When does mental illness = rampage killing?

[45dotACP]

Nearly 1 in 3 Americans suffers a mental illness. There are mood disorders, thought disorders, and personality disorders, and the majority of them are harmless, and to say a person with anxiety shot up a school because they were mentally ill is to miss the mark.

The Dallas Police shootings have served as perhaps the perfect example, in my opinion, as to how mental illness can be present, but perhaps play less of a role in a spree killing than some might think. The majority of spree killers, as has been noted by many news and media outlets, suffer from mental illness...sometimes more than one. Everybody from Eric Harris (narcissistic personality disorder) and Dylan Klebold (Depressive disorder) to Seung Hoi Cho (anxiety disorder and selective mutism) to Jared Lee Loughner (Schizophrenia) to Adam Lanza (autism spectrum disorder) James Holmes (Schizoaffective disorder) and finally this last guy who some people claim had been hearing voices. Just from what I read on the news, he had a serious grudge against the police, which I believe is more salient to his detailed and planned assault on a police department.

Here's my take, and feel free to chime in or correct me if I'm wrong, but the mental illness is typically less important than the coping skills of the individual. People with Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, Narcissistic Personality disorder, Autism, and yes...schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder tend to be nonviolent and harmless. There are some cases, like Jared Lee Loughner where he was obviously struggling with Schizophrenia (onset at 20 years old, poverty of content, flight of ideas, inappropriate communication, and evidence of hallucinations) and possibly even some who are experiencing "command hallucinations" which is when the professional asks "are the voices telling you to hurt anybody or yourself?" and the patient answers to the affirmative. There is a difference however, in hearing voices, and hearing violent command hallucinations, and I'll get to that.

Seung Hoi Cho had poor coping skills because he wrote ultra violent fantasies that disturbed his teachers. He expressed himself through violence. Adam Lanza fantasized about spree killings. James Holmes did the same, and Harris and Klebold had similar fantasies of slaughtering their classmates. Those are unhealthy coping mechanisms, but not a result of mental illness, rather they can be used a defense mechanism to the mental illness, but they can be present even in absence of mental illness.

In fact, Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Nidal Hasan, and other spree killers and terrorists did what they did because they believe America is the source of their problems and so they fantasize about destroying America. Allegedly spree killers all have in common that they are rich white kids with mental illness, but really, spree killers have this in common...ultra violent fantasies fueled by a broken ability to cope. Life is hard. to get through it, you need to cope.

Here's a confession. I was bullied a lot in school. I would come home feeling like shit for being an awkward kid, small even for a female, who had a stutter and a weird birthmark. I never once considered suicide or spree killing because my coping strategy was not "I'll fucking kill you all." I realized that's just unhealthy. My coping strategy was my family, my church family, and my dog, all creatures who showed me love when I felt I deserved none just because of a weird splotch of discolored skin on the forehead and a little difficulty getting past the letter T. (P.S. Bullying is a real concern, and I have issues with bullies and those who don't take it seriously, but that's a different subject).

Unhealthy coping is different from a command hallucination. Period. Full Stop. An honest to God voice in your head telling you "Just go kill yourself. We'll never let you rest until you kill yourself" or something to that effect but of a homicidal nature...is a dangerous mental condition, but of the shooters mentioned above, I believe perhaps only Loughner was in full blown psychosis. The intricate planning and what I see as attempts to fake various mental illnesses by Holmes are not consistent with the flight of ideas seen in psychosis. Patients can hear voices without hearing command hallucinations, and schizophrenia or any other mental illness can be present and the sufferer can still be a dirtbag.

I believe the mental health system needs more help than it has now, but at the same time, saying that uncontrolled mental illness was responsible for Virginia Tech is no more true than saying gun control would have prevented it. The blame lies solely on the perpetrator. Someone with Anxiety just isn't prone to violence, however if their coping strategy is to fantasize about murdering their classmates, then they are just a homicidal dirtbag. There's no magical "mental health" concern with someone who has ultra violent fantasies about murdering their classmates or bombing a marathon. They're just a turd.

[Josh Runkle]

I'm going to slightly disagree. One of my family members has bipolar disorder (note that we no longer say "is" bipolar, because it is an illness he has, not something that defines who he is). I am very close with him. He and I hang out 1-3 days a week. He's a great person.

My experience is that his everyday life is an extreme balance of a variety of social factors and a large amount of very serious medications. When he takes no medications, his personality is completely normal. He has zero social issues, but he loses the desire to live and becomes a hermit. When he takes everything, he is normal and feels fine, but he is slightly "odd" socially. However, 1-2 days a year, some part of the delicate balance goes wrong. He stays up several days in a row without sleep or something, then he takes too much of one drug to make himself sleep, then he runs out of that drug too early and it's a holiday or something and he can't get the medication for a few days. Whatever the thing is that upsets the delicate balance...he suddenly goes completely manic for a day or two. Like completely batshit, call the cops crazy. Like, believes something outrageously crazy like the Anasazi Indians are using mind control to call down the mothership to simultaneously start a war against Hawaii and Spain.

