OK, who else is sick of the demonization of the mentally ill following shootings?

[backscatter712]

I am, because the issue is personal for me.

I've suffered from depression, I have friends who suffer from mental illness, and I lost a nephew to suicide.

Every time there's a mass shooting, the NRA blood profiteers and the GOP bags of dicks have a few tactics to deflect discussion away from the easy availability of firearms in the U.S.

They have their front groups (starring Alex Jones) cook up batshit conspiracy theories about Obama, the New World Order, and an alleged upcoming gun crackdown, with things like Jade Helm, martial law, FEMA camps, and so on. The idea is to scare the shit out of the gullible, poison the well of any discussion of gun safety legislation, and drum up sales. And judging by the spikes in gun sales after shootings, it works.

But also, they always demonize the mentally ill. When people want to talk about legislative action to stop gun violence, the first thing they do is talk about the shooter. Why do you think that FOX "News" constantly drops the name of the shooter, over and over and over and over, when everyone with some sense keeps saying "Stop saying that scumbag's name! Stop giving him infamy!"? Because they want us to talk about how these shootings are done by "crazies", and how instead of discussing gun safety regulation, we need to talk about what society is going to do about the Crazies In Our Midst!

They do this because "If it bleeds, it leads", and they don't want to talk about a solution that would damage the profitability of a multi-billion dollar industry that feeds their politicians. Wouldn't want that. So, instead of having a sensible discussion of what research suggests is the best way to curb the gun violence death toll, we have our mainscream media. the National Riflemaker's Association, and the GOP Clown Car bags of dicks blaming mental illness, and in the process, increasing the stigma the mentally ill face, discouraging them from seeking help, and letting that problem fester.

Never mind that the research suggests that most mentally ill people are not violent, and most violent people aren't in serious distress from mental illness. The correlation is not there.

So, if you think the solution to gun violence is to feed a moral panic that has half the country running around like idiots, and making hell of the lives of the most vulnerable among us, kindly kiss my ass. Any questions?

[TipTok]

1. By definition, a person who is capable and willing to shoot up a classroom...

... is not well adjusted and has some sort of dysfunction.

No one with all their ducks in a row goes out and shoots up a kindergarten classroom...

Does it mean that they are Looney Tunes and don't know the difference between right and wrong or that their actions are inappropriate? No...

There is still something wrong with them in their head...

[paulkienitz]

47. but that is a completely different case from the typical mental healthcare patient

What's wrong with killers can usually be summed up not as brain pathologies, but as attachment to bad ideas. Fanaticism and groupthink produce more killers than any DSM-IV condition does, and the strange thoughts of entitled-feeling loners can be just as wrongheaded as the ideologies of large groups. Call it "mental illness" if you wish to use that broad a definition, but don't confuse it as being in anywhere near the same category as conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolarity, PTSD, and the like. The usual motive for killing strangers is hate, and hate is usually something people engage themselves in by choice, not because of any unwanted compulsion.

[HereSince1628]

63. That's a good example of the classic strawman and the subtle dissembling shift from

the criminally deviant action to the pathological mental state. Surely it's logical to assume the behavior is preceded by a state of mind, so the problem -must- be a mental disorder. This is a very common rhetorical ploy but it's poor logic and it doesn't square very well with what's actually known,

I don't think anyone on DU would argue against the strongly deviant nature of a shooting in a kindergarten class. I certainly wouldn't. That sort of air-tighteness is part of building a workable strawman argument. But like many such arguments your narrow strawman doesn't describe the majority of mass-shootings.

I recommend you take a little time and look at what's known, just from newspapers about mass shootings and mass-shooters at this site: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Anyone who does that will see that mass shootings don't usually happen in kindergartens, and it isn't true that these are acts of just the mentally ill, or as posed in other places on DU spoiled young white beta male losers who can't psychologically handle their lives.

When terrible things happen around us, we need explanations that resolve the seeming inexplicable. We especially need explanations that provide reassurance that the risk is knowable and avoidable. It helps a lot if the explanation makes the risk distant in time or space or otherwise unlikely to be present in our daily life. That in turn allows us to place blame on a category of danger, and perhaps on failures of other who should be trusted protectors, and on social deviants who profit from the machinery that makes these events possible. Which is to say we argue it as distantly away from good persons like ourselves as possible.

