Support NeoGAF

[DECK'ARD]

Dismissing mental illness as a contributing factor in gun violence in a thread whose aggressor was seemingly suffering from a mental illness is ridiculous regardless of whether or not you or I believe it is falsely attributed to other cases. "People blame X when it isn't true, therefore X is never true" is just faulty logic.

That said, I wouldn't exactly paint Dylann Roof, Robert Lewis Dear, Christopher Dorner, or James Eagan Holmes as mentally sound individuals. People who knew these individuals have come forward and described a number of concerning and shared traits, paranoia being chief among them. There is merit to the suggestion that undiagnosed mental illnesses are contributors in a lot of cases like these.

Read the damn article, it's not about dismissing it it's about understanding it and it's actual connection to violence.

Which you should want to instead of just drawing your own conclusions.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

We are calling psychotic breaks 'paranoia' now? It's not schizophrenia no more, just 'paranoid'?

 

[opoth]

One mentally ill person did something terrible therefore tens of millions of others meeting a similar demographic do terrible things. Ok.

This is how the drug war is conducted in this country as well. That seems to be an acceptable approach for the drug war, despite the fact that drugs default purpose is to alter one's self temporarily, and firearms default purpose is to kill.

 

[DragonSworne]

With so many claims of mental illness being the source of these shootings, wouldn't it make sense to have gun owners have physiological exams every few years?

We already have federal laws that ban felons from owning guns, why not extend it to the mentally ill if it is such a problem for them to own guns?

It's not expensive or evasive. It's the least that could be done, especially if you don't want to actually help the mentally ill.

 

[DECK'ARD]

We are calling psychotic breaks 'paranoia' now? It's not schizophrenia no more, just 'paranoid'?

It's difficult to diagnose a dead person.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

It's difficult to diagnose a dead person.

It's difficult to get certainty on a lot of things when people are dead but that doesn't really stop attempts.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

The problem is reliance on mental illnesses as an exclusivity, rather than asking how those individuals got to those points in the first place. Roof was a clearly racist individual, and while racism is just as much of a problem in that situation, if not more of one, people are quick to dismiss that racism and its accessibility are a topic that actually need to be tackled in favor of just branding him as psychologically irreparable.

I've addressed similar thoughts in other threads and largely agree with what you're arguing here. That said, you have to recognize the truth of the inverse as well: for every pro-gun person that exclusively blames violent crime on mental health, there is an anti-gun person on the other side blaming the issue exclusively on firearms barring all other considerations.

There are clear and obvious issues with firearm access that can and should be addressed but there are far more problems at play that are contributing to the spike in mass-shootings. The firearms that are being used here didn't just pop up in the last couple of decades: they've been available and in circulation since before most people here were born.

One mentally ill person did something terrible therefore tens of millions of others meeting a similar demographic do terrible things. Ok.

More than a couple of the most well-publicized mass shootings have been carried out by people that are either suspected or known to have been suffering from mental illness. It isn't some conspiracy or deflection to assert as much.

 

[charsace]

I have no problem with gun ownership. Its the ability to have a gun that needs to be made harder. This guy should not have been able to get a gun.

 

[DECK'ARD]

It's difficult to get certainty on a lot of things when people are dead but that doesn't really stop attempts.

Well this is notoriously difficult even when alive, and while we should obviously still try to it more highlights how much more needs to be in place apart from just who guns are sold to.

A person presenting symptoms like this could have seemed perfectly fine in September when he got the gun.

And if there were concerns, stigmatising mental illness in this way makes it less likely for people themselves to seek help or have those avenues available. And it can also lead to them being shot dead for holding a screwdriver when family members do try and get them help.

Those suffering from mental illness actually have a lower incidence of violence than the general population, and are FAR more likely to be victims of it. The general perception is the complete opposite, and that is as much of an issue as gun violence and needs to be tackled in itself not just where the two intersect.

 

[DragonSworne]

Those suffering from mental illness actually have a lower incidence of violence than the general population, and a FAR more likely to be victims of it.

Is it true that the mentally ill are more harmful to themselves than others?

 

[Skinpop]

Is it true that the mentally ill are more harmful to themselves than others?

I'd be surprised if that weren't the case. attack psychos are quite rare but like 1/3 or so of all people will suffer from depression at some point in their life.

 

[rjinaz]

I have no problem with gun ownership. Its the ability to have a gun that needs to be made harder. This guy should not have been able to get a gun.

Well therein lies the problem. A person can buy a gun when they are 20 and be mentally sound and then when they are 30 have a complete mental breakdown. If mental health if a societal issue in America, stricter gun control should be implemented instead of blocked at every turn because there is very little we can do to control mental health from person to person but there are things we can do to control guns from person to person.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Is it true that the mentally ill are more harmful to themselves than others?

Yes.

http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/ne...p-journalists/violence-mental-health-problems

The article before is also a good read on misconceptions, and how it really factors into the gun violence debate while avoiding the issue of gun control itself completely.

 

[Enter The 36 Chambers]

Nobody needs a gun. If banning guns meant significantly reducing events like this, then who the fuck could be against it.

Non American opinion of course.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Well therein lies the problem. A person can buy a gun when they are 20 and be mentally sound and then when they are 30 have a complete mental breakdown. If mental health if a societal issue in America, stricter gun control should be implemented instead of blocked at every turn because there is very little we can do to control mental health from person to person but there are things we can do to control guns from person to person.

Which is why some are so anxious to pin the blame solely on mental illness as a way of avoiding wider and more effective changes which would also serve to help prevent it.

The wider and more effective they are, the bigger the hit on profit.

And blaming the mentally ill while spending nothing to help them is obviously the most cost-effective of all.

 

[RedFyn]

With so many claims of mental illness being the source of these shootings, wouldn't it make sense to have gun owners have physiological exams every few years?

The issue comes down to how many of these shootings you'd actually prevent. Not that it wouldn't be worth it but we need to figure out a way to drastically reduce the amount of incidents and I don't think this is the solution. Unfortunately this is also a case where any other weapon could have been used to the same effect which makes it easier to argue for mental health issues overall rather than gun specific ones. I don't think it would be hard for anti gun control advocates to say something like 'this could've been done with a knife, liberals just want to take away your guns. They don't care about the overall mental health issues in this country' etc..

Nobody needs a gun. If banning guns meant significantly reducing events like this, then who the fuck could be against it.

Non American opinion of course.

Guns aren't going to be banned. Plain and simple. I just don't think it helps the conversation to talk about fantasy.

 

[_Nemo]

It's really sad that this keeps happening

Then I see this come across on Facebook

That annoyed me immensely. Young kids should not have to be concerned by such things.


Edit: like all things online it's hard to know if these things are genuine or fake to invoke emotion.

You can just feel how hard the adult writing that was trying to make it look like a kid's writing. Not hating the message, but yeah..that's not a kid who wrote that.

 

[jblank83]

More than a couple of the most well-publicized mass shootings have been carried out by people that are either suspected or known to have been suffering from mental illness. It isn't some conspiracy or deflection to assert as much.

And most of them are sane but terrible people. You can't trample on one group's rights because it's convenient while ignoring the other because it's inconvenient. There are many people who can be labeled "mentally ill" who are perfectly functional, pleasant individuals. There are masses of sane people who are not.

Scapegoating mentally ill individuals to the exclusion of other solutions will be meaningless political theater.

 

[Par Score]

This is an unfathomable and unforgivable crime but one guy is not representative of an entire group no matter how convenient it is to pretend otherwise.

As much as I hate guns and hate how easy it is to get them, even I can see the foolishness in using one person as an example to make a flippant insinuation about all gun carriers.

One mentally ill person did something terrible therefore tens of millions of others meeting a similar demographic do terrible things. Ok.

Yes, we really shouldn't use the one and only instance of gun violence to ever occur in America to argue against gun ownership.

This single event, the first of it's kind, might be a one off. Until we've established gun violence as a long term and growing problem we should hold off on making judgements.

 

[appaws]

Federally funded research has been "banned". The amount of money, resources and data the CDC has access to is unmatched. Its impact would be significant.

Your post is painfully stupid to read. We already have data from other countries that less guns = less death by guns, period. That much is clear cut. As if having more mass fucking shootings than days in the year so far doesn't already make this clear. LOL at claiming gun ownership is a human right, and LOL at bringing up the constitution. As if the ambiguous document from over 200 years ago is infallible, not subject to change and/or different interpretations.

More guns = more death by guns, period. They need to become more difficult to obtain, more public education must be provided, and eventually, they must be phased out culturally and literally. We owe it ourselves as a society - the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Sure the constitution is subject to change. We all know there is an amendment process. Go ahead and get to work convincing the most free people in the history of the planet to surrender their individual liberties. I am sure the state will continue to show the same high level of care and competence that they have throughout history.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

The fervent defense by gun enthusiasts can be absolutely appaling at times. You can have your guns and keep them, but merely suggesting that more rigorous measures are taken to ensure proper responsibility and accountability is immediately met with "but muh rights".

Every single time this comes up, I'm reminded of the Onion story ""This can't be avoided", says only nation where this happens".

My words are meaningless in the eyes of those affected, I can only hope people start using their heads to improve things going forward.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Sure the constitution is subject to change. We all know there is an amendment process. Go ahead and get to work convincing the most free people in the history of the planet to surrender their individual liberties. I am sure the state will continue to show the same high level of care and competence that they have throughout history.

The US is not even close to the most free people in the history of the planet. Holy shit. Your country was built on slavery, just passed through legal segregation 50 years ago and ranks behind at least 20 countries depending on the rankings in freedom. You aren't even the freest people in North America.