This occurs about 1-2 days a year, and our family watches him ver closely and every few years, the cops or EMS are called. The rest of the time, he is fairly normal. He is loving and kind and a good person. 363 days a year, he is a joy to be around. Frankly, it's not even his brain that is the danger as much as the delicate balance of drugs is the danger.

Last year I took a continuing education class on psychological disorders for EMS (I'm a paramedic). One thing that stuck with me is that we currently believe that what is called "bipolar disorder" may actually be 7-12 separate diseases that just haven't been differentiated yet. So, one person who has bipolar disorder may be extremely different that another.

Here's my point: a huge, huge, huge segment of the population deals with diseases that are manageable 364 days of the year, and then they are not manageable for a day. Should those people spend their entire lives locked away? Certainly not, in my opinion. We need to find better ways to manage that 1 day a year. However, nearly all of them are a risk to the population.

So, I don't think we can simply categorize spree killers by their illnesses. There are a huge variety of factors. Some psychological, some psychiatric. Some of those spree killers may have been entirely normal the rest of their lives. I can easily see how their families could be outrageously shocked that it happened, yet the media can read a day worth of Facebook posts from the killer and ask why no one was able to prevent it.

So, my long answer is, I disagree that the spree killers are just "bad people" or that they are "turds". Some probably were, some probably weren't. I'd have no problem stopping either the good but manic/confused or the bad/evil with a bullet if it meant ending something horrific, but I'll leave all the judgement as to individual motivations, psychosis or evil, to God.

[walker2713]

"Nearly 1 in 3 Americans suffers a mental illness."

Since that's the premise of the post, and sets the tone for what follows.....

Where does that figure come from??

I don't believe it......but am willing to get my mind right if you've got the facts.

George

[TGS]

"Nearly 1 in 3 Americans suffers a mental illness."

Since that's the premise of the post, and sets the tone for what follows.....

Where does that figure come from??

I don't believe it......but am willing to get my mind right if you've got the facts.

George

Remember that mental illness encompasses things like anxiety disorders and substance abuse as well, not just people locked away in restraints because they feel a company named Sky net will bring the destruction of mankind using cybernetic war machines.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/05/03/mental-health-statistics/

[walker2713]

OK....I see where the numbers are coming from, though the definition may so broad as to have little specific meaning.

One distinction missing in the conversation so far is that between someone with a mental disorder who commits a crime, versus a violator who fits the legal definition of "insanity": didn't know right from wrong, and wasn't able to conform their behavior to the law.

From my layman's understanding, very very few persons who commit violent crimes, including spree killings, fall into that latter category.

[JodyH]

Remember that mental illness encompasses things like anxiety disorders and substance abuse as well,
There is no way "1 in 3" is professionally diagnosed as having a mental illness.
If we're going self-diagnosed or adding in "I occasionally get depressed" then the number might be accurate but a gross misrepresentation of true mental illness.

[45dotACP]

Correction...1 in 4 globally per the WHO, but closer to 1 in 5 for the US...still a large number. Mea Culpa.

Yes it takes into account Anxiety, substance abuse etc...again though, the Va Tech shooter was suffering from anxiety and selective mutism, that's not a mentall illness associated with violence, yet there were people who blamed his mental illness, not the fact that his coping skills included fantasizing about murdering his classmates,

And no, these numbers don't come from self diagnosis or "sometimes I get depressed, but from people having the met the criteria set forth by the DSM to say "mentally ill"

[BehindBlueI's]

Here's my take, and feel free to chime in or correct me if I'm wrong, but the mental illness is typically less important than the coping skills of the individual.

So what happens when the mental illness lowers someone's tolerances, emotions run hot, and they are already primed for an alternate reality? They break easier. They are primed to do things that run counter to normal society due to their own tortured world view.

I'm not a shrink, I don't play one on TV, I'm not even an educated layman. I have, however, put a lot of resources into learning about decision making, influence, etc. Behavioral economics, as it's often termed. We don't act the same under extreme emotional arousal. That can range from fear, sexual excitement, grief, etc. There's a reason we all know the risk of STDs, but sometimes in the heat of the moment expose ourselves anyway. We often have a very poor grasp of the influences that lead us to make decisions under a "rational" state of mind.

So, you've got the little old lady who believes her neighbors are pumping poison gas through the wall sockets. She calls the police. She complains to the landlord. She does all the socially acceptable things to try and deal with a neighborhood dispute. Then one day her husband dies from a respiratory illness. What's she primed to blame? If her grief pushes her past her coping mechanisms, who's the target? If she was mentally stable to begin with, the neighbor doesn't even enter her thoughts and the idea of killing her neighbor for revenge for her husband's death never occurs to her because its nonsense. Add in the delusion, though, and suddenly its a very valid and very logical way to avenge him.

