Mass Murder And Mental Illness

[oftheherd1]

I think you're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but this in particular is a point that I've heard before and I think it's a specious question. The root of it seems to be, if someone wants to kill people, they will kill people. Sure. I get that.

But, how easy we make it and how much damage can be done is something we have some control over. Had Holmes been armed with a machete, I don't think that he would have been able to kill 13 and wound another 50 or so. Even a knife in one hand and a machete in the other, he would have had trouble getting to 70 people. Even Conan the Barbarian, armed with a giant, two handed sword would have had trouble doing that.

AND, if his access to guns was restricted such that he had to resort to blades of some kind, it strengthens the position of gun advocates in that a (presumably sane), lawful gun owner would have a clear upper hand.

Fair point. I didn't notice you mention explosive devices though.

 

[Steve]

OK, that's a start for sure. But you can't legislate that, so we have to find some way to change attitudes. As good an idea as I think that is, I also think that would take longer than we can afford in trying to fix the problem. Do you have an idea how we might speed that up?

Nope. Honestly, it's about education, and this is where as a country we would need to do several things. No one easy fix. Some ways to increase awareness and shape public understanding are PSAs, working through the schools, and probably most effectively, using social media, the internet and television to increase awareness and understanding of mental illness, to encourage an open dialogue about the issues of mental illness, crime and homelessness, and being introducing people (particularly our younger generations) to examples of people who are battling mental illness while defying the common, negative stereotypes that surround the issue.

As for speeding things up... this is a problem 30 years in the making. Longer if you consider that we've never really addressed the issues at hand. So, having refused to deal with it for so long, I can't imagine it will be a quick fix. Look at how long it took for us to overcome the stigmas surrounding AIDS. Or, honestly, the level of prejudice and negative stereotyping we're dealing with, we're really looking at shaping public opinion on the scale of what the gay/lesbian community has battled since before the 70s and the days of the Stonewall Inn in New York.

IMO, looking for a quick fix would be a huge mistake and would likely do more harm than good. It would be looking for an easy solution to a very complicated problem.

 

[Steve]

Fair point. I didn't notice you mention explosive devices though.

Yeah, didn't address that one for a couple of reasons. First, unlike the typical mass murder, shooting spree perpetrated by someone who is mentally ill, it doesn't take a crazy person to blow people up. We see sane people doing that all the time.

Second, it's just not something that happens in our country with the frequency of a shooting spree.

Also, we have safeguards in place that catch most crazy people trying to use explosives before it happens. Ready made explosives are rigidly regulated, and home brew explosives are often identified during their purchase. Most recipes are well known and easily tracked, while the more exotic recipes need specialized expertise not commonly available to the average person.

A machete, however, can be purchased at the local Big 5 without raising any suspicion whatsoever.

 

[harlan]

Media campaign.

OK, that's a start for sure. But you can't legislate that, so we have to find some way to change attitudes. As good an idea as I think that is, I also think that would take longer than we can afford in trying to fix the problem. Do you have an idea how we might speed that up?

 

[Wo Fat]

I think oftheherd1 and Steve make great points: there is no quick fix. But the first thing that we as a society have to do is change our attitude toward the issue of mental wellness (or whatever one wants to call it).

We have an idea of who belongs in prison, and who is in need of help. By our actions and inactions, we seem to prefer prison and warehousing. However, the Klebolds & Harris'es and the James Holmes'es and the Seung-hui Cho's seemed to be otherwise convinced that their places were in a free society.

 

[granfire]

I think oftheherd1 and Steve make great points: there is no quick fix. But the first thing that we as a society have to do is change our attitude toward the issue of mental wellness (or whatever one wants to call it).

We have an idea of who belongs in prison, and who is in need of help. By our actions and inactions, we seem to prefer prison and warehousing. However, the Klebolds & Harris'es and the James Holmes'es and the Seung-hui Cho's seemed to be otherwise convinced that their places were in a free society.

not sure if they thought their place was in free society, but they certainly knew they did not fit in well.

 

[oftheherd1]

aight, look around. Pull up the news of people gone postal. The majorities of all cases are in the US. Can you deny that?

No, I cannot from personal knowledge or research, but this might be of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers where it seems that the US does not have most of the incidents (still more than I or anyone would wish of course).

The part of the system that you don't see: It's called health care. It starts with the financial coverage <GASP, I know> that is much better in nearly all industrial nations than the US.

That has been debated a lot here on MT and elsewhere. I have not seen that defended well. I understand a lot of that depends on what a person wants to see, including me. But for every anecdote I hear about how good other countries socialized medicine is, I hear at least one other anecdote about long waits to see a doctor, long waits for surgical procedures, or difficulty in getting drugs.

As to getting it to work for you...ok, I admit, my evidence is anecdotal, stories from people who have grievances when they can't get the help needed for their family members. Plus some methods in the US are still archaic. I am not going to bore you with details, but straight jackets are not in the arsenal in other countries....

I don't quite make the connection of those two sentences, but I haven't seen a straight jacket in years. Maybe you travel in different circles than I do. I think you will find drugs are the normal method of subduing people so they can't hurt others or themselves. If someone works where straight jackets are still used, please chime in.

You wanted evidence that mentally unstable people are warehoused in jails, I pointed you at one of many TV shows that clearly show it. Clear enough for the layman to see it. Numbers? Ask your department of correction for them. But I am not sure if they even have them. They might have psychologists on staff, but a psychiatrist is needed. And yes, though both start with psy, it's a huge difference.

I don't consider that type of TV show an authority on the subject. If you wish to, so be it. However, I think you willl find they are skewed by such things as producer influence for sensationalism, the number of inmates who are willing to give permission to be photographed, and percentage of such people in the given institution reported on.

I am aware of the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists. And while I am out of my area of expertise, I think they both have a role to play. Each seems to have help to provide out of prison settings, I don't know why it would be different in one.

As to the society and it's shortfalls...I suppose you have to step outside of it to see it....


Lets start with the legal age of certain things: If it is alright for a 13 year old child to be handles like an adult in front of a judge, it in turn ought to be quiet alright to give this 'adult' a beer and a smoke. Does that illustrate it enough for you>

The American man has to be tough and masculine, lest he be judged 'gay' but we also have really no outlets for them anymore. I am guessing that is one reason the shoot'em up games are so popular, a guy can do the stuff they seem to be biologically wired for. Values we still embrace, but can't condone in a social context. (not even going into the disconnect of playing adrenalin inducing games while our behinds are parked on the couch...)

Oh, and men are more likely to snap or have mental 'abnormalities' than women...

Children do mature at different rates. I am not aware we have a good method to quantify that yet. I don't hear of many 13 yo children being charged as adults. You do hear it so for 16 yo, and once in a while 15 yo. And that usually only for very heinous crimes. And at those ages, they should know the such crimes are bad. But I think the number is statistically low.

As to beer and cigarettes, perhaps so in the home. The parent gets to decide such things. But do you mean to equate mass killing with beer and cigarette consumption by juveniles?

As to the American man, I am not an expert, but do claim some first hand knowledge. You may be right that some play those games for those reasons of frustration. Others [EDIT] show their masculinity by promoting [/EDIT] a relationship with their wives and family, take up hobbies other that computer games, study martial arts, and some join the military.

So I don't think all American men are electronically emasculated yet. Although considering how much I have been posting here on MT the last few days, I may have to re-evaluate that. ;-)

As to the weapons at hand....I am sure you can kill 12 people with a machete, but can you do so, injure 58 others all in a couple of minutes, without breaking a sweat?

And to have an explosive vest, you have to have explosives....and those are regulated or ought to be, even more than guns...and guess what, they want to regulate purchases of fertilizer....

I thought I saw you comment in Sukerkin's thread on chemistry sets. If you read all the posts, especially Elder's you must realize it wouldn't be as hard as you want to get me to believe (that's not meant to be anything agains Elder, just to illustrate how easy it can be. He was not alone in experimenting with things like that). Also, just get a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook or the like, and you will be amazed how we can live better chemically through household products.

Regulation of fertilizer has been in the works for a long time.

 

[brownie710]

As a mental health counselor I would have to say the term "mentally ill" is far to broad to use when talking about restrictions. Would I want a person who had been mugged/raped/ assaulted who is suffering from PTSD (which technically is an anxiety disorder and therefore a mental illness) to be disallowed from owning a firearm, no. Would I want someone who has anti-social personality disorder and lacks the ability to empathize with others, is highly manipulative and can have a strong sense of entitlement and a pattern of violation of rights of others, yes. Unfortunately since this is often associated with a pattern of deceit and many with this disorder tend to be highly intelligent it is difficult to screen for such folks until after they commit some sort of terrible act. A study done several years ago showed that 2/3 of prisoners in a cross section in US prisons doing long terms for violent crimes met the diagnostic criteria for APD.
The root of the argument, in my opinion, is how to restrict those who will do others harm with a firearm access to them. Unfortunately many of these folks will not obtain them legally.

 

[billc]

I don't know if anyone posted this info. yet, but there was an attempt to deal with this guy...

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...er-gunman-was-referred-threat-assessment-team

The University of Colorado Denver psychiatrist seeing accused murderer James Eagan Holmes was so alarmed by his behavior that she notified the campus-wide threat-assessment team that she helped create years before, a source told The Denver Post.
Dr. Lynne Fenton, identified in a court document as Holmes' psychiatrist, in June took her concerns to members of the campus' Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, but no further action was taken, a source with knowledge of the process told The Post.
University officials could not confirm or deny the report, citing the federal health privacy law and a judge's gag order in the case against Holmes.
The information was first reportedlate Wednesday by Denver's KMGH-TV, 7News. The station, citing unnamed sources, reported that CU-Denver officials did not contact Aurora police before the July 20 massacre at the Century Aurora 16 theater that killed 12 people and injured 58 others. There was no mention in the report of whether CU-Denver police were notified.

 

[oftheherd1]

Yeah, didn't address that one for a couple of reasons. First, unlike the typical mass murder, shooting spree perpetrated by someone who is mentally ill, it doesn't take a crazy person to blow people up. We see sane people doing that all the time.

Second, it's just not something that happens in our country with the frequency of a shooting spree.

Also, we have safeguards in place that catch most crazy people trying to use explosives before it happens. Ready made explosives are rigidly regulated, and home brew explosives are often identified during their purchase. Most recipes are well known and easily tracked, while the more exotic recipes need specialized expertise not commonly available to the average person.

A machete, however, can be purchased at the local Big 5 without raising any suspicion whatsoever.

Some good points. But there are still dangerous chemicals that can cause mass death, that aren't well tracked. And whatever there is, such as fertilizer, if it is used quickly enough, the tracking may well be too late. As to gun availability, that would be one of the solutions I think should be looked at. keeping guns from mentally ill people (explosives as well of course).

However, that we see sane people blow up other people all the time. I see a mention above about defining mental illness. Maybe we also need one for sane. I presume you are talking about suicide bombings? If so, I just can't equate. If you are talking about military killing enemy, I have a little trouble equating that as well.

Have I misunderstood your meaning?

 

[Cryozombie]

And to have an explosive vest, you have to have explosives....and those are regulated or ought to be, even more than guns...and guess what, they want to regulate purchases of fertilizer....

The thing is and I have made this point in numerous threads... while explosives are regulated, it is super easy to get components to make your own, and all the info on how is available online.. If you think about it... you can get everything you need to blow up a car at a Toys R Us. TOYS R US. And you can't really stop this, I mean, what are we gonna do regulate the crap out of Aluminum Foil and Plastic Coke Bottles?

 

[oftheherd1]

As a mental health counselor I would have to say the term "mentally ill" is far to broad to use when talking about restrictions. Would I want a person who had been mugged/raped/ assaulted who is suffering from PTSD (which technically is an anxiety disorder and therefore a mental illness) to be disallowed from owning a firearm, no. Would I want someone who has anti-social personality disorder and lacks the ability to empathize with others, is highly manipulative and can have a strong sense of entitlement and a pattern of violation of rights of others, yes. Unfortunately since this is often associated with a pattern of deceit and many with this disorder tend to be highly intelligent it is difficult to screen for such folks until after they commit some sort of terrible act. A study done several years ago showed that 2/3 of prisoners in a cross section in US prisons doing long terms for violent crimes met the diagnostic criteria for APD.
The root of the argument, in my opinion, is how to restrict those who will do others harm with a firearm access to them. Unfortunately many of these folks will not obtain them legally.

I agree, except I don't want the way to restrict their access to be restricting my access as well.

 

[Cryozombie]

And Steve, I get your point about the stuff being traceable and identifiable, but at the same time it's not, depending what you try and do. As to the idea that it doesn't happen much, I agree, but its MY PERSONAL BELIEF that is because firearms are available. I believe if they were not we would see more of these kinds of mass killings in their place. Bear in mind It's just MY belief, and I could be wrong.

 

[brownie710]

I agree, except I don't want the way to restrict their access to be restricting my access as well.

I agree with you as well oftheherd1! thanks

 

[Wo Fat]

As a mental health counselor I would have to say the term "mentally ill" is far to broad to use when talking about restrictions. Would I want a person who had been mugged/raped/ assaulted who is suffering from PTSD (which technically is an anxiety disorder and therefore a mental illness) to be disallowed from owning a firearm, no. Would I want someone who has anti-social personality disorder and lacks the ability to empathize with others, is highly manipulative and can have a strong sense of entitlement and a pattern of violation of rights of others, yes. Unfortunately since this is often associated with a pattern of deceit and many with this disorder tend to be highly intelligent it is difficult to screen for such folks until after they commit some sort of terrible act. A study done several years ago showed that 2/3 of prisoners in a cross section in US prisons doing long terms for violent crimes met the diagnostic criteria for APD.
The root of the argument, in my opinion, is how to restrict those who will do others harm with a firearm access to them. Unfortunately many of these folks will not obtain them legally.

To be sure, a study that was done on people already imprisoned. My point being, that there is a root cause for society's willingness to criminalize those with anti-social disorders and then study them after-the-fact, while being wholly indifferent to others with anxiety/depressive/other disorders who should similarly be precluded from gun ownership.

I just don't know for certain what that root cause is.

 

[billc]

Killers are going to kill, and no matter what you ban or how you try to prevent it, it will always happen...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

BEIJING (AP) -- A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media said Thursday.
The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught but did not describe the circumstances.
The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.
Police in Xinbin county, which oversees the town, declined to comment.
Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.

And not one "assault" rifle was used. Hmmm...

 

[granfire]

Killers are going to kill, and no matter what you ban or how you try to prevent it, it will always happen...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46



And not one "assault" rifle was used. Hmmm...

but think of the damage he could have done with less handy work and more fire power....

On the upside, there will be a pair of kidneys available soon...

 

[Steve]

Killers are going to kill, and no matter what you ban or how you try to prevent it, it will always happen...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46



And not one "assault" rifle was used. Hmmm...

Intentionally muddying the waters with irrelevant, inflammatory posts is trolling, Bill. What does your personal agenda regarding assault weapons have to do with the conversation at hand? No one has said that banning assault weapons would help (or hurt), or even suggested banning guns. We're talking about mental illness, detection of dangerously ill people at the earliest possible moment, and discussing how we can help reduce the number of these attacks that occur. It's a complicated discussion that has, thus far, been pretty darned positive in spite of the diverse opinions being expressed. Please don't spoil that by reducing the discourse to something as derivative as "Why you no love guns?" or "Why you no ban guns?"

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...from the original post in this thread steve...

IMO, I'd say it would play a part, depending of course, on the seriousness of the illness. Has it been determined to what extent the CO. shooters illness is? Also, touching on something that Bill M. said in another gun thread, in which him and I were talking about the 2nd Amendment, and whether or not people should own certain types of weapons....while I do see his point and agree, should someone with a mental illness be allowed to own weapons?

And the very next post...

I think the line drawn on owning weapons and being mentally ill is if you are a danger to yourself and/or others. If there are very reliable means to determine that, I am not so sure.

Hmmm...and the very next post...

The question begs: should the mentally ill be legally allowed to purchase, possess or have access to guns. Most "sane" people say no. But then, how does a civilized and modern society make that a reality?

For sure, no one should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights, unless convicted felons or insane. In other words, the 2A is already regulated. It's now a matter how efficiently and effectively we regulate.

I don't know of a non-invasive way in which we monitor the mentally ill, but we have to do a better job of being able to keep them away from guns, knives, ammo and the like. A top security database to which only psychiatrists can submit (but not access), and only DHS can access but only for purposes of declining a gun sale at the local level? I really don't know. Ether way you slice it, there is a loss of privacy.

And from post #5...

We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people. If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.

And post #6...

See... I get the intention behind this, and while I agree that the mentally unstable shouldn't have access to weapons, here's the problem with regulation: If you regulate guns and make them harder for you or I to obtain, in order to help protect society from the unstable who might get their hands on them... all you have done is taken them from you or I.

The real, brass tacks truth is that If I were suddenly declared Unstable tonite, and they came and took my guns and my Special Permit to buy them that I need to have here in Illinois, AND blacklisted me on the background check...

I'd still have guns tomorrow. Not only that, but if I had trouble accessing them and wanted to wipe out a theater or mall or whatever full of patrons, I'd just go to Home Depot, or heck, even the corner Gas-Station mini mart, and get what I need to build a bomb.

It's sensible to do background checks. It's sensible to make it illegal for a whackadoo to own a gun... but trying to regulate the weapons themselves is, IMO, futile at best. If nothing else, past precedent proves this... look at all the crime and the mass killings that continued despite the AWB durring Clinton/Bush.

And post #18...

Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are no easy answers, but I think it is worthy of discussion. We do need a solution. I just don't agree with the idea that I need to be inconvenienced rather than seeking a solution that tackles or treats the problem. Guns aren't the problem. Dangerously mentaly ill persons are.

So thanks for your input, but try some other thread, thanks...

People sure like to throw that "troll" term around don't they...perhaps you should read earlier threads and then comment on other people's posts...

In case my name doesn't show up, the latest bad rep. came from me, steve. I hate it when people don't put their names to their bad reps, so there you go.

 

[Steve]

Hmmmm...from the original post in this thread steve...



And the very next post...




Hmmm...and the very next post...



And from post #5...


So thanks for your input, but try some other thread, thanks...

People sure like to throw that "troll" term around don't they...perhaps you should read earlier threads and then comment on other peoples posts...

I don't know about "people" but I try only to use it where the actions meet the definition, in my opinion. And surely you won't deny that you're intentionally trying to stir the pot. Would you?

I don't read every thread on the board, and don't believe I've ever alleged to. I do know that the level of discussion in this thread has been extremely interesting. It's been long on thoughtfulness and short on rancor. I'd love to see it kept that way. Once again, if it is your intent to reduce the discussion to its simplest, most polarizing level, I can't stop you. But I'll call it out as I see it. Maybe if I sum up the next few posts for you, we can skip the drama and stick to the subject of mental illness and its relation to the 2nd amendment (if any).

Here goes. My summary of your posts: Guns good. Rar!
And the inevitable response by someone: No! Guns bad!