News Shooting Attacks And "mental Illness"

[Mammo]

Hi guys,

I was reading this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/how-to-halt-the-violence-treat-mental-illness.html?_r=0

...I wondered how long it would take for a piece in the news to come out like this. I find calls for expansion of "Assisted Outpatient Treatment" terrifying for two reasons:
1. It erodes the human rights of (and potentially traumatises) people who are *potentially* a dangers to other people, but also themselves - because you know, people who've most likely got serious histories of trauma, would benefit so well from draconian and totalitarian measures being imposed on them against their will. Jeffrey Liebermann's view on pretty much all "mental illness" is that it's biologically driven - and not the environment.
2. To me, this misses the wood for the trees, it smacks of scare-mongering and avoiding the real issue of guns in American society.

...what do you guys think?

 

[Truthful_Whispers]

Most murders are simply impulse acts of rage or revenge, committed by "normal" people, and having very little to do with any established mental illnesses. People with MI's are merely the easiest group of people to attack, because it is a cheap and easier avenue to go down to impose gun control. In the states, we never hear of crime actually being stopped by someone who posesses a firearm, unless it is through non corporate/politician owned alternative news. In reality, incidents of crime being deterred, and lives being saved, because of the 2nd Amendment far outnumber the incidents of crime being committed with a firearm. And, focusing the blame on people with mental illnesses is simply underhanded and cheap. Individuals with MI's are persecuted and labeled enough in society, without people in power and the mainstream media broadcasting propaganda to the world, saying that they are all 'crazy'.

 

[RussH]

. To me, this misses the wood for the trees, it smacks of scare-mongering and avoiding the real issue of guns in American society.

This is not the real problem. Our liberal politicians keep talking about the gun violence, instead of the real issue, violence in America.
Statistically, far more people will be killed by baseball bats in this country than guns, but baseball bats are not newsworthy, where guns are.
As far as the mental illness aspect: I think it would be very easy for them to use the mentally ill as a scapegoat, rather than dealing with the real issues of violence here.

 

[Truthful_Whispers]

This is not the real problem. Our liberal politicians keep talking about the gun violence, instead of the...

That's true. In close combat, a knife is far more dangerous than a gun. A gun can punch holes in someone, but a well sharpened knife can open someone up from their chin to their belly button with one stroke. People can kill quickly and efficiently with an ice pick or a razor blade if they know how. It all depends on perspective. Of course, at a distance, a gun would be more dangerous.

 

[Stickler]

Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than sane people...
Which I guess would imply that the supposedly sane people are their victimizers, more often than not?
So...umm...exactly who needs to be protected from who?

 

[Deleted member 30956]

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

[Chava]

The gun loving politicians like to point to "mental illness" but then do NOTHING ABOUT IT. They just want to deflect attention. The truth is nobody needs an assault rifle for self protection. I have a gun. I am all for people having a gun if they want. But who needs to collect loads of ammo, unchecked, when we can't even buy Sudafed without it being checked and counted (in case we're making a drug lab)? The deflection of the issue of gun violence further stigmatizes real mental illness, and has done NOTHING for the gun violence issue. Screw those politicians, most of them are simply NRA sell outs and have no legitimate hold for discussing mental illness.

 

[Truthful_Whispers]

Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than sane people...
Which I guess would i...

Very good point.

 

[Stickler]

But who needs to collect loads of ammo, unchecked, when we can't even buy Sudafed without it being checked and counted (in case we're making a drug lab)?

But I might do something dangerous! Like open my sinus and lung passages!
:nailbiting:
You can't be too careful.;)

...Seriously, though, it's flat out scapegoating of the identified mentally ill.

The thing about giving psychiatrists the power to force people to take meds? Some of those docs are idiots or power-trippers.

Not all, not even most, mind you.
But what kind of appeals process do you have if you get forcibly medicated with ***something that makes you sick or mentally worse?***. If you take a complaint or appeal against forcible treatment to a judge, would the judge have ANY idea of what was going on, or simply dismiss legitimate complaints as the ravings of a lunatic?

I've taken meds that made life a lot easier. I've also taken meds that made me go bonkers. If some shrink decided I legally HAD to take a med that made me mentally worse, or physically ill " for my own good and the safety of society," that would be dangerous for me. Quite possibly dangerous for others too.

High doses of antipsychotics can CAUSE psychosis in people that do not need them or cannot tolerate them well. Antipsychotics can also cause really gnarly side effects, such that someone might legitimately decide not to take the med, or to take it at a lower dose and live with some mental symptoms.
If said person isn't harming anyone,is not likely to harm someone, and isn't self-destructive, it really ought to be their choice as to how to deal with their mental illness. I like mine stomped as flat as can be with the right pills.

 

[Truthful_Whispers]

The gun loving politicians like to point to "mental illness" but then do NOTHING ABOUT IT. They just want...

I am a constitutionalist and 2nd Amendment supporter..always will be, but I see where you are coming from.

 

[Go Hungry]

I think another somewhat overlooked part of the whole 'mental illness' scapegoating when there is a massacre depends on perspective. Let's face it... If a black or middle-eastern person perpetrated a massacre, it would be labeled as terrorism. If an asian or latino did the same, it would be gang-violence. And if a white person does it, it's 'mental illness'...

In all cases the label is used to separate 'them' from normal people. I think a great deal of it is society's desperate need to classify these incidents as the work of an 'other'. Surely these people couldn't be drawn from the rank and file of 'normal' people could they? So the media falls on racial stereotypes, and in the case that race isn't exploitable, they just blame it on mental illness and call it a day. Even in cases where the motivation is clearly political, and therefore an act of terrorism, if it's a white perp, then mental illness is the only acceptable culprit.

As for the gun debate? Well, I'll just say that guns don't kill people... They just make killing people ridiculously easy. :O_o: