ill, the doctors who treat them and the drug companies who sell anti-psychotic drugs. Now I see from this thread that the NRA is pushing this shit big time. Meanwhile, in the real world, the majority of NRA members FAVOR many kinds of regulations which NRA leaders oppose.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/gun_owners_vs_nra_leadership_salpart/
www.salon.com
Gun owners vs. NRA leadership(Headline)
NRA members feel our gun laws should protect our families, not the financial interests of a clique of elites (subheadline)
Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, is a con man. He has spent decades enriching himself, his fellow NRA executives and the organization’s board members by doing what he does best: shamelessly mainstreaming conspiracy theories that lead an increasingly paranoid subset of Americans (the percent of households owing guns has declined dramatically over the past generation) to arm themselves to the teeth, while ensuring any laws that might prevent the horrifying tragedy that occurred in Aurora, Colorado Friday morning are unable to make it through Congress.
LaPierre talks of gun confiscation being just around the corner, when he knows no such thing would ever happen in the United States. The irredeemably violent make good customers too, don’t you know? So whether the NRA is working to restore gun rights to violent felons, protect the ability of terrorists, drug kingpins and serial domestic abusers to purchase high-capacity clips at gun shows, or fighting for military style weapons to be available to the Jared Loughners, John Patrick Bedells and James Holmes’ of the world, you can bet that whatever comes out of LaPierre’s mouth, his only interest is protecting the real clients of today’s NRA: arms dealers.
This is made crystal-clear by the fact that the NRA’s own membership, many of whom joined only because of an outdated understanding of what the leadership of this organization actually stands for, agree with most Americans that our gun laws should protect our families, and not the financial interests of a clique of craven elites.
Here are five key issues that divide the LaPierres at the top of the NRA food chain from their 3 million (or 4 million, depending upon the press release that day) members: (1) Gun Show Loophole; (2) Terror Gap; (3) Tiahart Amendments; (4) Reporting Lost & Stolen Guns; (5) Sharing records w/ National Instant Background Check System.
(The article spells out details for each)
So there you have it. Five measures, none of which would violate the very broad reading of the Second Amendment recently given by ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; all of which would have an immediate impact in terms of making our families safer, in a country where 34 people are murdered by guns every day–or one Virginia Tech every single day of the year.
thucythucy
(8,052 posts)their constitutional right to own however many weapons and all the ammo they want, without restriction, and are absolutely opposed to "infringing" on the "rights" of "law abiding gun owners" in any way shape or form, have NO problem talking about locking people up pre-emptively, without charge or trial, indefinitely, on the word of a doctor, family member, or cop.
It's part of the same pattern: all rights pale beside the right to own guns guns guns. The right to walk down the street, go to a movie, attend a town hall meeting with your Congresswoman, or simply BE a person of color walking at night or BE a woman attending college, these all apparently fade to insignificance beside the sacred right to own guns.
End of rant, except to say I find the five proposals in your post totally reasonable.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)My god, for a time it seemed the only folks defending due process for the mentally ill WERE PRO-2A people on DU! Now you want to sell that old clunker you owned. Sorry, I ain't buying.
thucythucy
(8,052 posts)with the right to walk around if you haven't committed a crime.
Should you be denied a gun and heaps of ammo if you have mental health issues or a mental health history? Yup.
Should you be locked up indefinitely for the same reason, without a criminal charge, as the alternative to imposing something resembling a sane gun policy? Nope.
See, it's simple. Now I have to call up some of my friends and family in Section 8 housing to tell them how endangered they are, because, you know, none of them own guns.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)on protecting the rights of the mentally ill. Give an "evaluation," deny a right. You mention Nothing about what someone can do should they fail your test. Why is that? Is your threshold for denial of due process met only by going to prison? Very weak indeed.
I'm not as paternalistic. People in Section 8 housing are adults who can make up their own minds about SD. And they don't need an elitist legal structure who would deny that choice -- even before they are "evaluated."
thucythucy
(8,052 posts)I might need a gun to protect myself, to arguing that we're all rational by default and therefore should all have the right to stockpile weapons and ammo endlessly, regardless of mental health history or issues?
Here's an OP that might interest you on mental illness. Oddly enough the poster argues for "better gun control." She therefore obviously isn't as interested in the rights of people with mental disabilities as you are, right?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024998025
"Evaluated" in quotes. Because, you know, "mental illness" evidently isn't an "issue" that should deny anyone their "rights" to lethal weaponry.
As for "due process"--absolutely, access to legal counsel, the right to appeal, whatever. The process should be as fair as possible, allowing equal protection as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Then again, if I flunk my driver's test, it's hardly unjust for me to be denied a driver's license. Or is it?
As for "simple" answers being wrong, what could be more simple than allowing most anyone to buy a gun, and let the possible consequences be damned? Especially since, as you say, most of the gun violence occurs in neighborhoods you're able to avoid, enabling you to sleep so well at night. How fortunate for you that the hundreds of millions of guns sloshing around our society are of so little consequence for your own safety.
For the rest of us, not so much.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)and mine is no exception. I can better appreciate your stand on due process now that you've fleshed it out, though I have my doubts concerning a uniform "evaluation:" Exercising a protected right is much more fundamental than the "privilege" of driving a car on public roads. And a judge may ask: "Why a test for this right but not for any others?" Some may think the answer obvious, but others may wonder: "Who is in charge of the test revision this session?" How I've seen the field of psychology's terms and descriptors used as moral bludgeons against others gives me scant hope the "evaluation" process won't be used as another choke point for gun bans. And quickly, too.
I still favor tangible evidence from a mental health pro, submitted in a legal setting. The case of the VT shooter comes to mind. He was flagged, and findings were supposed to be sent to NICS. The info never got there because of Virginia's bureaucracy, even though that state was second-best at getting the data to NICS. The best state? CA.
Thank you for this discussion.
thucythucy
(8,052 posts)would have a far greater impact on their lives than not being able to buy a gun. Unless you're lucky enough to live in an area that has mass transit, or can walk or bike to work, losing your license for any period of time means losing your job. And your ability to shop. Or see a doctor or dentist. Or probably even go out on a date. Not having a license makes you hugely dependent on others--not the best position to be in at all.
Losing your gun? Well, unless you make your living with it, legally or not, it's hardly the same impact, "right" or not.
And I highly doubt any judge is going to argue, out of the blue, "why a test for this right but not others?" That just sounds to me like more gun-owner paranoia. Hardly likely, especially given how many judges have been appointed by right wingers, or elected from red districts.
But I agree, probably a sort of competency hearing, with the ability to cross-examine expert witnesses and call your own, plus a right to counsel, and an appeals process, would be better than a standard form evaluation.
I think what would work best of all is a) registration of all firearms, without exception b) licensing of firearms owners, along with mandatory safety training and possibly owner's insurance, all coupled with a system that enables law enforcement to impound the guns of those identified as being an immediate threat. In the case of the most recent atrocity, the police should have known this guy was armed when they went to question him, and should have been able to seize his weapons on an emergency basis, subject to a subsequent competency hearing. I haven't been following the news today, so perhaps I'm missing part of the story, but it sounds like the police who interviewed him didn't know he had a weapon, and also weren't aware of the seriousness of the situation. The shooter himself said in his "manifesto" that if the police had actually entered his apartment it would have been "game over."
BTW, I've had personal experience with the mental health system, and have seen it at its best and its worst. If I had to choose between losing my right to own a firearm, or being pre-emptively incarcerated--even with various due process protections--I'd give up the firearm any day of the week, 2nd amendment arguments notwithstanding.
I'm glad this discussion happened. Didn't mean to jump all over you (well, not entirely...) but these are very sad events for all concerned.
Best wishes
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)So true and sadly, so predictable.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Locrian
(4,522 posts)And the reason for this is because one of these makes gobs of money and the other doesn't.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Not just from violence but people looking for easy targets to take advantage of them for their own personal benefit.
1monster
(11,012 posts)Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)
try to single out those with sociopathic tendencies.
Not all of those who have mental illnesses are sociopathic. Conversely, NOT all of those who are sociopathic are considered mentally ill.
ON EDIT: I left out a very important word in this post. 
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)And even back in the day, most people diagnosed with sociopathy weren't violent. Manipulative, remorseless, lacking in guilt or a conscience, completely without empathy -- but not violent.
The highest incidence of violence within any given mental health diagnostic category is actually for drug and alcohol users and abusers.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922980/
The idea that most violence is perpetrated by mentally ill persons is WRONG. Most violence is perpetrated by perfectly sane persons who happen to think that violence is a good idea. Stupid, amoral, seriously fucked up? Yup. Diagnosably mentally ill? For the most part, no.
1monster
(11,012 posts)what I meant... I've corrected it to read that not all sociopaths are mentally I'll... Also, I'm not using "sociopath" as a diagnosis; just as a person without a sense moral responsibility or a social conscience.
As for the nonviolence of sociopaths, that's another subject for another thread.
Warpy
(111,261 posts)The brain is the only organ in the human body that is treated like a moral failure when something goes wrong inside it. Depressives are told to snap out of it and get back to work, schizophrenics are told the hallucinations aren't real and to ignore them and get back to work and so it goes, ad nauseum.
it's why mental health is so underfunded and ignored in this country, the moralists who think it's a choice.
It's not.
mopinko
(70,107 posts)especially if mom is a bitch, which is where most shrinks throw up their hands. even with clear cut symptoms.
physical causes are rarely considered
cook county juvenile authorities are trying much harder to examine past concussions, full physicals and med history, including er visits, duh, and the impact of trauma.
its a big step.
as is obamacare.
which i wish some were talking about here.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)first half of your first sentence to sum it in a nutshell. well, you shouldn't have needed to, but this being DU, you probably had to 
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)step down, in what the "MEDIA" called a scandal, because he had been hospitalized for depression.
That was 1972, and the ignorance of mental illness is still as bad as it was back then
jabari0q
(2 posts)We must be honest with ourselves about this issue.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)...
rustydog
(9,186 posts)"Amurika needs EVEN MORE GUNZZZ!" Wayne LaPierre is probably jerking off as he practices his vitriolic response to this latest tragedy. Oh and don't forget to renew your NRA membership, they are pertectin yur 2nd amendment RIGHTS!!
The debate is exactly what the NRA prays to their twisted, fucked-up God for... turning American against American who are tired of their loved ones being destroyed by senseless firearm violence.
The OP has a point, but I do not know his brother and do not blame his brother. I do not know who has blamed his brother for this problem. the NRA loves these distracting, divisive insane arguments defending a loved-one or someone they know with a disability rather than discussing the problem. Guns. Guns and the insane number of them in America.
If we were to make a credible attempt at true gun control, maybe the number of killings would drop.
The NRA is Not Relevant Anymore...we should make them so and address the true problem. Guns in America, not Americans suffering from psychiatric disorders.
But I am compelled to ask: Who is blaming your brother?
thucythucy
(8,052 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)madville
(7,410 posts)If they really want to hurt people they will find a way but it would be best to limit their access to firearms.
Neoma
(10,039 posts)The mentally ill population is not more likely to be violent than how everyone else is. It'd be like saying all gay people shouldn't own guns because one of them used one once. Your statement sounds as ridiculous as that.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Some, not all but some, mental illness's are documented and proven to bring with them a much greater propensity toward violent behavior toward others.
Certainly not all. Heck I am diagnosed with ADHD, and I know that brings a propensity for some things- I am more likely to get sidetracked, I start things and never finish them unless it's something with a deadline, I always wait until the last minute to finish stuff. But that doesn't pose a danger to others or society.
But certain diagnosis that we understand and are scientifically proven to make a person more prone toward violent behavior- be it routine, or only in certain periods when they have breaks or other issues.
That is reality- some people are, based on brain chemistry or whatever else causes the mental illness, more prone to harm others.
To stick your head in the sand and pretend this isn't true is exactly what the people around way too many of these people do. And it doesn't end well.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The studies I have seen link drug and alcohol abuse and addiction to a propensity toward violence in the mentally ill and the general populace.
Historically, society (this means you!) has perceived people with mental disorders as being more violent and dangerous than normal folks. People have this image of someone who is "crazy" as being more inclined to acting on those thoughts and causing mayhem and destruction. This has always been a part of the stigma associated with the mentally ill, and one which has been especially difficult to successfully deal with. It is difficult because when it comes to a person's own feelings of safety and security (mixed in with our innate fear response), we tend to be very conservative. "If I ignore that crazy person, then they won't harm me!" Luckily, the proof that people with mental disorders -- such as depression, schizophrenia, and anxiety -- has finally been published.
A study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that:
[...] patients discharged from psychiatric facilities who did not abuse alcohol and illegal drugs had a rate of violence no different than that of their neighbors in the community. Substance abuse raised the rate of violence both among discharged psychiatric patients and among non-patients. However, a higher portion of discharged patients than of others in their neighborhoods reported having symptoms of substance abuse, and -- at least when they first got out of the hospital --substance abuse was more likely to lead to violence among discharged patients than among non-patients.
Significantly, this contradicts one of central perceptions of mental illness within society today. Unless drugs or alcohol are involved, people with mental disorders do not pose any more threat to the community than anyone else. This finding cannot be emphasized enough.
http://psychcentral.com/archives/violence.htm
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)There is a correlation between having a schizophrenic syndrome and increased rates of antisocial behaviour in general and violence in particular (Hodgins, 1992; Hodgins et al, 1996; Wallace et al, 1998; Angermeyer, 2000; Arsenault et al, 2000; Walsh et al, 2001). The evidence that such associations are not just statistically but clinically and socially significant is now overwhelming (Hodgins & Müller-Isberner, 2004). Why, if the connection is so clear, has it not been widely recognised by clinicians and service planners? Equally puzzling, why have so many researchers and reviewers in the field (myself on occasion included) either obfuscated or minimised the importance of the correlations to the point of irrelevance?
Studies suggest that in prisons throughout the Western world 5–10% of those awaiting trial for murder will have a schizophrenic disorder (Table 1?. The true figure for the rates of schizophrenia among homicide offenders is likely to be at the higher end of these estimates, as nearly all the studies have systematic biases that underestimate the level of the association. The study of Taylor & Gunn (1984a,b), which remains one of the most methodologically robust, concluded that 11% of homicide offenders and 9% found guilty of non-fatal violence had schizophrenia. Follow-up studies of large numbers of people with schizophrenia confirm the high levels of violent offending (Soyka et al, 2004; Wallace et al, 2004; Vevera et al, 2005; Swanson et al, 2006).
Source:
http://m.apt.rcpsych.org/content/12/4/239.full
Most mental diagnosis don't indicate that the person is more likely to harm others- but there are indeed some that do. Pretending that isn't true and calling everybody who points it out a bigot certainly doesn't help.
phil89
(1,043 posts)from those articles that schizophrenia is predictive of violence? And you are in the mental health field? I must be misreading your post.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)That schizophrenics are statistically much more likely to be violent than the general population.
Read this again:
Conversely, clinicians may never see a patient who has committed a homicide or serious act of interpersonal violence. Up to 10% of homicide offenders may have schizophrenia, but the annual risk that a person with schizophrenia will commit a homicide is in the region of 1 in 10 000 and that of acquiring conviction for violence is 1 in 150 (Wallace et al, 2004). The apparent paradox is because serious violence, and homicide in particular, is far rarer in our community than most realise. The annual homicide rate in the UK is about 1 in 100 000, so even a tenfold increase in risk among those with schizophrenia will not necessarily affect the individual clinician, although it most certainly will affect the community as a whole.
10x more likely to commit a violent act is a HUGE increase in propensity for violence.
Can you show me any studies showing these numbers are wrong?
phil89
(1,043 posts)Where is the correlation? What percentage of murderers are religious or have diabetes? Are these predictive as well? The biggest factors in violent behavior are being male and abusing substances/being exposed to violence. Schizophrenia cannot be shown to be a cause of violence.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... that includes the mentally ill and everyone else. To brand an entire group of folk as having a propensity by diagnosis is disingenuous, at best.
Sadly, the best predictor of violence, whether mentally ill/ or the general populace appears to be substance abuse and addiction (alcoholism being in the forefront). The propensity for violence and aggression is not "muddy" in this case ... there is not conflicting or "qualifying data" ... there are very clear links between drug and alcohol addiction and violence and aggression.
With that said the last damn thing someone with mental illness "should" do is use and/or abuse drugs and alcohol.
Today many researchers consider the prediction of dangerousness to be one of the most important issues in both criminal and civil matters nationwide. Despite the pervasiveness of violence risk assessment in the law it has been known for a very long time that clinicians are not very good at predicting violence. Early research on the accuracy of predicting violent behavior was reviewed by Monahan (1981). In one study, researchers were unable to predict nearly two-thirds of the violent crime that ultimately occurred and nearly two- thirds of the persons whom they predicted would be violent were not. Recent research continues to indicate that the unaided abilities of mental health professionals to predict violence are modest at best (Monahan, 1981, 2001). When psychologists and psychiatrists make long-term predictions of violence, most often they overestimate the likelihood that patient will be violent (Eccleston & Ward, 2004). On the other hand, studies suggest that short-term predictions of imminent violence are more accurate (Binder, 1999). Recently the science has improved considerably and shows considerable promise in accurately predicting dangerousness as researchers have developed new statistical approaches that are more objective than the subjective judgments of clinicians (Monahan, 2005).
http://www.lacba.org/showpage.cfm?pageid=8032
Substance abuse significantly raises the rate of violence in people with schizophrenia but also in people who do not have any mental illness. People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms, which can become worse if medications are discontinued, may also be at higher risk for violent behavior. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/schizophrenia-and-violence/000711
Alcohol, Violence, and Aggression
Scientists and nonscientists alike have long recognized a two-way association between alcohol consumption and violent or aggressive behavior (1). Not only may alcohol consumption promote aggressiveness, but victimization may lead to excessive alcohol consumption. Violence may be defined as behavior that intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, physical harm. Violence falls within the broader category of aggression, which also includes behaviors that are threatening, hostile, or damaging in a nonphysical way (2). This Alcohol Alert explores the association between alcohol consumption, violence, and aggression and the role of the brain in regulating these behaviors. Understanding the nature of these associations is essential to breaking the cycle of alcohol misuse and violence.
Extent of the Alcohol-Violence Association
Based on published studies, Roizen (3) summarized the percentages of violent offenders who were drinking at the time of the offense as follows: up to 86 percent of homicide offenders, 37 percent of assault offenders, 60 percent of sexual offenders, up to 57 percent of men and 27 percent of women involved in marital violence, and 13 percent of child abusers. These figures are the upper limits of a wide range of estimates. In a community-based study, Pernanen (4) found that 42 percent of violent crimes reported to the police involved alcohol, although 51 percent of the victims interviewed believed that their assailants had been drinking.
Alcohol-Violence Relationships
Several models have been proposed to explain the complex relationships between violence or aggression and alcohol consumption. To avoid exposing human or animal subjects to potentially serious injury, research results discussed below are largely based on experiments on nonphysical aggression. Other studies involving humans are based on epidemiological surveys or data obtained from archival or official sources.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa38.htm
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)with a history of mental illness with family members who own guns?
I have a history going back 40+ years. I'm also married to a retired cop who owns guns.
Should his guns be taken away because of my history?
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)the vast majority of whom have no propensity for violence whatsoever. And the majority of murders are committed by people of supposedly sound mind.
Most mental health diagnoses - including the more "severe" ones - are made rather casually by private practitioners, not by any legal proceeding. Are you advocating that anyone with such a diagnosis should be deprived of their rights? That would be a disaster, not just on civil liberties grounds but because it would discourage many people who need help from seeking it out.
Please keep in mind that suicide claims far more American lives every year than all the mass shootings combined. Any law that deters people from seeking help could well kill more people than it saves.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Mentally ill does not mean violent or prone to violence any more than being on a widely prescribed anti-psychotic means that you have a psychosis. That Rodger was mentally disturbed around the time of his rampage says nothing except that, like any spree killer, he was emotionally and mentally unable to connect with his victims.The trouble was that any problems that Rodger suffered had led him into a toxic community which affirmed the fantasies he was having, perhaps even adding other layers to such fantasies and it is in that community that the roots of Rodger’s acts lie.
This vile group asserts a belief that “real” men have sex by the time they are “X” years old and that failure to do so either means the celibate is somehow deficient or there is some external agency depriving the man of his rights. Nothing is the fault of the man; it is all a plot against him. Given this base assumption of faultlessness it is not surprising that the MRA/PUA/InCel community is in denial – probably even denying that they had any duty to advise the police about this man’s descent into violent fantasy.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)of mental health issues myself, I still have a bit of trouble with part of what you posted:
I agree with the first part, that the vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent.
But the second part...that's the problem.
To agree with that, one would have to believe that well-adjusted individuals are running around committing violent crimes.
It takes a sick, sick person to be able to do some of the really heinous things that have been done.
So, just in case anyone misunderstands what I'm saying here...I believe that not all mentally ill people commit violent crimes, but most, if not all, violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness...and that includes people who have something physically wrong with their brains. It's still an illness.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And it is far more complex than that.
Schizophrenia is not the same as OCD or Autism or depression or ADHD.
Just saying "mental illness" casts way to wide a net. Each diagnosis is different and carrys it's own symptoms. Some mean you pose a greater risk to people around you, most don't.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)at the same time, IMO.
For example, cancer and diabetes are two different conditions.
But they are both diseases of the body.
I'm using the definition of disease that has as its synonyms the words:
synonyms: illness, sickness, ill health;
infection, ailment, malady, disorder, complaint, affliction, condition, indisposition, upset, problem, trouble, infirmity, disability, defect, abnormality;
pestilence, plague, cancer, canker, blight;
informalbug, virus;
IOW, anything outside the parameters of the "norm".
So, even though conditions like cancer, diabetes, pneumonia, arthritis, hypothyroidism, etc., different from one another, they're still in a larger category called "disease".
Wouldn't it make sense to say the same about anything involving the mind? Different from each other, but still outside the boundaries of what's considered normal and functional...
Dysfunctional.
Disease
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Last edited Mon May 26, 2014, 04:01 PM - Edit history (2)
with many different permutations and levels of severity. On the other hand, a number of recent mass shooters appear to have been suffering from depression of one kind or another, not schizophrenia.
All of these diagnoses are far too broad to predict individual behavior. Singling out sufferers of a particular diagnosis as especially "abnormal" and "dangerous" will only stigmatize them further and discourage people from getting the treatment they need.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Most violent crimes are committed by perfectly sane people who commit them for economic gain or because they've gotten themselves into a situation where violence is a means of promoting their self interest. Stuff like muggings, robbery, criminal dealings gone awry, witness intimidation/killing, drug dealing turf wars, etc. These are not mentally ill people. These are people who use violence toward a rational albeit illegal end. These things happen daily in major metripolitan areas and usually fail to get much attention beyond a brief story in the news.
The "really heinous things that have been done" are less frequent but attract way more attention. I suspect they attract more attention because while most of the violence seems to be the kind of thing that you can dramatically decrease your chances of suffering by being cautious and "keeping out of trouble", there specter of being randomly victimized by someone on a spree seems less easily preventable. Of course a lot of the victims of "normal" crimes are hapless victims of circumstance as well.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)And the mentally ill also have a greater chance of becoming victims of violence. Not least at the hands of the police.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)very good
nolabels
(13,133 posts)But more the way people think to solve their problems. If you don't think something is good or correct, deal with it till you can find a better answer. The word schizophrenia is sometimes used like kind of like a big boogie man label they will paste on people when they can't figure out how to get them to be the way society wants. I was diagnosed with schizophrenia thirty-five years ago but have since learned it is much more complex than that and what ever those that want to use that word think it is.
You might also want to consider that people who go off the deep end are probably dealing with the problems they have through the instincts and hereditary make up they already have and were born with. You would never be able to stop that so you might figure out some better way of dealing with it. It all comes back to idea that everyone is separate from each other. We are not, when we turn our backs on others it might hurt us then, it might hurt later and or indirectly, or even the old Karma thing might kick in somehow (seen that, done that, it's not always pretty or good either ).
We don't get better by shutting people out, caging them and ignoring them, we just get worse. As far as guns and weapons go, i believe people who need them probably have something loose inside themselves and haven't found a way to deal with it.
And no I haven't taken my meds today and have missed them ever since they they let me out.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)They are kind, peaceful, value creating and many are high-functioning people in society you would never guess are schizophrenic. People full of fear cannot reason through and see what's dangerous and what's not. There is light and darkness in everything and everybody, so there is potential danger in anything and everything. And that potential rarely becomes an actual event. So living in fear of that potential is just not a good way to live.
tclambert
(11,086 posts)He claimed that "community-based facilities" would do a better job. Turned out the "community-based facilities" weren't church-run or charity-run or any such. They were jails and prisons. Seems like the prisons cost more per inmate than mental health hospitals cost per patient. So . . . what was the real point? Just to look tough by not showing any compassion for the less fortunate?
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)You are so right about his prescription for mental illness: Jail/ Prison
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)However, since the NRA sells more guns by making us more afraid, of course they want us to view the mentally ill as some kind of dangerous zombie straight out of Resident Evil. That way even more people will buy more guns.
