Mass killings and mental health

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    The actual number of people slain by the violent insane is a miniscule percentage of deaths, even preventable accidental deaths, in this country. It attracts attention because of the nature of our mass media. It is generally considered likely that minimising media coverage would reduce the number of attacks even further.

    Beyond that, the trend toward this sort of homicide is no greater, and perhaps less, than in previous generations. We have much more media coverage, in real time, than was previously the case, which gives these incidents considerably more impact on the public consciousness.

    If it bleeds, it leads. People seem to like that sort of news. It takes a lot to make an impression on today's jaded audiences. Just think of these as opportunities for politicians to get face time, as they propose "solutions."

    Meanwhile, the villagers arm themselves with torches and pitchforks, and go after the monsters, or whoever they're told are the monsters. Nothing like fear-mongering to bring out the best in the mob.

    EXACTLY.

    10 people killed in a shooting incident is front page for DAYS. 100 people killed in motor vehicle accidents is just another day in the US. 100 EVERY DAY, and many of those are preventable, if we actually taught people how to drive.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    You might wanna tell them:
    "At midyear 2005 more than half of all prison and jail inmates had a mental health problem, including 705,600 inmates in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. These estimates represented 56% of State prisoners, 45% of Federal prisoners, and 64% of jail inmates. The findings in this report were based on data from personal interviews with State and Federal prisoners in 2004 and local jail inmates in 2002." —Bureau of Justice Statistics
    Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates


    "Mentally ill persons increasingly receive care provided by correctional agencies. In 1959, nearly 559,000 mentally ill patients were housed in state mental hospitals (Lamb, 1998). A shift to "deinstitutionalize" mentally ill persons had, by the late 1990s, dropped the number of persons housed in public psychiatric hospitals to approximately 70,000 (CorrectCare, 1999). As a result, mentally ill persons are more likely to live in local communities. Some come into contact with the criminal justice system. In a 2006 Special Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 705,600 mentally ill adults were incarcerated in state prisons, 78,800 in federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails. In addition, research suggests that "people with mental illnesses are overrepresented in probation and parole populations at estimated rates ranging from two to four times the general population" (Prins and Draper, 2009). Growing numbers of mentally ill offenders have strained correctional systems." —National Institute of Corrections
    Mentally Ill Persons in Corrections

    Hmm, correlation does not imply causation.

    Were they mentally ill before being put in prison? Or did prison cause behavior that is considered mental illness???????

    Chicken or egg?
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    How do you only weed out those? Or are you willing to be locked up because you manage to meet some arbitrary standard of "possibly going to cause harm?"

    As cited in my previous post(s), those diagnosed by a properly trained medic as being dangerous to self and others. Not perfect, but it'll do 'til perfect gets here.:)
     

    DaemonAssassin

    Why should we Free BSD?
    Jun 14, 2012
    23,970
    Political refugee in WV
    As cited in my previous post(s), those diagnosed by a properly trained medic as being dangerous to self and others. Not perfect, but it'll do 'til perfect gets here.:)


    What about our right to due process? Last I checked a medic did not have the ability to give due process, to strip somebody of their rights.

    What makes this load of crap you are shoveling even worse, is the known fact that the mental health profession is massively anti-2A for everybody. My rights can only be taken from me by the courts, not on the say so of a very anti-2A rights profession. What you are wanting is the direct pathway to eliminate the 2A for every American citizen. All they have to do is classify you as having something from DSM-IV and you lose your 2A rights forever. You have IBS, your 2A rights are gone. You sneezed and you popped your glass eye out, your 2A rights are gone. You aren't sleeping well because of stress at work, your 2A rights are gone. Get the picture yet?

    What you are proposing is not only Nazi-ish, but also the wet dream of liberal antis.
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    What about our right to due process? Last I checked a medic did not have the ability to give due process, to strip somebody of their rights.
    What makes this load of crap you are shoveling even worse, is the known fact that the mental health profession is massively anti-2A for everybody. My rights can only be taken from me by the courts, not on the say so of a very anti-2A rights profession. What you are wanting is the direct pathway to eliminate the 2A for every American citizen. All they have to do is classify you as having something from DSM-IV and you lose your 2A rights forever. You have IBS, your 2A rights are gone. You sneezed and you popped your glass eye out, your 2A rights are gone. You aren't sleeping well because of stress at work, your 2A rights are gone. Get the picture yet?
    What you are proposing is not only Nazi-ish, but also the wet dream of liberal antis.

    Okay. What's your answer? How should we deal with a mentally ill person (e.g., Loughner, Cho, Holmes, et al) diagnosed by a trained medic (i.e., psychiatrist) as potentially dangerous to self and others?
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    True, but I believe the victims of the likes of Lanza, Cho, Applewhite, Mateen, Hennard, et al, might beg to differ with you. Certainly, it's immoral, illegal and unrealistic to incarcerate every person with a mental illness. But, on the other hand, when, in hindsight, friends/relatives/co-workers of paranoid schizophrenics who commit violent acts regret not having said something for fear of "being wrong" or possibly "suffering legal fallout for a false report", I think there's something inherently wrong with the system as-is. As is the case with Muslim terrorists, to ignore the [obvious] common denominator that runs through most mass shootings is crazy.

    Exactly. I'm not suggesting locking up EVERY person with a mental illness. But it's way too hard to commit dangerous people. In fact, we usually can't do it until it's too late.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    What we need is a better mental health system. One where we have the resources to deal with these folks. The problem with applying certain restrictions to certain diagnoses is that the diagnoses are not set in stone. Send a guy to 5 different shrinks and you get 5 different diagnoses. The other problem becomes where you draw the line. Statistically, the mentally ill are no more likely to commit a violent crime than the general population (unless there is substance abuse involved, then the rates skyrocket). What if you are depressed? Schizotypal personality disorder? Asperger's? OCD? The net can be cast broadly and affect people who don't need to be denied a Right.

    The generic "mentally ill," yes. Paranoid schizophrenics are far more likely to commit violent crimes. It's the slight of hand like when you say "Immigrants" generically to conflate Indian engineers with uneducated mestizos.
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    George Hennard's a case in point (Hennard's the loon that shot-up the Luby's in Texas and for whom the phrase "mass shooter" entered the colloquial vernacular).
    Hennard was well known to local LE because of repeated complaints by neighbors, but they were unable to do anything because he hadn't [yet] broken any laws.
    TEXAS KILLER SAID TO HAVE 'PROBLEM WITH WOMEN'
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    George Hennard's a case in point (Hennard's the loon that shot-up the Luby's in Texas and for whom the phrase "mass shooter" entered the colloquial vernacular).
    Hennard was well known to local LE because of repeated complaints by neighbors, but they were unable to do anything because he hadn't [yet] broken any laws.
    TEXAS KILLER SAID TO HAVE 'PROBLEM WITH WOMEN'

    So what other groups of people should forfeit their rights without committing a crime or getting bogged down by that pesky due process?

    Gun control has been making the same argument for years, for the most part we have beat it with facts. The CURRENT system affords some measure of due process in that a court has to either determine a person to be mentally incompetent, or issue an order to commit someone to a mental institution involuntarily, at that point they are a prohibited person. In most of the cases on the list of mass shooters, they did not meet that criteria, or met it and got a gun unlawfully anyway(suprise suprise). Meanwhile there are somewhere north of 40 million Americans with a diagnosable mental condition that need the effective means to self defense, and who will never demonstrate any reason that their rights cannot be exercised safely, they might even save a few lives in the process.

    The big picture is: what is the threshold for removing a person's rights and liberty? Some posting through ignorance or just trolling set that bar at "having a problem with women" or basically "being an annoying New Yorker", whatever the current camapign for gun ban buffonery du-jour Bloomberg and Soros happen to favor would be lucky to have you two.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    The generic "mentally ill," yes. Paranoid schizophrenics are far more likely to commit violent crimes. It's the slight of hand like when you say "Immigrants" generically to conflate Indian engineers with uneducated mestizos.

    People with schizophrenia are most likely already prohibited.
     

    fred333

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 20, 2013
    12,340
    So what other groups of people should forfeit their rights without committing a crime or getting bogged down by that pesky due process?

    Groups? Convicted felons, illegals and any group—if such a thing exists—that's been [collectively] diagnosed by trained medics (i.e., psychiatrists) as being dangerous to themselves or others. I believe that is current law. The fly in the ointment is that you can't [physically] prohibit the prohibited from physically possessing weapons when they're loose on the streets.

    As many of us keep saying, it's not the guns, it's the violent person pulling the trigger. Take that violent person off the street and most of the rest of us won't have to worry about being violently victimized.

    "If are you not considered safe enough to be allowed to fly or go hunting, why are you living next door to me? Why do we — if we believe someone is a terrorist [or for whatever reason dangerous to self or others —fred333], why don’t we indict them? [and continue to monitor them until such time as they're no longer considered a threat to self or others —fred333]" —Tucker Carlson
     

    Attachments

    • If you're too dangerous.gif
      If you're too dangerous.gif
      26.5 KB · Views: 110

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    Okay. What's your answer? How should we deal with a mentally ill person (e.g., Loughner, Cho, Holmes, et al) diagnosed by a trained medic (i.e., psychiatrist) as potentially dangerous to self and others?

    Loughner- ccw holder, Joe Zamudio, heard the gunshots and came running to confront the threat. By then, Loughner was already being detained, so Zamudio helped. If he was there at the first shots (or someone else carrying) loughner could have been pretty instantly stopped.

    Cho- Virginia Tech had some ccw holders that left guns in the car. If they had them, they could have stopped Cho. The gun free zone gave Cho a target rich environment of unarmed victims.

    Holmes- the theater was yet another gun free zone. If people near him were armed, they could have confronted him immediately and stopped him, or reduced the damage.

    Lanza- dawn hochsprung was the principal that confronted him as he broke in to the school with the guns that were illegally obtained, transported, and used. The kids were shot and killed because hochsprung didn't have a gun to just shoot Lanza as he first entered the building. Being unarmed, she was simply killed and the murderer went along casually killing kids until an armed presence arrived.


    There are many more good people than bad people. Allowing for concealed carry enables good people that follow laws to immediately confront bad people intent on harming others and stop or reduce the damage. Because there are large, densely populated areas that prohibit the people there from having tools for defense, there will continue to be mass killings.

    All that said, mass shootings represent a statistical anomaly and represent a VERY small numbers of deaths, relative to the total deaths any year. As I mentioned earlier, about 130,000 people die each year by suicide, drugs, or alcohol. Giving these folks the mental medical.help they need would save a lot more lives than if superman came and stopped every mass killing before it happened.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    A great coup pulled of by the gun control lobby, and something many folks don't seem to realize, is that in this day and age, almost anyone who does anything criminal can be labeled mentally ill. DSM-IV has a diagnosis for virtually anything. Many if not most prisoners get counseling and have to continue attending it as a condition of parole or probation. So it's very easy to say every horrible crime is the product of a "mentally ill" person.

    I've said it a zillion times here before. Using stats as close as anyone can guess, probably up to 30-50% of the population has some history with counseling, etc., and maybe 15-20% are on some medication at any given time. Even if it is just a mild SSRI. The antis would like nothing more, and I don't think could kill gun rights any faster; than to label anyone with a MH history as either prohibited or in need of some humiliating lengthy clearance process that 99% won't want to go through. The antis love this idea, because once you take one person's gun rights away guess what, the newly prohibited person generally won't be real happy about anyone else keeping theirs. Unfortunately, as demonstrated occasionally by this thread, there is no shortage of ignorance about mental illness in the gun community, sometimes even with otherwise well-educated individuals.

    Example: Maryland currently has a realistically impossible standard for restoration. Two board certified psychiatrists signing off on a person, among other things. Good luck with that. Good luck with even getting in to see two board certified psychiatrists for anything, let alone getting a certification from both that a person can own a gun again. It's almost impossible, even if you had unlimited funds. The turds knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote that into the law, I have no doubt. They certainly had enough MH people around them when drafting it. Fortunately, for now, the prohibition only applies to those who have been committed, etc. For now.
     
    Last edited:

    DaemonAssassin

    Why should we Free BSD?
    Jun 14, 2012
    23,970
    Political refugee in WV
    People with schizophrenia are most likely already prohibited.

    https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download

    http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/federal-law/sales-transfers/mental-health-reporting/
    Determines that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, is a danger to himself, herself, or others (even if that person is not involuntarily committed to a mental institution as a result);
    Determines that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs (depending on state law, this may include a finding that a person is “incapacitated” or disabled by mental illness, or it may result in the appointment of a guardian or conservator);
    Finds a person not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility in a criminal case;
    Finds a person guilty but insane in a criminal case;
    Finds a person incompetent to stand trial; or
    Formally commits a person involuntarily to a mental institution or asylum for mental defectiveness, mental illness, and other reasons, such as drug use.18

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mental-defect/
    Mental defect is defined as mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual's functioning and is defined in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) of the American Psychiatric Association.

    https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-R-0253.htm

    Long story short, if you are schizophrenic, have psychosis, sub-normal intelligence, and a few others, you are prohibited from firearms ownership, according to federal law.
     