[45dotACP]

This is a good point BehindBlue, but people suffering from delusions represent a very small population of the mentally ill. What my OP means to explore is that I think most criminal behaivor has roots in something other than mental illness.

For a bipolar patient in a hypermanic state, or a Schizophrenic patient experiencing command hallucinations, criminal behavior is a big possibility and those conditions must be managed carefully.

But for the guy who has depression and whose girlfriend just broke up with him, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts if he went to her workplace and went on a killing spree, someone say "he was mentally ill ZOMG mentally ill people are dangerous!" I say he had depression, but he made the choice to murder because his way to cope with rejection was unhealthy.

ETA: Behavior Economics sounds like it would be very interesting to learn about. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with this discussion, especially as far as decisions made in the heat of the moment and decreased coping strategies go.

[JodyH]

Correction...1 in 4 globally per the WHO, but closer to 1 in 5 for the US...still a large number. Mea Culpa.

And no, these numbers don't come from self diagnosis or "sometimes I get depressed, but from people having the met the criteria set forth by the DSM to say "mentally ill"
Still not buying it.
There is no way 10% of the US much less the world population has had a professional mental health evaluation much less a high enough percentage to make a sweeping statement that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 meets the criteria in the DSM.
Then you have the people who do seek out mental health evaluations usually being a self selecting group and there is no way these numbers aren't massively overstated.
What we need in this country is greater resources devoted to caring for people who are truly mentally ill and less emphasis on bullshit numbers.
Many, many of the "mentally ill" in the US are just disability scammers and it's sucking resources away from our ability to effectively manage and care for people with legitimate mental illness.

[45dotACP]

Dude, I agree that we absolutely need more treatment for the seriously mentally ill. I've been to (professionally) many of the inpatient and a few of the outpatient mental health programs in my area. They're mostly understaffed and underfunded. After all, just a bunch of welfare fraud and whiny emo millenials, so why bother right?

I don't make the numbers. Much smarter people than I are responsible for the stats so perhaps you can discuss extrapolation and selection bias an other such mathmatical things with mathematicians. I am not one and so I'd sooner stay in my lane.

Jody, Not to come off an ass, but what in your mind is a "legitimate" mental illness? Perhaps if I understood your definition, we could come to a more clear understanding. The point I'm trying to make may not be altogether different than yours...

[BehindBlueI's]

This is a good point BehindBlue, but people suffering from delusions represent a very small population of the mentally ill. What my OP means to explore is that I think most criminal behaivor has roots in something other than mental illness.

For a bipolar patient in a hypermanic state, or a Schizophrenic patient experiencing command hallucinations, criminal behavior is a big possibility and those conditions must be managed carefully.

No argument from me. Anorexics and the clinically depressed are mentally ill, but no more likely to hurt anyone other then themselves then the next person. Maybe less so

However there is very little resources across the board, for quality of life issues to extremely dangerous, they all get brushed off. Tragedy results, on small scale or large, and nothing changes. That was my point in the thread that lead to the creation of this one.

If you're really interested in behavioral economics, pm me and I'll send you a list of books to get you started that are written for the layman.

[JodyH]

Jody, Not to come off an ass, but what in your mind is a "legitimate" mental illness? Perhaps if I understood your definition, we could come to a more clear understanding. The point I'm trying to make may not be altogether different than yours...
How about I define illegitimate mental illness instead?
The majority of "clients" my wife deals with (she's a licensed clinical social worker for the state) are nothing more than fakers and scammers looking for a SSI benefits bump.
There's your 1 in 4...

The mentally ill who are a danger to society, they don't just appear out of nowhere. I cannot think of a single case of a homicidal maniac just "snapping". They were all known to law enforcement, medical professionals or their family as being dangerous long before they did their damage. Our problem isn't identifying the dangerous mentally ill, it's dealing with them because resources are wasted on the scammers and we have very few involuntary treatment options. There's also the (bad IMO) idea that the mentally ill can care for themselves with medication, no they cannot. We have advocates that pitch a bitch fit when a court mandates supervision, but then deny any responsibility when their client sells half their meds, takes all the rest in one sitting, then beats someone to death with a curtain rod.

We can't even deal with known dangerous mentally ill persons, we're a loooong ways off from dealing with the rest.
Cart before the horse.

[BaiHu]

How about I define illegitimate mental illness instead?
The majority of "clients" my wife deals with (she's a licensed clinical social worker for the state) are nothing more than fakers and scammers looking for a SSI benefits bump.
There's your 1 in 4...

