Most Mentally Ill Are Not Violent.

As I write this, we've had two more incidents of mass shootings. It has us taking again about many important issues. And that is good. Plus I just heard the president's address to the nation. And he did have some constructive things to add (I guess).

But why hasn't anyone anywhere mentioned the most important thing. Most mentally ill are not violent!

I realize our nation is still raw, still hurting. But I have heard just about every other topic brought up. Why not this one?

I know that they used to. I also know with effective psychiatric medicines (antidepressants, antipsychotics, antianxiety) mentally ill people can lead meaningful productive lives. They've closed down all the hospitals. So they're here to stay. So get used to it people.

I also know changes to the commitment laws is NOT the answer. They've closed down all the hospitals, as I said. That's the reason why so many are on the streets. Build more hospitals! Changing the commitment laws without opening new hospitals is like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. (Plus I read somewhere changing the commitment laws in fact has the opposite effect. Sorry I forget where I read it. But if I do, I will share a link ASAP.)

What do the rest of you think?

 

Because they want the perception to be that most mentally ill people are violent...

 

The republicans are looking for excuses.

 

I think red flag laws would be helpful in dealing with the ones that are potentially violent, but I see problems with them: (1) most of the shooters in the U.S. didn't have a previous history of mental illness; (2) it's a band aid that will do little to stem further incidents; (3) we're not very good about detecting and treating mental illness; (4) it diverts attention from gun control measures and white nationalist domestic terrorism; (5) it creates the illusion that something is being done; and (6) past history suggests that Trump will walk away from red flags and mental health when the heat dies down.

 

I'm not a violent person, but I admit I should never own a gun. When you're suffering from psychosis, you believe things that aren't true and get carried away. You can be a totally non-violent person ordinarily -- heck, I rescue bugs and critters when they're in a bad spot -- and go and do something stupid, whether it's because you believe, say, your neighbor is a psychopathic killer or whatever. I did hit a guy once when I was suffering from psychosis and I feel bad about it all the time. People who suffer psychosis should never be armed. It's extremely dangerous. But you're right, it isn't even necessarily because they're violent people. Sometimes they could even be trying to rescue others in their delusions.

 

Indeed, or they'd be locked into cages or executed.

Consider also that most legal US gun owners are not shooting people.

 

Mental illness is a buzzword. When you say someone has it you don't need to debate or understand anything they say. You are right, they don't have that abilty.

Outside of the gun issue it's often said by the gun community IE Republicans. Liberals, gays, transgenders, Democratic Socialists. All of them are a "mental disorder" to these people. So I'm not surprised they focus on it so much with guns.

I agree with OP and a good friend had schizophrenia. The mentally ill are not violent usualy. They on some level understand they are not like everyone else so they work hard to fit in and hide it. They don't like their own head sometimes yet that is their home.

 

True, but their desires help create the culture that allows the dangerous to get guns. They are responsible in this way.
They could support new gun laws and they do not. Freedom means people can interpret it and misuse it. The NRA is willing to accept death on the premise they personally know how to shoot at the right time. For this they accept others will shoot at the wrong time and then they have a gun to handle it.

This is the whole good guy argument. We need no laws taking guns away. We accept freedom. And though this freedom it works itself it. A polite society is an armed one they say. Fight fire with fire.

 

Actually that's the opposite of reality. Legal gun owners do not want maniacs to own guns. Neither does the NRA (by the way, I'm not a member).

 

Looks like another mass shooting in Texas was averted by a grandmother.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/mass-shooting-averted/index.html

 

Closing down the institutions is something that has happened the world over, not just the US

Why do you think that is? And as you said yourself, changing the committment laws has the opposite effect - which I took as changing the commitment laws makes things worse. Building more "hospitals" which I think you mean institutionalized care facilities also makes the problem worse. People become institutionalized, dependant on services and seperated from society

And whether public or privately operated, these places end up facing many lawsuits, and ridiculous insurance costs

Most people dont care about the distinction that most mentally ill people arent violent, as they still see non violent mentally ill people as having a greater potential to one day become violent than "normal" people

And all mentally ill people arent as mentally ill as each other to the same degree

All those institutions closed down, because they cost a shitload of money, didnt achieve results, often made matters worse

 

Then why do they not accept new gun laws? Why do they not fund mental health? Why does the gun community defend the rights of people who mental health processionals says are dangerous to have guns? There are several mass shooters who it was suggested by their psychiatrist they not have guns. Some at one point lost their guns and got them back. Some never lost them since the police did not take action After their shooting the gun community said nothing could be done since the only crime this person committed was the shooting. So until that moment they were a good guy.

This is your fantasy world. You can make all the claims you want you but you are unwilling to take any action. I understand the murky area of thought crime but this is an importance topic for gun owners. The very goverment you plan to fight deciding if you are too crazy for a gun is something they see as unacceptable. So until it's too late it's too early to take a right.

The NRA could tomorrow ask members to donate to mental health, to polcie itself more and not fear truing in a fellow gun owner if they are dangerous. These things don't really happen. Dues only go to more guns and gun owners protect each other on principal of shared views often. Not all the time I guess just often.

 

Psychologists have noted for decades that Fundamentalism meets all the criteria for a mental disease, but calling half the world crazy, according to their own criteria, is not a terribly useful business model for the pharmaceutical companies. Seriously, Fundamentalists meet their own criteria better than anyone else, for being ethically, socially, and mentally challenged. There traditional response is to blame the rest of the world for their problems. Note that the US government, the most powerful country in the world bar none, is led by a KKK led republican party, that insists the rest of the world is to blame for all of their problems.

 

What new gun laws? No president has backed REAL gun reform, republican or democrat.

Who do you want to fund mental health? Why gun owners? Most of them are not maniacs. Wouldn't it be better to have mental health funded by medical organizations?

Where is this "gun community" you speak of? Most of the guns in the US are owned by individuals who keep their guns to themselves. Only a fraction are in clubs or other "social" gun groups.

If a shrink says someone shouldn't have a gun, I can only agree. Whom do you find is not agreeing?

By the way, do you know what most of these maniacal mass shooters have in common? No father in their life.

 

I'll bet they weren't breast fed either, poor little bastards. Its tough having a father in your life that works 90 hours a week.

 

Trump signs bill revoking Obama-era gun checks for mental illness

 

OK, but Obama isn't a shrink.

 

Yeah... But that doesn't count, because Obama or someshyt...

 

Nor was he the person deciding who should and shouldn't have a gun.

I'm a gun owner. I'm just saying not letting crazy people have them seems like the most basic common sense thing you'd ask for.

 

I agree. What I don't know is what Obama's regulation actually did or said. So I am not inclined to think it was flawless after the way he buried so much crap in some of the other legislation he signed. Trump has never been a REAL republican, so him pulling the plug doesn't make me automatically assume he did it for republican reasons. He has been rolling back a LOT of the stuff Obama did. In the worst case, this was a knee jerk reaction in his mad rush to marginalize Obama's entire administration. If Trump wins another term, Obama's legacy will be no more politically important than that of King Tutankhamen.