As a society, we don't much understand mental disorders, but our culture has given us tag-lines to fall back on...those tag-lines include things such as the inherent unpredictability and inherent dangerousness of 'mentally ill'. The tag-lines aren't so true but they provide us handholds that connect us to answers in our uncertain world.

Those tag-lines often begin with its 'obviously', or 'by definition' and then follow with the person has some sort of mental problem. We ought to understand that argumentation that begins that way is promoting the notion that the rhetoric that follows isn't supposed to be challenged. Those arguments beg us to accept what is on inspection an empty explanation as a blanket universal explanation. Any argument posed as something that shouldn't be questioned, probably should be.

When bad things happen, we need the reassurances that we know what the danger is, so that we can feel it's possible to protect ourselves from it. Vulnerability due to uncertainty is a bad thing. If we can be convinced that the danger distant and remote from us, after dealing with the shock for a day or two we can go back to normality. If it can't we are encouraged about our strength, our community, and how we will overcome the terrible thing and in a week or so, we can get back to normality.

The application of your strawman reasoning and its subtle dissembling with its appealing too obvious explanation is the sort of thing what must be challenged if society is ever to arrive at evidence based rather than culturally biased solutions that hold up for more than a day or two and which are applicable to a lot more of the terrible reality than attacks on kindergartens.


Moreover, it's a sort of reasoning that must be challenged if we are to protect persons with mental health problems from the discrimination that follows from widely disseminated and culturally supported assumptions of the unpredictability and dangerousness of persons with mental disorders.

[hunter]

72. No one with "their ducks in a row" loves guns.

Gone fetishists are sick puppies.

[MADem]

100. Your post was alerted.

You survived the alert, but the objection was to your use of the term "Loony Tunes" to describe mentally ill people.

Perhaps you might want to edit that. We generally don't go for that kind of disparaging commentary against a group of people who are suffering an illness.

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Oct 5, 2015, 05:32 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

By definition, a person who is capable and willing to shoot up a classroom...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7231785

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

OP uses "Looney Tunes" and other insults to describe the mentally ill.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 5, 2015, 05:52 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I fail to see the problem. Leave Bluejazz
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Troll needs a hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: considering the bigotry allowed to stand here (based on region, age, etc) this is mild - be brave and confront the poster if it upsets you - don't use a jury to do what you want to avoid
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The term is inelegant but doesn't rise to the HIDE level. I would suggest, alerter, that you educate this newcomer, who is plainly in favor of gun control, which is a Democratic Party value, on the gentle art of polite discourse. Ask for an edit if the term truly offends you--if the poster is respectful, they will likely comply.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[pipoman]

2. Every time this happens it is the same story...someone

With untreated mental illness goes out and kills a bunch of people...should we pretend this isn't so? Should we disregard the correlation between mental illness and a school full of dead people?

[Crunchy Frog]

5. And yet you seem to want to ignore the correlation of easy access to firearms

and schools full of dead people.

[pipoman]

10. No, I recognize the reality of it...

Accept the things I cannot change and all that....

Would these mentally ill people suddenly not have the desire to kill people in the miraculous disappearance of guns? Or would they still want to kill people and find other ways...what with our free society and all....

No, treatment of the mentally ill must be part of any solution...

[Crunchy Frog]

14. People would still have the desire. Just not the means.

Your work to continue to ensure that they have the means is the what will enable this to continue happening.

As a person with mental health issues, I'm not going to stand in as a scapegoat for a problem that's of your own making.

[pipoman]

19. It's not my work, it is constitutionally protected right with

Thousands of regulations and volumes of case law....it isn't changing in our lifetimes...why do you want the mentally ill to have access to guns?

[Crunchy Frog]

23. "The mentally ill" is a rather sweeping category

that will encompass around 50% of the American public at some point in their lives. Why do you want to stigmatize and unfairly profile millions of peaceful and harmless citizens (and you could join their number at any time)?

I think it would be far more effective to limit violent people's access to firearms. So I could ask you a similar question, why do you want violent people to have access to guns?

[pipoman]

26. If they're peaceful and harmless they probably don't want guns anyway...

What stigma? The NICS database isn't public record, it would only be used if someone with mental illness was trying to buy a gun....

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Maybe they want a gun for the same reasons you do.

Or maybe they like to hunt, target shoot, or they live in a rural area with "varmints".

Why should violent people to be able to buy guns?

[pipoman]

32. Violent people can't legally buy guns if they have a conviction

Even a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction disqualifies them..

[backscatter712]

43. ...assuming the conviction gets in the NCIS database.

And given the brain-damaged implementation of background checks, that's not guaranteed.

[backscatter712]

36. No, it's a recent rogue SCOTUS decision.

The Second Amendment was not always interpreted to give individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Previous courts, with more case law behind them, ruled that it was the right of the fifty states to have armed militias.

But no matter the interpretation, the Second Amendment is pretty archaic.

[gwheezie]

39. Agree there

And if they want to site the founders, the founders expected you to present your arms for muster. To me that says the founders felt perfectly OK with regulating guns.

[lancer78]

52. the deadliest

School massacre was not committed with firearms.

[TeddyR]

101. So are you proposing that guns should be banned altogether

Or that the mentally ill should be denied access to guns? Because the former isn't going to happen, and I'd support the latter, with the caveat that there is a huge open question regarding who is "mentally ill."

[Crunchy Frog]

103. Neither.

Neither one is even remotely feasible.

No way that any meaningful gun regulation is going to occur in this country, and no way to deny anyone access to guns without some major changes in gun regulation.

My suggestion at this point? Get used to it. This is how America has chosen to live. Your can at least be grateful that you don't live in Syria.

[gwheezie]

9. Should we ignore the correlation between

Mass murder and multiple weapons?

[pipoman]

13. That isn't happening or likely, ignoring the mentally ill will not be acceptable

[stage left]

35. +1

No, we should not.

[kairos12]

91. +1000

[onehandle]

3. I demonize those who manufacture, sell, and lobby for guns.

Actually they demonize themselves with their actions.

[TeddyR]

102. I find that ridiculous

You "demonize" someone who manufactures and sells a legal, inanimate object? If you want to save lives, and "demonize" someone, you'd do far more by banning alcohol (FAR more). CDC says that alcohol consumption -- not protected by any constitutional amendment I'm aware of -- kills between 88,000 and 2.5 million people per year, or at a minimum 3 times as many people as die each year due to guns. But there are no complaints about those deaths because (1) many, many people consume alcohol (to their detriment) and (2) those deaths aren't the pet cause of certain folks, even though in addition to preventing tens of thousands of deaths, you would prevent domestic abuse, loss of jobs, ill health, and who knows what else if you could actually ban alcohol.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. It's personal for me too, and I'm sick of it as well.

Lifetime issues with depression and anxiety. No interest whatsoever in either guns or violence, but feel like I'm being stigmatized every time one of these incidents happens, and the focus immediately shifts to "what are we going to do about the mentally ill?"

[yeoman6987]

54. Wouldn't you rather be turned down for guns knowing it helps

The stopping of mass murders? I'd rather a few hurt feelings the a bunch of murdered children. Wouldn't you?

[Crunchy Frog]

59. Now why don't you ask that question of the gun fanciers on DU?

Instead of someone with no interest in guns, and (non-violent) mental health issues?

I'm not going to be turned down for something that I have no interest in, and whether I was or was not would have no bearing whatsoever on any "murdered children".

On the other hand, I'm not going to put up with bigotry and discrimination on someone's theory that it will prevent gun violence. That's about alot more than "hurt feelings".

[yeoman6987]

66. Well there you go.

You said yourself. I imagine well just follow the trail were on.

[egduj]

6. I see more a minimization and/or trivializing of the seriousness of mental illness.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. No, it's just that some of us don't like the stigmatization

and demonization and scapegoating of people with diagnosed mental health issues, and people using it to deflect from the issue of America's gun fetishism.

I take my mental health issues very seriously, but there's absolutely no connection between my issues and mass shootings.

[snagglepuss]

61. It's not all about you. Should religious extremism not be condemned

because some extremists are nice people? Should Islam not be mentioned if an Islamic terrorist in Allah's name kills people because other Muslims are nice people?

[Crunchy Frog]

64. Wrong thread and wrong post.

This thread is about mental illness and gun violence.

[gwheezie]

7. I'm horrified by some suggestions

I've done psych nursing for 40 years, the idea of some database of the mentally ill sickens me. Yes there are some people with mental illness that are violent most violent people however are criminals, not mentally ill. Mental illness does not mean you have less rights than anyone else.
I'm all for universal background checks and include those with a history of violence but don't make this about mental illness.
Most people with a dx of chronic mental illness are not experiencing symptoms all the time. You can be bipolar for 10 years and be perfectly happy and have a break just because your meds stop working. You can have a single psychotic episode. You can be managing your illness quite well. You don't belong on a list.

[pipoman]

15. Now why shouldn't people with diagnosed mental illness

Be placed in NICS? Are you saying that the mentally ill should be allowed to buy guns?

[Crunchy Frog]

18. You really want to deter people from seeking assistance with mental health issues?

I'm sure as hell going to avoid getting "assistance" if I think it's going to land me in some database.

[pipoman]

21. A return to state facilities funded by feds

And very liberal mental health evaluation availability...any family member can petition for involuntary commitment...any police officer can commit for evaluation..it used to work...it could work again

[Crunchy Frog]

27. So you want to lock up millions of people

who have committedy no crime, and without due process, for the sake of protecting "liberty". Just realize how easily you yourself could end up on the wrong end of your "system".

[gwheezie]

40. I love the liberty lovers

Lock up a bunch of people for being sick.

[gwheezie]

34. I can't support that.

I can support more psych services. I support outpatient commitments. I support therapuetuc facilities for long term care. I support housing for the homeless mentally ill. I support of return to halfway house. I support longer lengths if stay for treatment. You get 5_7 days for a psychotic break
I do not want to give LE more authority over citizens. I prefer more crisis workers in the field to work with LE to assist the appropriate placement or referral for someone in crisis. I support local laws that demand addicts lose their benefits and housing be abolished. I support increased services for children and adolescents that keep them in the community and not detention centers.
I do psych evals, it is a very serious thing to deny someone their rights.

[Live and Learn]

41. +1 nt

[backscatter712]

37. Um, that should be modernized.

Most mentally ill people do not need to be locked up. But real funding for community mental health programs would be helpful.

[whereisjustice]

49. How about we tell the NRA Fuck You and lock them up in a prison. Gun nutosis should be diagnosed

mental illness.

[pipoman]

70. That wouldn't amend the constitution..

How about we quit pretending that the NRA has some sort of superpower...the only thing they have is, 'if you pass that legislation we will challenge on constitutional grounds'....that's it..that's all they have...

[LanternWaste]

92. Well, that and the ability to ban the CDC's research on particular health matters.

"that's it..that's all they have..."

Well, that and the ability to ban the CDC's research on particular health matters. And a few other inconveniences to your unsupported premise.

[LanternWaste]

90. It's odd the disparities in your prophetic absolutes.

It's odd the disparities in your prophetic absolutes.

On one the hand, "Accept the things I cannot change and all that," "it isn't changing in our lifetimes," and "That isn't happening or likely" compared to "it used to work...it could work again."

No doubt, we often like to pretend our prophecies are reality... if it's a reality we want to believe.

[gwheezie]

20. Oh please

If the person is represented by independent counsel and an independent expert witness in a court to defend their rights with a mechanism for appeal or if there is a temporary order pending a hearing, then you can be placed in the database.
If the reason to include all people dx with a mental illness placed in a database is to prevent tragedies, then lets put all gun owners in a database. The gun owner has rights and so do the mentally. Far more gun deaths are committed by people with no mental illness. Those people are called criminals.

[pipoman]

22. Glad to see you get the point

[gwheezie]

25. Oh dear I've gotten the point years ago

This has always been the point. Glad you got the point.

[gwheezie]

24. That is what I'm saying

I would rather a court decide who is too dangerous to own a gun than a bunch of psychiatrists. If you someday are diagnosed with say anti social personality disorder with narcisstic tendencies by one psychiatrist do you want to be placed on a list restricting your rights? Where are we supposed to get the list? Who makes the list? Do you want anyone dx with a psych dx to be on the list after one contact with the mental health system? Do you want insurance companies to submit a list of all their customers who are being treated by a therapist to the government?

[pipoman]

28. The NICS already is supposed to include everyone who has been involuntary committed right now

You can't access it, only the NICS chekers have access.

[gwheezie]

38. I understand that

I want universal background checks for all gun sales. The database is not available for private sales or sales from straw purchases.
I also find that the database only including involuntary commitments does not address voluntary patients who are a danger to themselves or others. In my state, even if you are actively homicidal you won't be committed by any judge if you agree to voluntary treatment. The other issue is people have been committed incorrectly. They can appeal the commitment but rarely do. Where I see that most is with males who lost there job, wife is leaving, the dig died and the truck needs a new tranny. Not a usual drinker but goes out with the boys to cheer up, gets stinking drunk, starts yelling I got nuthin to live for. The cops show up and he says you fuckers take your hands off me, I'm gonna jump off a bridge. And the cops bring him in in cuffs and leg irons In the moment someone needs to get him away from a weapon but he sobers up, quite rational, gets some help, finds a better job and a new partner. I think it should be easier to appeal the commitment for that guy after a period of time or allow him involuntary outpatient commitment to keep track of him if he wants his hunting rifle back.

[pipoman]

42. yep

[jwirr]

75. Okay, you asked the question and I will answer from the

thoughts of people I know who have been diagnosed.

Early in WWII Hitler used IBM equipment to list the mentally ill along with many other specific groups. Most of these people ended up in the concentration camps as "useless" people.

Yes, you are going to say that could never happen here. Are you sure? Have you listened to any of Trumps speeches?

[pipoman]

87. That was a thoughtful response

My actual position is that we have around 10k murders with guns annually and in a population of over 300 million...acknowledging that each is tragic....statisticly, it isn't much different than a lot of other dangerous pass times in the US. .we should do what we can, act within the constitution, and accept that there will be consequences for our freedom.

[jwirr]

88. And on what you just said I agree. Just wanted you to know

what kind of fear this causes with some of those diagnosed with mental illness.

[pipoman]

93. I believe we need to mandate accurate reporting of

Involuntary commitment and criminally institutionalized as we already have rules about. I do not believe others should be included.

I believe the gun control lobby's insistance to include suicide in the "gun violence" numbers brings the most danger of including mere diagnosed people in the NICS database.

[jen63]

84. Where do YOU draw the line?

Every time the DSM is re-edited, illnesses are added and subtracted. Homosexuality and alcohol/drug addiction, used to be mental illnesses. Tell us where YOU'd like the line to be drawn. What about those illnesses that didn't get added to the current edition? That's a slippery slope you're walking. The problem is the availability of guns. Very few psychiatric issues manifest through violence and of them, very few people with those illnesses are violent.

[backscatter712]

94. I think the line shouldn't be drawn at mental illness at all.

It has at best, a slight correlation with violence. People who are mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, and there are quite a few perpetrators of violence who do not have histories of mental illness.

The research suggests that there is at best, a 4% link. If you miraculously manage to cure everyone with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and so on, you'd reduce the total rate of violence by 4%.

What is better is looking at what really does correlate with violence. And those factors are: Easy availability of weapons, prior history of violence, and substance abuse.

So my suggestion: People with criminal records with ANY violence at all, even if it's just punching someone at a bar, and especially domestic violence, need to be prohibited from possession of weapons. We have a background check system, but it's half-assed, and too many people fall through the cracks. So do people with records that indicate serious substance abuse, so that would mean criminal offenses such as DUI/DWI, theft or other offenses where the person may have been doing things to feed a drug habit. And gun sales need to be tightened up. 100% background checks, without gun show loopholes, and banning private transfers without getting a gun dealer to run the background check. Anyone in possession of a weapon that has not passed a background check should be prosecuted.

[backscatter712]

73. Here, you and the science agree.

There is very little correlation between mental illness and gun violence. Most mentally ill people are not violent, and most violent people don't have a history of mental illness.

From what reading I've been doing, the science shows a much stronger link between gun violence and people with a past history of violence.

So that's why I think background checks need to be tightened up, with a focus on criminal records and domestic violence. Anyone with a documented history of violence, even if it's just punching a guy in a bar brawl, and certainly including domestic violence incidents, needs to be denied the privilege of owning a firearm (I rephrased this sentence, because I do think owning and carrying a firearm should be a privilege, not a right.)

[NuclearDem]

8. It wasn't a mentally ill person that committed that shooting.

It was a person with a gun.

Had that same person walked in with a knife, baseball bat, hammer, or tire iron, that death toll would've been much smaller, if one at all.

It's time to start placing responsibility for these incidents where they belong and stop making the purchase of intentionally destructive and deadly devices like these as easy as it currently is.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Totally agree and I want to add that in general the Mentally ill have more to fear from us

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/about-us/our-blog/69-no-state/2030-new-study-mentally-ill-are-often-targets-of-violence

[pacalo]

12. I agree. I think if mental illness is going to be the main focus,

please let it be that they've finally realized that society can benefit from funding mental health services adequately. That would be a plus, imo.

[xfundy]

17. Anyone with depressive disorder would hurt themselves first

and would rarely direct their anger outward.

But, what a surprise, the Fox Noise crowd blames them instead of the gun and religion industries.

[TM99]

53. Sadly, that is not entirely true.

Murder/suicide stems from severe clinical depression that is mixed with other co-morbidities. All of these mass shootings have been murder/suicides whether by their own hands or by cops.

Somehow, yes, we must address this side of the equation as well as with gun control measures. And just as we must balance gun control measures with constitutionally protected 2nd amendment rights, we must address the mental health issues with sensitivity, privacy, and respect for the humanity involved.

[HereSince1628]

69. Well... John Holmes did live on, so did Dylan Roof (sp?), so did Nidal Hasan

and those are just a handful of references to suggest that your 'all of these mass shootings' isn't really 'all'.

Some of these events are murder plus suicide or suicide plus murder and some of them are not. Most mass shootings actually aren't suicide plus murder and typically the mass shooter does survive the event.

check out the mass shooting tracker for more details:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

[stage left]

30. I'm totally sick of it.

My daughter suffers from depression. My mother suffered from schizo-affective disorder. I'm a member of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and in the fight against stigma. The problem is violence, imo, a society that promotes violence to solve problems. If we would register, license, and insure guns the way we do cars, it would go a long way to stop the bloodbath. No other country on earth has so many guns and so many gun deaths.

[randys1]

79. BTW, you might enjoy this podcast

http://mentalpod.com/

[stage left]

97. Thanks, randys1

[me b zola]

86. K&R

[libodem]

31. I think it's the guns

And partly how depersonalizing the schools are.

Society sucks.

[Iggo]

33. I'm sick of the guns.

[KT2000]

44. I don't see demonization

I do see people trying to make sense of all this. It seems to me that so many of the mass killers are so obviously disturbed that it seems wrong that they are able to obtain guns legally.

I don't see where people are claiming everyone with a mental illness is violent. Discussion needs to be had as this country tries to stem the tide of mass murder.

[TygrBright]

45. Yep. I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Fair Warning: I WILL Challenge This Kind of Bigotry

and

Why Can't Doctors Identify Killers?

tersely,
Bright

[stage left]

99. I read your link and I've got one word for it:

Bravo! very well said.

[whereisjustice]

46. Mass killings are commited by people with guns. I think that is 100% causal relationship.

Maybe we should figure out how to solve that problem?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. Like Andreas Lubitz?

[KyleMcShades]

48. The stigma is definitely real.

My ex landlord kicked me out of my home when he found out I was mentally ill. He thought I was going to commit a mass murder.

When people talk about mental illness, they need to make sure they aren't generalizing.

[whereisjustice]

50. I submit since the NRA cares so much about mental health, they should be the first ones to be

evaluated for mental health issues.

Perhaps as a condition of acceptance into the NRA?

Any group that promotes an unhealthy love of guns is mentally ill and creating a mental health crisis.

[randys1]

80. Good one...and true

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. There are far too many people taking medication for depression to use them as scapegoats....

Everyone knows someone these days.

[clayton72]

55. Mental Healthcare in the US needs an overhaul

We as a country should feel shame for the state of mental healthcare in the US. People complain about the homeless population, but it's our fault. Some of them are just down on their luck or made bad choices, but most have mental and substance abuse problems and should be in treatment, not marginalized. Most folks who can't cope are not a danger to themselves or anyone else, they're vulnerable. Demonization / stigmatization needs to stop.
If the GOP wants to say that we don't have a gun problem, it's a mental health problem... OK, fine! Pass a freaking bill to address the problem. Work on treatment for substance abuse and elder care (dementia) while you're at it. Also, disarm domestic abusers while you're at it. We need more compassion from these "Christian" conservatives. Put up or shut up

[Vinca]

56. This particular notion has been so successfully put out by the right that the NRA

doesn't really respond much to mass shootings anymore. It's a nasty camouflage of the real problem: 300 million guns in this country. That's what's crazy.

[btrflykng9]

57. Unless you're mentalling ill and trying to purchase a myriad of firearms to go and kill

a bunch of innocent people, I don't think there is reason to take personal offense to any of it.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. anything but the fucking gunz.

It is disgusting. k&r.

[Marrah_G]

60. I think it is a subject that needs to be addressed

I say that as someone who has mental illness. There is not one answer to our gun violence problem. It has to be approached from a number of different angles.

If you would not seek help for mental illness because you are afraid they will take your guns, then I would suggest that maybe someone needs to take a look at whether or not you are stable enough to have those guns.

You have your opinion, I have mine and no thank you, I will not be kissing your ass.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Hey, being demonized is the first step toward political power, in the US LGBT people are demonized

endlessly by politicians and clergy and clergy doing politics, even our presumptive 'liberal' allies happily lavish praise on those who demonize us. And it is a literal demonizing in this case, they say we are influenced by demons, our rights are the idea of Satan. Francis says this, DU fucking adores him abjectly and he demonizes LGBT persons and they say 'I love this guy'.

So what can I say? Your neighbors tend to demonize others. By turning that nasty energy constantly back at them, by making sure they own what they are doing, buy not permitting them to excuse their mean, nasty choices you can build up support from others who see the tactics they are using, the name calling, the insinuations for what it is and reject it.

Oh sure they get a year or two lording around about how they are 'Sanctified' or 'healthy' or 'special' but eventually all that strutting and parading turns back at them when the larger population slowly becomes enlightened about the issues. Suddenly the people say 'what sort of an asshole says some families are made by Satan? I will not stand with that bullshit'.
Eventually the bigots become the objects of social ridicule.

[frustrated_lefty]

65. Mental illness exists everywhere, in every country.

Maybe it's time to question what's wrong with the society/culture that produces so many individuals prone to mass shootings. Like, for example, its gun laws.

[alarimer]

68. The single biggest factor is easy access to firearms for everyone.

We are completely unwilling to do what it takes, which is get rid of the fucking guns. Because of an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution. So gun nuts deflect the conversation to the "mentally ill" (which, if you ask me should also include those with an excessive gun fetish), which is a non-starter. They would never be capable of doings such things if we restricted the availability of guns.

But this is not something we are willing to do, so these things will continue to happen.

[treestar]

71. I don't think they are demonized

Are you saying we should not consider such people mentally ill? And that it is demonizing all mentally ill people by thinking the people who do this might be (a tiny minority) of the mentally ill? I have depression too, treated. I don't feel insulted by the consideration that these shooters might have some other mental illness.

[jwirr]

74. K&R I think the problem is that when people use this term

to explain the reasons for a shooting they are generalizing and they really mean that these killings do not make any sense.

"Mentally ill" is being used in a non-medical sense. We have gotten too used to dismissing anything we do not understand as mentally ill and I think this is even true with the pleas used in courts.

Without a real diagnosis these people are NOT mentally ill. They have some other reason for having done what they did.

[fredamae]

76. Personally, I Demonize Congress/Reagan

They're the ones who Cut and Are Still cutting vital Health Care Services along with a few Democrats, frankly.

[WinkyDink]

77. Don't confuse opinions about Big Pharma and its wares with opinions on the patient.

[kelliekat44]

78. Me. nt

[randys1]

81. The mental illness is a society that has more guns than people.

[Fred Sanders]

85. Yep. But anything to talk about other than the 300 million lethal portable hideable GUNS will do.

[stage left]

95. +1 nt

[KamaAina]

82. Me! Me!

[zappaman]

83. Yup.

Because the gunners suddenly don't want to talk about guns when there's a shooting.

[B2G]

89. Plenty of people here demonize all gun owners

I fail to see the difference.

[Dont call me Shirley]

96. Fox is a Crazy-Maker, that's way different than having a mental illness.

[pnwmom]

98. Saying that this particular mentally ill person shouldn't have had access to guns

doesn't demonize all mentally ill people.

What sets him apart? We don't know enough yet, but it appears he may have been experiencing paranoia and delusions. Which in my view is grounds for keeping guns out of his hands.