The mentally ill who are a danger to society, they don't just appear out of nowhere. I cannot think of a single case of a homicidal maniac just "snapping". They were all known to law enforcement, medical professionals or their family as being dangerous long before they did their damage. Our problem isn't identifying the dangerous mentally ill, it's dealing with them because resources are wasted on the scammers and we have very few involuntary treatment options. There's also the (bad IMO) idea that the mentally ill can care for themselves with medication, no they cannot. We have advocates that pitch a bitch fit when a court mandates supervision, but then deny any responsibility when their client sells half their meds, takes all the rest in one sitting, then beats someone to death with a curtain rod.

We can't even deal with known dangerous mentally ill persons, we're a loooong ways off from dealing with the rest.
Cart before the horse.
I don't know squat about this other than what I've read, but I'd say all of the above PLUS the inability for our country to deal with ANYTHING realistically and honestly make a disaster of any "non-Cleaver"* event.

*"Leave It To Beaver" for the uninitiated. Look it up.

[Gary1911A1]

I don't buy the notion all personality disorders are a mental illness and that's a dangerous road to go down as every inmate in a prison will use it as an excuse to justify their actions.

[45dotACP]

Jody,
The fraud cases you refer to are dirtbags and I'd bet my hat on the media picking how they are "mentally ill" and so the system (that they are gaming) failed them if they were killed by a storekeeper during a 3am robbery... Yes it's possible the 1 in 5 figure includes them.

To clarify my point. I believe many spree killers stood a good chance of going on their sprees regardless of whether they were mentally ill. The illness doesn't help, but the absence of mental health issues does not make someone less dangerous IMO...especially if they harbor and revisit ultra violent fantasies where they murder their classmates, or shoot up a police station, every time the going gets tough. The Santa Barbara shooter, Nidal Hasan, most terrorists....they are all evil people with violent fantasies but to my knowledge, they weren't mentally ill.

I absolutely feel your frustration with the ineffective outpatient management programs and the fact that a petition and certificate is so complex.

I'm a nurse, so I advocate for my patients, but I totally suggest supervision and improving inpatient mental health services. Depot injections are a great option, but need more development IMO.

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't buy the notion all personality disorders are a mental illness and that's a dangerous road to go down as every inmate in a prison will use it as an excuse to justify their actions.

A mad dog isn't mad by choice. You still don't let him roam the neighborhood and play with your kids. Justification isn't the result of recognizing the influence of mental illness.

[TAZ]

I'm far from an expert in this arena, but i tend to agree win Jody's points. My cousin is a PhD and worked for the state doing social work of some sort and her stories of fraud and waste sound more like fishing tales than truth and she isn't known for exaggeration.

There are a couple of things that scare the crap out of me when it comes to the whole mental illness issue. One of the biggest is that it's a growth industry in an area where IMO even the experts have no real effing clue what they don't know. I'm not trying to be insulting, but psychology today is still more art than science; yet we wish to believe that it's science. IMO if you can put half a dozen people in one room with a patient and they all come up with different diagnoses you can't call that science. This also applies to a chunk of regular medicine as well. The growth industry pushing the concept of we know it all and take this pill and you'll be OK and won't hurt anyone is a perfect storm for massive cockups. Couple this whole psychotherapy industry with the whole progressive mentality of hissy fits when anyone tries to remove a threat from society and it gets worse. To that we also add the fact that 90% of Americans have their heads firmly planted up their fears and couldn't handle tying their shoes the chances of someone in real need getting help in time is miniscule. Sad state of affairs.

With all that stated though, I still want little to do with anything that grants more discretion to paper pushers to strip folks of their rights based on "mental disorder" judgements. This is really one of those rock and hard place scenarios that I'm not sure how to effectively handle, but the idea that if some vet goes to see a head shrinker cause he's having trouble coping he could lose his rights before he does anything illegal scares me more than Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine combined.

[NickA]

I know Joe Rogan can be kind of a kook, and I'm not saying this is exactly right, but he had a very interesting line in a podcast not long ago:
"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem, and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem."

[LittleLebowski]

I know Joe Rogan can be kind of a kook, and I'm not saying this is exactly right, but he had a very interesting line in a podcast not long ago:
"This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem, and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem."

He has a lot of fans on this board and I think he's about 80-90% locked with his views. He's figuring out the BS behind the whole "racist police" thing, methinks. I can start a Joe Rogan podcast discussion thread if needed.

[Gary1911A1]

A mad dog isn't mad by choice. You still don't let him roam the neighborhood and play with your kids. Justification isn't the result of recognizing the influence of mental illness.

I'm not even sure what your last sentence means. As for your first if you mean people with true brain chemistry balance then I agree with you. As a Licensed MH Counselor I have seen many psychotic indidvuals who have little to no insight and won't take Meds due to side effects. Our courts have failed to provide care for them and some suffer more than they can objectively appreciate.

[NickA]

He has a lot of fans on this board and I think he's about 80-90% locked with his views. He's figuring out the BS behind the whole "racist police" thing, methinks. I can start a Joe Rogan podcast discussion thread if needed.
Not necessary on my part, and wasn't trying to derail this thread, though others certainly might enjoy it.
That line just stuck with me, and thought it was kinda appropriate given some of the comments about lack of available mental health services and our (the US in general) inability to address the real issues.

[BaiHu]

Thinking back on this 1 in 3 or 4 number, I'm reminded of something that has to do with the employment numbers. I believe after 99 weeks of unemployment, many were shifted to disability in order to continue receiving benefits. Could this be part of the disconnect?

This might shed some light: http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/long-term-unemployed-lost-not-forgotten-5730

[LittleLebowski]

Not necessary on my part, and wasn't trying to derail this thread, though others certainly might enjoy it.
That line just stuck with me, and thought it was kinda appropriate given some of the comments about lack of available mental health services and our (the US in general) inability to address the real issues.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?16331-Our-Joe-Rogan-podcast-discussion-thread

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not even sure what your last sentence means. As for your first if you mean people with true brain chemistry balance then I agree with you. As a Licensed MH Counselor I have seen many psychotic indidvuals who have little to no insight and won't take Meds due to side effects. Our courts have failed to provide care for them and some suffer more than they can objectively appreciate.

I was on my phone, so brevity may have cost clarity.

I mean that one can recognize that Person A did something evil because they are mentally ill, among other factors. That does not equate to justification in the sense it relieves them of culpability. We do not say 'well, he just did it because he's crazy' and then put them back on the streets to offend again. In the same way we recognize that a rabid animal is not rabid by choice, and we must put it down or segregate it from other animals. Prison time is not just about punishment, nor is it just about rehabilitation. It is also about segregation of the dangerous away from the potential victim. I could care less if this is done in an asylum or in a prison, as long as it's done.

[45dotACP]

I was on my phone, so brevity may have cost clarity.

I mean that one can recognize that Person A did something evil because they are mentally ill, among other factors. That does not equate to justification in the sense it relieves them of culpability. We do not say 'well, he just did it because he's crazy' and then put them back on the streets to offend again. In the same way we recognize that a rabid animal is not rabid by choice, and we must put it down or segregate it from other animals. Prison time is not just about punishment, nor is it just about rehabilitation. It is also about segregation of the dangerous away from the potential victim. I could care less if this is done in an asylum or in a prison, as long as it's done.

That's a very good way of putting it I think.

It is of note that there are many people with personality disorders who work and integrate successfully into our world and our communities. They are not all violent murderers or serial killers. In fact, most of them are able to deal with life rather well and some do quite well in the workplace. The supreme self confidence, the ability to manipulate with little empathy, and the lack of emotional connection...heck they'd probably be incredible politicians!

There are some who are criminals, but again, I'd posit that a murderer might very well murder because he enjoys it, while not suffering from some mental delusion other than being a serial killer. In fact, a study in 2002 concluded that while "psychopaths" (a construct here used to describe a result of the PCL-R and contains similarities to several different personality disorders) who committed murder typically did so in "cold blood" or through "instrumental violence" that the majority of instances of "instrumental violence" or "cold blooded murder) were still committed by non-psychopaths.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/pspi/psychopathy.html

For many mentally ill, there is still the social aspect of "I will not commit crime because I wasn't raised like that" or "I will not commit crime, because I don't want to go to jail." or "I will not commit crime, because it has no benefit to me." Although a mental illness can have an effect on these inhibitions, inhibitions and coping mechanisms still exist and can still be learned.

For some of these spree killers however, I'm not sure whether I'm buying mental illness as the main reason they did what they did, a contributing factor sure, but other things contributed as well. Several were bullied and wanted vengence for it, or held ideologies that promoted violence towards unbelievers, such as radical islam, or believed that women should be punished for rejecting them.

[Wondering Beard]

The supreme self confidence, the ability to manipulate with little empathy, and the lack of emotional connection...heck they'd probably be incredible politicians!
.

You seem to be generalizing about personality disorders. While what you wrote easily covers the narcissist and the antisocial but not the borderline, avoidant, schizotypal, OCD and so on.

[45dotACP]

You seem to be generalizing about personality disorders. While what you wrote easily covers the narcissist and the antisocial but not the borderline, avoidant, schizotypal, OCD and so on.

Who are also able to live well adjusted lives...

if I listed all DSM-V disorders along every axis, I would have arthiritis in my fingers and my greater point wasn't specific to narcissists, sociopaths, borderlines, schizotype, ocd, dependant, avoidant and so on, but my example was specific to narcissists or sociopaths.

I should have prefaced that with "for example..."

Hence the generlization.

[Wondering Beard]

Who are also able to live well adjusted lives...

Quite true, though it is a mentally harder life than it is for those who are "normal".

I always worry about generalization when it comes to those with mental and emotional difficulties, especially those who are diagnosible in the DSMs, since it becomes so easy for people who do not have the least idea about mental illness (esp. journalists and politicians) to lump all those people in the category of "crazy and dangerous".

As an aside, I am quite certain that a plurality of politicians are malignant narcissists and sociopaths.

[Josh Runkle]

You seem to be generalizing about personality disorders. While what you wrote easily covers the narcissist and the antisocial but not the borderline, avoidant, schizotypal, OCD and so on.

This was my point very early on (I think post #2). Whether people have a true illness, or they relate to an illness to cover for social behavior, or they're faking, or society labels or mislabels things...

Mental illness is incredibly individualized. Treatment is highly individualized. Even the individuals themselves may exhibit a certain type of behavior 99.5% of the time, and might be completely different that 0.5% of the time.

Perhaps society "lumps" people together too easily or not enough...

The point though: this whole discussion is too hard for professionals to settle and agree upon, so what good does it do us to try?

ETA: not saying we should give up, I'm just asking what can be gained here?

[Gary1911A1]

Correction...1 in 4 globally per the WHO, but closer to 1 in 5 for the US...still a large number. Mea Culpa.

Yes it takes into account Anxiety, substance abuse etc...again though, the Va Tech shooter was suffering from anxiety and selective mutism, that's not a mentall illness associated with violence, yet there were people who blamed his mental illness, not the fact that his coping skills included fantasizing about murdering his classmates,

And no, these numbers don't come from self diagnosis or "sometimes I get depressed, but from people having the met the criteria set forth by the DSM to say "mentally ill"

I agree. I'm still adjusting to the new DSM and could care less about making it consistent with the World Health Organization.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Anecdotally, a few years ago I had a conversation with a psychiatrist regarding clinical depression of a loved one. He agreed that it was no different than, say, diabetes......a chemical imbalance in the body. My layman's understanding, social stigmas regarding mental health issues notwithstanding, is that unlike insulin levels, we don't yet know or have the ability to measure "normal" levels of dopamine, nor-epinephrine, epinephrin, seratonin, etc. Therefore, treatment becomes a game of educated "ready-fire-aim".

[BWT]

Here's my take, and feel free to chime in or correct me if I'm wrong, but the mental illness is typically less important than the coping skills of the individual.


I believe the mental health system needs more help than it has now, but at the same time, saying that uncontrolled mental illness was responsible for Virginia Tech is no more true than saying gun control would have prevented it. The blame lies solely on the perpetrator. Someone with Anxiety just isn't prone to violence, however if their coping strategy is to fantasize about murdering their classmates, then they are just a homicidal dirtbag. There's no magical "mental health" concern with someone who has ultra violent fantasies about murdering their classmates or bombing a marathon. They're just a turd.

I agree with you that I don't think that mental illness equates rampage killing.

I think a lot of Gun Control advocates, and heck even Gun right proponents are guilty of blaming things that may not be the root cause of an issue. Gun Control advocates blame anything and everything for violence, and the necessity of de-arming the rest of the population. Where as Gun Rights proponents also fall prey to the "blame this" mentality as far as video games, music, etc.

The truth is... in our society it's less and less popular to actually let people own their faults. If a man wants to be a woman, well then he was born as a man but with the wrong parts, hormones, etc. Or if a woman wants to be black that's white; then she just related and identified as black because of her background. If a person gets hooked on drugs in a bad side of town it's their upbringing, and they couldn't help it. If someone sexually abuses children it's because they were sexually abused. We need to restrict what foods kids can have access to because they can't handle the decision, and the issue is the food.

I'm not saying that bad stuff doesn't happen which has a dramatic effect on people, and people aren't going through legitimate circumstances that may require some concessions. But the truth is we still make decisions, and ultimately that falls on us. That's my largest concern these days is people are less and less accountable or culpable for their behavior.

Heck, even our President often times just claims ignorance of circumstances that led to major crises, and that's our national leader. This is an alarming trend for me, because at the end of the day people aren't responsible.

I know this is a rant loosely related to your content, but I see this as part of the source of the problem you're discussing. For instance, I was diagnosed as having ADHD as a kid and given medication pretty much from the time I was 5 to 19. I was told I had a learning disability, and I believe I did for a time (or maybe I was a hyper five year old boy that just had a lot of energy? Watch any kid and you'll see similar behaviors usually).

The amount of kids being diagnosed as ADHD these days has absolutely exploded, and I truly believe it's because some Doctor's simply don't want to explain to parents that they aren't properly parenting their children because that would require someone taking ownership. It's easier to blame something than it is to tell someone what they did was wrong.

At least, that's my perspective on the issue.

ETA: I don't think responsibility is the source of this problem, but part of it at least.

[BWT]

I was unable to edit my original post a second time.

I read the thread in entirety, and I think that many people may display symptoms of a disorder, but I believe that many people are misdiagnosed or labeled.

I think there is an incentive from the gun grabbers to take something agreeable (but generic, AKA "For the children") like "the mentally ill shouldn't have guns" (average Joe pictures someone with a serious mental instability and concedes that seems logical). But then, they cite a statistic as 25% of the U.S. currently has some kind of mental disorder, and I don't believe that's an accurate statement.

This falls into the same categories in my mind of gun evil that might be environmental contamination (lead), gun show loop holes, child-related gun deaths, or straw purchases that aren't prosecuted because they were "making a point" (Bloomberg).

This is another tangent, but why I'm wary of mental illness becoming more and more of an angle to disqualify gun ownership. Given that stance, and how intimately the government is getting involved in our lives regarding insurance records, procedures, and various treatments with the ACA, etc. that this issue is going to be coming more and more to the forefront.

There seems to be a bandwagoning on this new evil amongst Pro Gun advocates but I don't think many understand the implications.

The truth is whether a person has a clear head, mental illness, or some other factors; a threat's a threat in an armed/unarmed confrontation.

I think there's a logical fallacy in the "But if it saves just one X, Y, or Z", and we've lost a lot of rights with that mindset.

ETA: I think I've also gone on an fairly off-topic rant. Bottom line, I need to do homework and quit stalling, and I think the OP is absolutely correct in his assessment that mental illness, in and of itself, doesn't remove the ability of an individual to make cognitive and deliberate decisions 99.9% of the time. I worry that the rare cases of legitimate mental illness will be leveraged politically against gun owners.

[GardoneVT]

Alright, so Ill break this idea down while im still here. Im of the belief that mental illness as applied to why people do evil "stuff" is a very red herring. Its a comfortable misdirection because the core truth is too horrible to contemplate.

Much of civilized society goes about life believing , in general, that people are fundamentally good. Ive seen too many examples of the opppsite to believe that. While I do not subscribe to some nihilist notion that all are fundamentally evil either, it is my personal determination that all individuals are simultaneously capable of great good, moderate good,neutrally good actions....or their evil equivalents ranging from "jerk move dude " to "savage murder of children in cold blood."

Herein we arrive at a problem, because that's a proposition most folks find WAY too uncomfortable to face. The idea that every single one of us six billion souls is capable of being Hitler or (Name of Sandy Hook Shooter Redacted) represents an idea so repulsive denial is the first refuge people run to.

In looking at spree killings, to name one category in the "heinous evil" column, one will see that there is only one quantifiable uniting factor among the perpetrators-being human.One wouldnt think a normal, family man stockbroker would shoot up his own office....but it happened. One wouldnt think a Catholic Priest would commot sexual assault against a minor, but it happened at an institutional level.

To a lesser extent, this is why I believe people adopt anti-gun opinions . Blaming a firearm or the availibility thereof makes a nice. comfy psychological schapegoat to the notion that if Person X could commit mass murder maybe I (the collective I as it were) could too under the same conditions and options. Taking away the guns represents removing the means to commit evil, so thus all will be right with humanity and society from now on because the option to exercise the personal capability of evil no longer theoretically exists.

For mental health, it represents a way for folks to collectively displace their own discomfort with their darker natures, natures all of us people possess to some extent even if its not actively displayed.

That being said, I solemnly await the pitchforks and exclaimations that im outside my lane hardcore.

[Josh Runkle]

Alright, so Ill break this idea down while im still here. Im of the belief that mental illness as applied to why people do evil "stuff" is a very red herring. Its a comfortable misdirection because the core truth is too horrible to contemplate.

Much of civilized society goes about life believing , in general, that people are fundamentally good. Ive seen too many examples of the opppsite to believe that. While I do not subscribe to some nihilist notion that all are fundamentally evil either, it is my personal determination that all individuals are simultaneously capable of great good, moderate good,neutrally good actions....or their evil equivalents ranging from "jerk move dude " to "savage murder of children in cold blood."

Herein we arrive at a problem, because that's a proposition most folks find WAY too uncomfortable to face. The idea that every single one of us six billion souls is capable of being Hitler or (Name of Sandy Hook Shooter Redacted) represents an idea so repulsive denial is the first refuge people run to.

In looking at spree killings, to name one category in the "heinous evil" column, one will see that there is only one quantifiable uniting factor among the perpetrators-being human.One wouldnt think a normal, family man stockbroker would shoot up his own office....but it happened. One wouldnt think a Catholic Priest would commot sexual assault against a minor, but it happened at an institutional level.

To a lesser extent, this is why I believe people adopt anti-gun opinions . Blaming a firearm or the availibility thereof makes a nice. comfy psychological schapegoat to the notion that if Person X could commit mass murder maybe I (the collective I as it were) could too under the same conditions and options. Taking away the guns represents removing the means to commit evil, so thus all will be right with humanity and society from now on because the option to exercise the personal capability of evil no longer theoretically exists.

For mental health, it represents a way for folks to collectively displace their own discomfort with their darker natures, natures all of us people possess to some extent even if its not actively displayed.

That being said, I solemnly await the pitchforks and exclaimations that im outside my lane hardcore.

This is a really good post that has given me a lot to ponder. Sigh...gotta pull out my bottle of thinking Scotch now. ;)

But sincerely, good post.

[45dotACP]

Alright, so Ill break this idea down while im still here. Im of the belief that mental illness as applied to why people do evil "stuff" is a very red herring. Its a comfortable misdirection because the core truth is too horrible to contemplate.

Much of civilized society goes about life believing , in general, that people are fundamentally good. Ive seen too many examples of the opppsite to believe that. While I do not subscribe to some nihilist notion that all are fundamentally evil either, it is my personal determination that all individuals are simultaneously capable of great good, moderate good,neutrally good actions....or their evil equivalents ranging from "jerk move dude " to "savage murder of children in cold blood."

Herein we arrive at a problem, because that's a proposition most folks find WAY too uncomfortable to face. The idea that every single one of us six billion souls is capable of being Hitler or (Name of Sandy Hook Shooter Redacted) represents an idea so repulsive denial is the first refuge people run to.

In looking at spree killings, to name one category in the "heinous evil" column, one will see that there is only one quantifiable uniting factor among the perpetrators-being human.One wouldnt think a normal, family man stockbroker would shoot up his own office....but it happened. One wouldnt think a Catholic Priest would commot sexual assault against a minor, but it happened at an institutional level.

To a lesser extent, this is why I believe people adopt anti-gun opinions . Blaming a firearm or the availibility thereof makes a nice. comfy psychological schapegoat to the notion that if Person X could commit mass murder maybe I (the collective I as it were) could too under the same conditions and options. Taking away the guns represents removing the means to commit evil, so thus all will be right with humanity and society from now on because the option to exercise the personal capability of evil no longer theoretically exists.

For mental health, it represents a way for folks to collectively displace their own discomfort with their darker natures, natures all of us people possess to some extent even if its not actively displayed.

That being said, I solemnly await the pitchforks and exclaimations that im outside my lane hardcore.
No pitchforks here. I couldn't agree more dude.

[Gary1911A1]

I agree with you that I don't think that mental illness equates rampage killing.

I think a lot of Gun Control advocates, and heck even Gun right proponents are guilty of blaming things that may not be the root cause of an issue. Gun Control advocates blame anything and everything for violence, and the necessity of de-arming the rest of the population. Where as Gun Rights proponents also fall prey to the "blame this" mentality as far as video games, music, etc.

The truth is... in our society it's less and less popular to actually let people own their faults. If a man wants to be a woman, well then he was born as a man but with the wrong parts, hormones, etc. Or if a woman wants to be black that's white; then she just related and identified as black because of her background. If a person gets hooked on drugs in a bad side of town it's their upbringing, and they couldn't help it. If someone sexually abuses children it's because they were sexually abused. We need to restrict what foods kids can have access to because they can't handle the decision, and the issue is the food.

I'm not saying that bad stuff doesn't happen which has a dramatic effect on people, and people aren't going through legitimate circumstances that may require some concessions. But the truth is we still make decisions, and ultimately that falls on us. That's my largest concern these days is people are less and less accountable or culpable for their behavior.

Heck, even our President often times just claims ignorance of circumstances that led to major crises, and that's our national leader. This is an alarming trend for me, because at the end of the day people aren't responsible.

I know this is a rant loosely related to your content, but I see this as part of the source of the problem you're discussing. For instance, I was diagnosed as having ADHD as a kid and given medication pretty much from the time I was 5 to 19. I was told I had a learning disability, and I believe I did for a time (or maybe I was a hyper five year old boy that just had a lot of energy? Watch any kid and you'll see similar behaviors usually).

The amount of kids being diagnosed as ADHD these days has absolutely exploded, and I truly believe it's because some Doctor's simply don't want to explain to parents that they aren't properly parenting their children because that would require someone taking ownership. It's easier to blame something than it is to tell someone what they did was wrong.

At least, that's my perspective on the issue.

ETA: I don't think responsibility is the source of this problem, but part of it at least.

I don't think it's so much Doctors don't want to explain to parents they need to take more responsibility for how they raise there kids as Doctors just make more money by prescribing medication and money was about all the Psychiatrist cared about thatI worked with.