    DaemonAssassin

    Why should we Free BSD?
    Jun 14, 2012
    23,970
    Political refugee in WV
    Exactly. I'm not suggesting locking up EVERY person with a mental illness. But it's way too hard to commit dangerous people. In fact, we usually can't do it until it's too late.

    I'm calling ******** and am quoting your exact words earlier in the thread.

    Ignorant extremist statement.

    Not vaguely "mental illness," but schizophrenics and bipolar people have no business being free, much less owning guns.

    NYC is showing you an urban environment where people do not have mental issues, but act in the manner that they were raised. Because they are not your "high standards" for society, you are acting out.

    I live in New York. I'm tired of hearing crazy people screaming at the air down the road. We'd be better off putting them in state mental hospitals.

    Direct contradiction in the post quoted below.

    Of course with a hearing. Due process is important. But waiting until it's too late (which is the policy now) is not good.

    Back to the extreme again.

    The severely mentally ill. Prior to the deinstitutionalization of the 60s and 70s, these people were involuntarily committed. And we were better off for it.

    You might want to read federal law on your assumption, because you are factually incorrect.

    No. I'm suggesting that the current test for "danger" is "has done something violent." In other words, we don't act until after it's too late. A person who hears voices and screams at the air should be locked up. Period.

    And you are extreme, yet again. If the person is medicated or is able to manage themselves in a manner that poses no danger to the public, then there is no reason why they should not be able to exercise the right.

    There's nothing ignorant about not wanting schizophrenics roaming free in society.

    Here comes the extremist nature and ignorance again, without any factual information to back up your assumptions and statements.

    I've read your arguments. At best, you're saying they're weird and annoying, but if lucky, can be harmless with treatment. Their families are usually fed up with them and don't know what to do. Overall, we're better off without them in society.

    So now you are attempting a half assed backpedal on what you have previously stated. Really classy.

    The generic "mentally ill," yes. Paranoid schizophrenics are far more likely to commit violent crimes. It's the slight of hand like when you say "Immigrants" generically to conflate Indian engineers with uneducated mestizos.

    Want to keep spouting the BS? Go right ahead, but members know you are full of it and are seeing right through you to your extremist ways.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    Pre-emptive solutions to the problem of human nature vs freedom are commonplace.

    Stalin imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Russians as insane. They opposed the regime, the perfect government, so were obviously insane. Hitler's program of eugenics removed such unfit specimens of sub-humanity as Jews, Gypsies, cripples, the insane, from the body politic, lest they corrupt the race. Institutionalisation, sterilisation, and death all played a part in his plan for good breeding stock. Democrats currently also believe that those who disagree with their concept of governmental paradise are unfit, and must be outed for the degenerates they are.

    While societies more inclined to support personal freedom suffer from attacks by the violent insane, which some believe to be part of the price to pay for extending personal freedom to those who differ from the "norm," bear in mind that these excesses occur with similar frequency in far more tightly-controlled societies. A link to "Chinese knife attacks" makes for some eye-opening reading. https://www.google.com/#q=chinese+knife+attack

    Jews have been singled out for centuries for opprobrium, attacked and slaughtered indiscriminately for the crime of being different. Negroes, Slavs, Irish, Italians, and pretty much anyone who stood out for being different from the parties in power are invariably used as distractions by the powerful, to keep attention focused away from what they were doing to increase their wealth and power.

    The Progressive ideal society denies the existence of evil, and believes firmly that human nature is infinitely perfectible, and more importantly, that their solution ensures the ultimate perfectibility of society. Somehow, this ideal continually fails, stymied by the imperfection of humanity, or "reality," as I prefer to call it.

    Maryland is a microcosm of this failure, but is far from the only current example. Our nation's founding document is an attempt to balance the rights of man with the responsibilities of society. It's not perfect, but then again, nothing and no one is. The idea that one can set up a perfect system which will run perfectly without constant corrective action is a pipe dream.

    The battle for freedom must be fought continuously, and the outcome will depend completely on the character and integrity of those who struggle with the problems that constantly present themselves. The Liberal dream is not attainable, but the original intent is certainly laudable. Sadly, the methods espoused to bring it to pass are in themselves both ineffective and, ultimately, harmful to both those who exercise the methodology, and the unlucky souls upon whom it is exercised.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,308
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom