Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
20. this replies deals with "Many of -THESE- had -SOME- indication of -MENTAL ILLNESS-
Sat Oct 3, 2015, 02:40 PM
Oct 2015

Well, just what THESE are you talking about? There have been just shy of 300 mass shooting in 2015, ~45 of them are shootings on school campuses Pre-school to University. Does a mass shooting in grade school reflect the same motivations and issues as a shooting in a university? Probably only at a superficial level of analysis. Are you aware that 70% of "these nearly 300 mass shooters" for 2015 are unknown? How do you make meaningful matrix-like profiles to strip people of their rights when 70% of 'these mass shooters' are flying under the matrix?

We ought to be careful about generalities/stereotypes that aren't.

SOME indication...indication of WHAT to Whom? Every year in the US ~25% of Americans have -SOME INDICATION- of having a mental disorder. Just looking at that we ought to expect that by the time someone reaches the age of 10 there is a better than 8-% chance they have or had something that shares an indicator a mental disorder. Mental illness isn't like a staphylococcus infection, there are no tests...only indications...symptoms usually considered as suites of symptoms so that a diagnosis is based on a group of 'indicators' and their relative importance to the distress or dysfunction of the afflicted person. What seems like an 'indication' to a person who is an uneducated person with prejudices and fears about deviance or opposing political positions may not be an 'indication' of anything. Or the thing considered an indicator might really be an 'indicator' if it was severe/significan enough and present among other criteria and indicators, but the uneducated prejudiced person may not have the capacity to make even a half decent evaluation of the significance of the 'indicator. With 67 million or so people having some mental illness each year, and with depression being by far the most common, it would be most remarkable if -every- murderer above the age of 10 DIDN'T at some time express an 'indicator'. The presence of an indicator is a bullshit measure for the matrix you are trying to create. It's about as useful as saying every mass shooting was done by a human being.

We ought to be careful about insights and understanding we don't have.

There is no single category of mental disorder. There are MANY disorders. They fill up diagnostic manuals hundreds of pages long.
Generally speaking they get diagnosed because they cause they are significant enough to cause dysfunction and distress that in turn results in seeking of help. But the great majority don't make a person dangerous. In my scores of decades of life, I've never heard a significant risk of violent behavior associated with psychologically based ED, or insomnia, or agoraphobia, or fetishtic transvestism. What I have heard is that FOR PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL DISORDERS social violence is only elevated by a couple of percent over baseline for the general population of undiagnosed persons (I'm forced to say undiagnosed, because of the previous paragraph... most people have experienced mental disorders but dismissed/denied them and never seek assistance). The baseline for violence in society is about 5% per year, research has shown the risk for persons with -serious- mental disorders is just shy of 7%. Now when you poke around the internet about rates of violence among the mentally ill, be careful you aren't looking at rates of violence within correction institutions where rates of violence are very high for both mentally ill and mentally well, because violence is common in threat filled environments.

Creating a matrix so that there can be prior restraint is a dream of Science Fiction. And it's mostly built on social acceptance of bigotry against the mentally ill.

Believing that persons with mental disorders are the major cause of the gun violence problem is ridiculous on it's face, even if some gun violence almost surely results from psychological dysfunction. It's a hand overplayed. And the overplay is mostly a way to hack-up a fast rationale that meets with our existing bigoted attitudes about the mentally ill. It works because even our liberal icons, say like "sexy liberal" Stephanie Miller, propagate the use of bigotry and stigma against persons with mental disorders. It's that widespread stigma that leads to consequences of discrimination against the mentally disordered that include national unemployment rates around 80%, many times the rate of occurrence of Axis 5 scores for Global function that should result in occupational impairments.

IMO focusing on mental illness is pretty much an expression of fear, the same sort of fear that people encounter when they read stories of gun violence. And people's reactions are basically the same...they want protection, that drives many of the people to buy guns for self-protection and it drives most people to express their ignorance and fear of mental disorders as prejudice and discrimination.

In 2015



















An indication that was noted by a mental health/social worker is probably differ

Good question Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #1
The British still use guns in hunting and sport. How do they keep gun violence among humans... ChisolmTrailDem Oct 2015 #2
That doesn't address the question asked dumbcat Oct 2015 #23
Well, for one thing, they don't use hand guns Warpy Oct 2015 #54
Canadians have hunting rifles Aerows Oct 2015 #81
Gun love is a sickness that's difficult to treat. hunter Oct 2015 #3
You didn't address the question asked dumbcat Oct 2015 #24
I think wanting to own a gun for anything other than utilitarian reasons... hunter Oct 2015 #51
Then, your answer to the question is dumbcat Oct 2015 #53
We don't. enlightenment Oct 2015 #4
So if I read your reply correctly dumbcat Oct 2015 #25
Yes, you're reading correctly. enlightenment Oct 2015 #75
Yes, that idea was properly not well received. However... sudenlyseymour Oct 2015 #5
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but dumbcat Oct 2015 #26
I am as useless as so many others who have replied. sudenlyseymour Oct 2015 #84
We could look twice at those who feel the need to pose on social media with guns. cwydro Oct 2015 #6
No they don't. Just the ones you happen to remember who happened to do that. Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #8
Every one of the most recent had pictures of themselves with guns. cwydro Oct 2015 #9
Cedric G. Prather Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #11
I love people who cannot post without using profanity. cwydro Oct 2015 #12
'horseshit'? seriously? that is what you are responding to? Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #13
It's a sign of class dumbcat Oct 2015 #43
I agree with you there. cwydro Oct 2015 #79
And hundreds of thousands did not Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #37
That is backwards logic, or would it be illogical? uppityperson Oct 2015 #21
After you look twice, then what do you do? dumbcat Oct 2015 #27
Oh fuck that. Every other country that had a mass shooting problem did the obvious: Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #7
What kinds of limits and regulations? LWolf Oct 2015 #14
^^^This Post^^^ -none Oct 2015 #16
That's far too sensible to ever work in this country. Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #49
I know, but I can dream can't I? -none Oct 2015 #67
Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #69
Cars are, by law, licensed and insured to run on the street. Their purpose is transportation. -none Oct 2015 #76
Classy. And non-responsive dumbcat Oct 2015 #28
Sorry to say that happens a lot Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #40
Mexico has strict gun laws Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #59
Mexico. Seriously? Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #60
Overall homicides are higher in mexico Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #62
Well go ahead and talk about anything other Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #68
You require a permit to purchase a gun. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #10
I like the Vermont and Maine procedures better... Kang Colby Oct 2015 #17
In practice all town Police Chiefs or First Selectman have requested references. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #19
They both have vastly lower population densities than CT. Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #55
That's the closest I've seen yet to an answer dumbcat Oct 2015 #29
I can try to explain Connecticut's laws NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #77
probably makes it easy for a sherrif to deny a gun permit to Blacks or any other person Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #80
Considering that Connecticut doesn't have sheriffs, that won't happen. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #82
Ban all guns! n/t PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #15
Non responsive to my simple request dumbcat Oct 2015 #30
You have yet to answer what should be done to gun owners like Vice President Joe Biden, kelly1mm Oct 2015 #61
Ideally, turn over all his guns. PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #70
Ok, I suppose that if passing laws (or in this case amending the constitution) is what you propose kelly1mm Oct 2015 #72
They are winning currently PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #73
Man, I sure hope Vice President Biden, who you deem a domestic terrorist, is not our nominee kelly1mm Oct 2015 #74
What's your answer to the problem of guns coming across the borders if they're banned? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #71
I think we just have to cut down on the number of guns treestar Oct 2015 #18
Non responsive to the question asked dumbcat Oct 2015 #31
this replies deals with "Many of -THESE- had -SOME- indication of -MENTAL ILLNESS- HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #20
So, did all that long reply boil down to dumbcat Oct 2015 #34
No it boiled down to HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #38
OK. Do you have an answer to the question posed in the OP? dumbcat Oct 2015 #41
I think focus on mental illness is mostly wrongheaded and hugely reliant on bigotry HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #47
Well, thanks anyway dumbcat Oct 2015 #52
I'm not into the Manicheasim of yes and no of conservatives and HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #57
I think we are in violent agreement dumbcat Oct 2015 #64
Yup. Conflating many problems into simple ones doesn't work. uppityperson Oct 2015 #45
E.O. Wilson says the dilemma of human existence stems from HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #50
Here is the link to your last idea, rather than a reply I gave uppityperson Oct 2015 #22
This message was self-deleted by its author dumbcat Oct 2015 #35
Simple... Require them to become... farmbo Oct 2015 #32
You want to determine who is a potential danger to others dumbcat Oct 2015 #36
Yes... Read the the text of the 2nd Amendment farmbo Oct 2015 #42
You are still non-responsive to the question dumbcat Oct 2015 #44
Respectfully,it is responsive. I'm linking gun purchases to a 'well regulated militia' farmbo Oct 2015 #85
I do not know how to ID potential mass murderers uppityperson Oct 2015 #33
Thank you for the most direct, honest answer in this thread dumbcat Oct 2015 #39
No, you can't simply identify anyone who might potentially commit an act of violence Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #46
Thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply dumbcat Oct 2015 #48
"I am not about limiting your rights and freedoms"? you wanted to give this power to teenagers on uppityperson Oct 2015 #56
That other post was a proposition dumbcat Oct 2015 #63
Thank you for acknowledging it was absurd. I wasn't sure, especially due to your replies saying uppityperson Oct 2015 #78
Granted, I don't like living in a gun saturated society, Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #66
I posted a similar request yesterday. Here are the responses Evergreen Emerald Oct 2015 #58
Your question was much, much broader than mine dumbcat Oct 2015 #65
My answer is different smilingwen Oct 2015 #83
This ain't much different than your other pre-crime thread, huh. Iggo Oct 2015 #86
If you say so dumbcat Oct 2015 #87
I'm glad you agree. Iggo Oct 2015 #88
Freeedumb isn't strictly the domain of the right. Sen. Walter Sobchak Oct 2015 #89
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»OK, so my last idea was n...»Reply #20