Why are people buying the line that this was driven primarily mental illness

[Pretzel_Warrior]

Seems to me we've only got hearsay that the guy Lanza had personality disorder and /or Aspergers. This is a convenient way to avoid the fact that many homicides are committed with guns by sane people exercising horrible judgement or by truly bad people.

[rrneck]

1. I don't think sane people do anything like that.

And I have a hard time differentiating between insane and "truly bad".

[Honeycombe8]

72. Sane men rape, torture and kill children every day. There's a diff. between insanity & something

wrong in the brain that causes you to be narcissistic or sociopathic or psychopathic. Insanity is being so out of it you don't even realize that what you are doing is wrong.

Lanza clearly knew what he was doing.

Personally, I think he was copycatting the recent "I'm the shooter" Oregon mass mall shooting. And someone will copycat Lanza.

[rrneck]

74. Maybe.

A clinical diagnosis will be difficult. I heard he had a personality disorder. I'm leaning toward sociopath. It's in the DSM-IV-TR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

I'm no shrink, but I don't think you have to be dissociative to be considered insane. If he had lived, he might well successfully claim an insanity defense. It's hard for me to believe that anybody could look at a child and then shoot them and be considered sane.

[Honeycombe8]

75. They can be sane, and they often are. So say the court appointed psychiatrists.

They often try the insanity defense.

I think the man who killed the Amish children might have been insane. I can't recall, though. But part of the reason they kill themselves at the end is that they KNOW they've committed an unpardonable sin, will be reviled and punished, so rather than that, they go out with "blazing glory" and notoriety. Which means they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Some people think that anyone with any sort of mental illness is insane. But insanity is something in particular, and legally it means knowing the difference between right and wrong. Someone with Alzheimer's, for instance, might be considered insane. Or severely mentally deficient...they truly don't know it's wrong to try to touch a stranger's genitals.

But Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and a long list of evil killers were all quite sane.

[rrneck]

76. That's a good point.

He killed himself, thus he was aware of his actions and the consequences.

[elleng]

84. "Insanity" in the world, generally, differs from insanity defense in a courtroom.

1.In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.

2. The standard for claiming a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity has changed through the years from strict guidelines to a more lenient interpretation, and back to a more strict standard again.
Although definitions of legal insanity differ from state to state, generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.

The standard for claiming a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity has changed through the years from strict guidelines to a more lenient interpretation, and back to a more strict standard again.
Although definitions of legal insanity differ from state to state, generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.

[Honeycombe8]

92. Thx. Yes, that's how I think of insanity...

they really are way out of it. They don't see reality. I saw a documentary about the killer Ed Gein. When I saw him during and after his arrest on video in the documentary, he was such a creepy man. There was this look in his eyes that wasn't right. He just LOOKED insane, although I don't guess you can tell by looking at someone. But it's hard to explain. He didn't look evil. He looked to me like he was crazy. As opposed to video I saw of Gacy, Dahmer, Bundy, and other killers who had done horrific things.

He was in fact found to be insane and sent to a hospital. I don't know if he really was insane. But he might have been. Because although he did his killings in secret, and the other bizarre things he did were in secret, he DID tell others - when they mentioned about Alice being missing - he told them he had her up at his house. He did have her up at his house. She was dead, but she was there. The people just thought he was talking crazy and paid him no attention. So the fact that he told them may mean he didn't know he'd be in trouble or had done something really wrong.

[laundry_queen]

86. Sociopaths are never considered insane, legally speaking

that's because for most personality disorders, the affected person knows the difference between right and wrong, and is able to mold their behavior and make choices exactly like a sane person. They just have a tendancy to do horrible things to people to advance their own pleasures or relieve their own anger because they have zero empathy (and most think they are smarter than everyone else and will get away with it). Generally, sociopaths aren't the suicide types, nor are narcissists. And they are very, very 'sane'. Most are monsters, but sane.

I'd be surprised if this guy is a sociopath. I saw a program on mass murderers a few months ago - very, very few of them are psychopaths/sociopaths - unlike serial killers where being a psychopath/sociopath is almost a given.

[Honeycombe8]

89. Interesting. I saw an FBI guy on TV...

I forget his name. I've seen him before. He said mass killers aren't clearly understood yet, so the experts don't know why they do it, generally speaking. But generally, he said, mass killers are not insane, but are often severely depressed (and I guess take it out on others). Makes me think of the instances where workers who have been fired go the work place and kill coworkers.

[rrneck]

122. I think you're right.

I just can't seem to get into that guy's head to understand how he could have done such a thing. I just can't do it.

[Jamastiene]

123. Neither can I.

I think most of us are struggling with that as well. I cannot fathom even thinking about hurting one child, much less killing 20 of them. I cannot even imagine what would make anyone do something like that.

[Jamastiene]

110. It's hard for me to believe that anybody could look at a child and then shoot them

too. But, the difference between you and I is that I am one of "the mentally ill." I don't appreciate being compared to the person who committed these horrific acts. Not all mentally ill people are violent. I know I have never been a danger to anyone. Yet, you are saying the person who committed this atrocious slaughter HAD to be mentally ill, like me. How would you like it if you had to admit the person was possibly sane and in control of their own actions? In other words, just like YOU? Would you want that on your doorstep? Does that mean YOU would be responsible for what the shooter did? Does that mean the blood would be on YOUR hands? Do you see how preposterous that kind of logic and scapegoating sounds? I do. Obviously, neither you nor I were the shooter. Yet, I am classified in the group you insist MUST be the ONLY group who could do such a thing.

Scapegoating "the mentally ill" is refusing to face the facts:

Mentally ill no more likely to be violent than anyone else

Sunday, May 07, 2000

By Anita Srikameswaran, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Correction/Clarification: (Published May 9, 2000) Experts estimate that 0.7 percent of the population will suffer from schizophrenia over a lifetime. A story about mental illness and violence in Sunday’s editions incorrectly cited a figure 10 times higher.

Only rarely are violent acts committed by people who are mentally ill.

It's a message that has been emphasized for years -- but each time there is a deadly shooting spree, such as the recent ones for which Ronald Taylor of Wilkinsburg and Richard Baumhammers of Mt. Lebanon have been charged, many people are inherently skeptical of that assertion.

Still, experts insist that large studies support the idea that mentally ill people are no more likely to commit violent acts than anyone else, and in fact may not commit them as often as would be expected from their proportion of the population.

http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000507mental8.asp

[rrneck]

121. I agree.

I was wrong. The fact that the shooter committed suicide shows he was not dissociative.

Edit to add

I would probably be considered one of the mentally ill as well. You know, I replay how that horrible event transpired over and over in my mind. I see those kids faces, hear the report of the rifle. Empathy for them is easy. It is very difficult for me to get inside the head of the shooter to understand him. I just don't know what kind of personal hell he must have lived in to do such a terrible thing. I just can't see it. I guess that makes me less empathetic than I should be.

[OhZone]

129. If he was a sociopath, just think -

under the right conditions, he could have grown up to be a CEO and run for president, to support the 1%.

(No, not kidding.)

[blue sky at night]

2. i don't post much but you have to be kidding...

will you take a look in the mirror and get a grip...how does a sane person doe what this guy did...I suggest you not buy any weapons or have any children!!!!! WTF?? SANE, really?

[Scootaloo]

151. Yup, sane.

Every bad person and their actions cannot just be written off as that person being damaged or ill. That's bullshit. Yes, there are such people in the world, but most people, even people who do shit like this, fall in the spectrum of what is generally considered "sane."

"Oh well, he was obviously off his rocker" is an excuse, a hand-wave that not only frees you from considering that maybe there is an external problem at work, but it also stigmatizes and demonizes the mentally unwell people who have never harmed anyone. it passes the buck, basically, from a hyper-violent society that glorifies weapons and use of force and sees assault and revenge and warfare as virtues, to an underclass of people who have suffered stigmatization for untold ages.

[elleng]

3. Because it should be clear to any rational person

that no sane person would do what Lanza did. Fact that some have mentioned 'personality disorder' or Aspergers is irrelevant.

[allrevvedup]

12. Right. So if he wasn't insane why did he do it?

Personally I don't think he did or even could have. That's a lot of close range shooting. So why didn't students run out of the classrooms while he was moving up and down the rows firing? Probably because others were assisting, but I can guarantee no other suspects will be put forward until after this case is officially closed.

[elleng]

17. He WAS insane, and he DID it.

and the children were frozen by fear.

[Honeycombe8]

79. There's no indication he was insane. nt

[elleng]

81. There is EVERY indication he was

In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.

[immoderate]

131. People are stuck on the courtroom definition of insanity.

And while there is no formal definition in psychology, it seems obvious to me, that someone who could execute 20 innocent children has committed an insane act. It's not beneficial, or creative, or profitable, or anything that would make it rational. And it does not matter that the perpetrator is not dissociative, or seems lucid; it is irrational.

--imm

[allrevvedup]

23. Was the 20-year old a professional assassin?

If so I haven't heard about it. But one or professional assassins committed this crime and that should be clear to anyone who looks at the evidence that's emerged so far. Looks rationally that is.

[elleng]

26. The 'evidence that's emerged so far' is not available to us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. That's ridiculous

"Professional assassins"? Professional assassins do not kill 20 children. They don't start a situation that will immediately bring all available police to the scene. The guns used belonged to Nancy Lanza; Adam Lanza was seen at the scene by policemen, before he shot himself. What you are suggesting is not 'rational'; it's paranoid rubbish.

[geek tragedy]

142. We shouldn't feed the trolls, just alert on them. nt

[John2]

41. Well,

you ever been on a fire fight with a semi-automatic and loads of magazines? I was an expert with my rifle and could easily pick off at least fifty people in a matter of seconds. It takes skill and training. I forget how many rounds was in my magazine but I'm estimating 20-30 rounds. I started out as a marksman and got all the way up to an expert after numerous times of training. Timing and accuracy is involved. and when I entered Basic Training, I was just twenty years old, so age doesn't matter depending on the times you train. We are talking about at close range too. I understand from reports, Mrs Lanza had a policeman as a friend too. They seem to really be circling the wagons to me about her reputation, and I can understand that. I don't see anybody as a monster though, and people make mistakes. They just got to admit the truth when mistakes are made. I think Adam also had some problems, and it wasn't caught. People made bad decisions and need to own up to it. The only innocent people I see in this was those little kids and their teachers but I consider Adam and his mother, victims too. I listened to her friends and I'm sure they thought she did everything right, but I think she made some mistakes and needed to seek help for her son. I think she made a mistake keeping those guns too.

[pangaia]

58. Virtuoso shootong skill?

I don't think so. In a classroom full of kids it would, unfortunately, be pretty hard to miss.

[HooptieWagon]

66. Especially if they were huddled in the corner.

I don't know if that was the case or not.

And LOL at "virtuoso". Not sure if that was a poor choice of words or what...but language like that and "professional assassin" seem to be a combination of emotional hysteria and ignorance, which is what prevents any solution from being reached.

[valerief]

59. My post the other day was hidden for suggesting as much. nt

[geek tragedy]

143. You're lucky you didn't get banned for Sandy Hook trutherism. nt

[valerief]

148. At the time of that post, I hadn't realized how easily these over-the-counter death machines

could kill many people in a blink.

[hrmjustin]

145. Please Make this clear for me.

Are you saying that man who killed those children really did not kill them?

[GoneOffShore]

147. Where is "unrec" when we need it.

And sometimes I wish we still had moderators in addition to juries.

[Agschmid]

149. Well that just flat out CT nonsense.

People lost their lives, it's a fixable problem, have some respect.

[BootinUp]

150. OJ was innocent too right?

lol

[Honeycombe8]

78. Of course sane people kill children. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

126. I agree elleng, oddly though depending on the circumstances and crime

I am willing to wager that many here decrying the mental illness possibility would be first to use an insanity defense of be in support of one be that the crime did not sufficiently offend them. Yes, Lanza was mentally ill, diagnosed or not.

[Llewlladdwr]

73. So, what exactly was the "assassins" motivation? NT

[geek tragedy]

141. Can someone ban this insane gun nut troll please? nt

[reformist2]

5. This isn't an either/or situation. We need gun control *and* more mental health surveillance.

[riderinthestorm]

6. 5 myths about mass shootings.... Myth#1. The shooter is insane

Edited to add a Welcome to DU!

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/editorial/around-the-nation/myths-about-mass-shootings/article_bb9540bd-68d9-5dd4-9c5a-c8d718dd0f5a.html

5 myths of mass shootings.

With 12 dead and 58 injured, the July 20 massacre at the midnight premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" in Aurora, Colo., is one of the largest mass shootings in U.S. history. Aurora is only 20 miles from Columbine High School, where seniors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 and injured 24 in 1999. We may think we know what makes the perpetrators of mass shootings -- mostly boys and men -- tick. Though psychology doesn't always lend itself to hard statistics, there are some surprising patterns.

1. Shooters are insane.

The 2002 Safe School Initiative report looked at 41 attackers across 37 incidents from 1974 to 2000. It concluded that only 17 percent "had been diagnosed with mental health or behavior disorder prior to the attack." Most had never had a mental health evaluation but 78 percent "exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts."

Adult and teen shooters do not suddenly snap. Their anger and planning often develop over time. And the more they plan, the more an argument can be made, legally, that they are sane.

snip

By contrast, most experts (after his death) have declared Columbine shooter Eric Harris a psychopath. With that label, he could not have pleaded insanity because, while he would be seen as coldblooded, he would also be considered rational, calculating, aware of his actions.

[cliffordu]

27. This should be it's own OP.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

45. Thank you for the welcome and the great info

[Live and Learn]

53. That is referring to the legal definition of insanity.

It certainly doesn't mean the person doesn't have any mental illness or is rational.

And although some people with an illness do plan out their crimes others do snap. It happens all the time. The unplanned ones generally hurt fewer people but they happen much more frequently than the planned ones.

[Zorra]

62. +1. Insane:

insane [ adjective ]

Of, exhibiting, or afflicted with insanity.
Characteristic of or associated with persons afflicted with insanity: an insane laugh; insane babbling.

[Honeycombe8]

82. Makes sense. I think some people confuse "mental problems" with "insanity." 2 diff. things.

There are all sorts of mental problems: sociopath, psychopath, narcissistic, anti-social, etc. None of those is insanity. Although I guess an insane person can also have those problems.

Jeffrey Dahmer was not insane. Think about it.

[uponit7771]

96. +1!

[Redfairen]

130. best post on the thread

[davidn3600]

7. Because a sane person does not shoot up an elementary school

Common sense.

You don't have to be a psychologist to know something was wrong with this man.

[Honeycombe8]

85. "Something wrong" with someone does not equal insane.

These people were not insane, but all had "something wrong" with them (in addition to being evil):

Ted Bundy (2 of his victims were under the age of 14...one was 12)
Jeffrey Dahmer
Andrei Chikatilo (the Russian serial killer; the subject of an excellent movie) (many of his victims were children)
Dennis Rader (the BTK killer) (victims included children....one he tortured for a long time)
John Wayne Gacy
Many others


Who WAS insane:
Ed Gein was found to be insane

[laundry_queen]

88. I personally think

that people are fighting against the fact that mass killers or serial killers can be sane because it scares the everliving FUCK out of them that someone sane could do this. After all, that insinuates, if YOU are sane too, that means you could, potentially, be capable of the same thing. It's much, much easier to label it 'insane' or 'mental illness' so they can create some distance in their own heads about it (to be able to emotionally deal with it - understandable) and declare that it will never happen to them, or it will never be them or their family. They believe that labeling it means there are warning signs, and that gives them comfort that if this was THEIR son or daughter or neighbor, they would 'see signs' and they may be able to prevent horrible things from happening. If we call a mass killer 'sane' it means it's ALL unpredictable and they have NO control over any of it and they just can't deal with that possibility.

[Honeycombe8]

93. Hm. Maybe. I guess so. I don't relate to that way of thinking, though.

I know I'm incapable of killing a child. I'm simply incapable of it, deep in my soul. I WOULD have to be insane, to do that. Even then, I don't think it's anywhere in me, for such a thing to come out for any reason (but then, insanity is not about reason, so...). Just like I know I wouldn't kill a dog, except in self defense. So I have no problem accepting the sanity of such people. But they have something ELSE that's wrong with them, that enables them to do such a thing.

What I think it is...just my lay person's opinion, when I've thought about it and put myself in the shooter's place...I think they've objectified the victims. They are not innocent, helpless, vulnerable children. They represent something else. Even if it's only that they represent the "glory" that the shooter will have in the shock that it will have on the community. That's how I imagine his brain working.

[nolabels]

107. Yea, you are correct

So called sane people use the designation to spend trillions on national defense and bomb people from above 10,000 feet

[lib2DaBone]

8. Because.. primarily.. IT IS mental illness....

Mental Illness promoted by big pharma Companies that feed dangerous anti-depressants to kids on a daily basis. (PROAZOC-Wellbutrin-CYMBALTA)

No one is "buying" any line... we are all aware that our government lies to us on a daily basis with impunity.

Oh Puhleeze.. dont ask me for examples... you must be brain dead.

These kids that are shooting 5-year-olds are a product of our social programming.

Yes.. it is SICK.. very SICK.. and so is our government.

[Posteritatis]

9. Because it's a convenient scapegoat population that has enough trouble protecting itself. (nt)

[riderinthestorm]

15. +1. Its NRA framing to deflect attention from the real problem - the guns.

Mentally ill people are FAR more likely to be the ones subjected to violence rather than the instigators of violence.

Our nation is awash in weapons and their easy accessibility is a great part of the problem.

While we do have a mental illness health care crisis in this land, it (should be) a separate conversation than the gun conversation.

[Posteritatis]

19. Eh, it's not just an NRA thing. People in general are pretty damned ignorant on the topic.

DU has this discussion every time a high profile crime occurs, even if there aren't necessarily firearms involved.

[HooptieWagon]

47. I agree most mentally ill people are non-violent, but so are most gun-owners.

The problem is there is a small overlap between the groups, and as a society we are unable to separate them with a wall.

[riderinthestorm]

50. Oh but I believe this is precisely the point: is a "right" to live greater than your right to guns?

If there were far, far fewer guns (virtually none accessible to the general public), then the mentally ill who MIGHT be violent couldn't have such easy access to snuff out life.

If you believe that someone's right to own a gun supercedes anyone else's right to live then that "wall" is muddled.

But if you believe that everyone in our society has a reasonable expectation of going to school without fearing for their life from guns then we have a starting point.

[HooptieWagon]

68. The Constitution guarantees both rights.

Why blame all gun owners? Isn't that as dumb as blaming all mentally ill people for the violent act of one? Should a person's right to live trump the freedom of a mentally disturbed person who has a .0001% chance of committing a violent crime?

[cliffordu]

29. Exactly.

The only special interest group we can be is when the general population needs monsters.

[Jamastiene]

111. +1000000

[Silent3]

115. How is that scapegoating?

To say that mental illness was is a probable cause of an act of violence is not the same as saying that all forms of mental illness make you act violently.

Many people may stupidly confuse those two ideas, but accounting for that kind of stupidity doesn't mean you should dismiss the very real possibility that one of the more dangerous varieties of mental illness is a factor in a violent crime.

[Jamastiene]

118. What I don't understand is why point at the mentally ill when

even most serial killers are found to be sane after being evaluated by a slew of professionals in the field? Most mentally ill people are not violent. We didn't do this. The shooter did this. Most of us are just as horrified as you are by the horrible murders of all those innocent children and the adults who were killed too.

When people say the mentally ill need to be kept away from guns and that would solve the problem, they are saying only the mentally ill are capable of violence. There have been some people who have done exactly that these last few days. It is a knee jerk reaction and it adds to the stigma of being mentally ill, because the majority of mentally ill people are NOT violent.

Mentally ill no more likely to be violent than anyone else

Sunday, May 07, 2000

By Anita Srikameswaran, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Correction/Clarification: (Published May 9, 2000) Experts estimate that 0.7 percent of the population will suffer from schizophrenia over a lifetime. A story about mental illness and violence in Sunday’s editions incorrectly cited a figure 10 times higher.

Only rarely are violent acts committed by people who are mentally ill.

It's a message that has been emphasized for years -- but each time there is a deadly shooting spree, such as the recent ones for which Ronald Taylor of Wilkinsburg and Richard Baumhammers of Mt. Lebanon have been charged, many people are inherently skeptical of that assertion.

Still, experts insist that large studies support the idea that mentally ill people are no more likely to commit violent acts than anyone else, and in fact may not commit them as often as would be expected from their proportion of the population.

http://old.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000507mental8.asp

This is but one article about intensive studies that have been done to find whether mentally ill people are more prone to violence. In fact, we are more apt to be victims of violence than the perpetrators.

This is what we know.
Fact: The police have clearly said the shooter is dead.
Fact: The only factual information we have so far is that he might have had Aspberger's or been autistic. Even that hasn't been clear, but the might is a keyword even there.
Fact: The murders were committed with guns.
Fact: The shooter killed 20 children and 7 adults.

That is really all we KNOW and even some of that is sketchy. Blaming "the mentally ill*" is not going to bring those who were murdered back. It only further stigmatizes people with mental illness.

*When people say "the mentally ill," they are insinuating we are all dangerous and violent and that is NOT true. Please read the article above and do more research from mental health professionals and learn about mental illness. We are not all heinous villains ready to commit atrocities on the public at large. Most of us are just as horrified as you are.

[Silent3]

120. Who "point[ed] at the mentally ill"?

Once you understand the distinction between what I said and what you just said, then perhaps the conversation can continue.

[Posteritatis]

137. Except that, yes, most of the discussions *do* open it up to "all forms of mental illness."

Or deny that there are forms of mental illness and there's merely generic craziness.

Or use the discussion as an excuse to define mental illness in terms of their social and political foes, rather than any medical criteria.

DU has this conversation every time a high profile criminal act occurs. It usually does so in staggeringly stupid and offensive ways, but even those are a big step above the population as a whole.

Of course there's a possibility that some violent crimes have mental illnesses as a factor, by which I mean there's a certainy because, y'know, duh. The problem is that a lot of people don't want that kind of nuance and choose instead to see twenty-five percent of the population as the next Klebold or Brievik or whoever else based on nothing but the broadest possible correlations.

[blueknight]

10. i volunteer at a homeless shelter

a lot of the people have mental illness, and they dont go out killing children....just saying

[ellaydubya]

11. Because I believe it is true, as do the others that replied.

Mental illness comes in many different shapes & forms.

[Cetacea]

133. So does cancer.

Doesn't change the numbers that you and others are ignoring.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Because that is the official NRA backed talking point.

The same people attempting to divert this toward the public health crisis over mental health services are almost universally opposed to funding of any public health services. Go figure.

[reformist2]

14. Time to call their bluff and say we need to discuss mental illness *and* gun control!

[Warren Stupidity]

16. No we need to get the guns under control independent of any other discussion.

[reformist2]

30. Sorry, you're not going to get a single-issue discussion, nor should you.

[liberal_at_heart]

61. exactly. We need to address both gun control and mental illness.

[davidn3600]

36. So you are suggesting that Adam Lanza was not crazy?

[riderinthestorm]

39. To be truthful, we don't have any answers on that. But stigmatizing the mentally ill by association

with this horrific crime is pretty bad.

Nobody seems to have a clue about Adam Lanza and his mental health conditions. We have hearsay from an aunt who is powerfully motivated to paint him (and his mother) in a bad light...

Read the article I posted below about the 5 myths on these types of mass shooters. They aren't usually "crazy".

Most mentally ill people are the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence.

[HooptieWagon]

48. Yet you stigmatize gun-owners...

99.9999% of whom will never shoot anybody.

[Pholus]

152. Considering the raw numbers you have a few too many nines there.

A few numbers to set this up:

Let's proceed under the assumption that the average gun owner owns guns for 20 years.

Approximately 30,000 people are killed each year by guns and 100,000 are killed or injured. Got those numbers from polifact during a fact check.

Gallup claims 47% of American households own at least one gun. Given that there 111 million households in the US, there are about 50 million households with a gun. I will assume only a single gun owner per house as a lower limit, for 50 million gun owners in the US. This is a factor of two lower than the NRA estimate of 100 million gun owners. The actual number is probably in the middle of those two but I will quote the odds as a range.

Given these numbers, the odds a given gun owner will not kill someone with their firearm over their "career" is between 98.8% to 99.4%.

But we did say "shoot" instead of kill. Since that includes both assault and accidental discharge hat increases the odds by about a factor of three. So in that case the fraction of gun owners whose gun collection will not penetrate flesh in a 20 year window is between 96% to 98%.

Now the weakness in this argument is that a fraction of gun owners are real idiots and so will injure more than one person during their gun toting career causing me to slightly underestimate the odds for the entire population. In that case, my numbers would be underestimates. I have a hard time buying that they are off by more than a factor of two however, considering that multiple gun injuries probably follow a classic binomial. So splitting the differences and being generous with the factor of two:

There is about a 99.5% a given gun owner doesn't kill someone over their lifetime.

There is about a 98.5% chance a given gun owner doesn't injure someone over their lifetime.

[HooptieWagon]

153. 50 million is far too low

Can't recall source, but I saw an estimate of over 35% of population owning a gun. Thats 100 million or more, owning 180-200 million guns. And the 30,000 gun deaths per year include about 18,000 suicides, which reduces your numbers by an additional 60%.
The simple DOJ statistics are that most gun-related violent crime is committed by a person who previously had a felony conviction, thus owned their gun illegally. So of the 12,000 homicides, subtract out 60% illegal owners, subtract out a percent or two justifiable homicides ( majority are LEO), and we're left with legal gun owners responsible for a bit over 4,000 deaths which includes accidents. 4,000 out of 10 0,000,000 is how much?

[Pholus]

154. Son, you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. You should know better.

To your first worry, the upper end of my estimate was 100 million owners so don't get your knickers so knotted there. Besides at WORST that's just a factor of two. Not a factor of 40.

So let's see what cherry picking you're doing here:

1) Your number is only annually, an obviously incorrect assumption considering that most gun owners partake of the "hobby" for longer durations than just a single year.

2) I didn't see any of these specifics listed in your initial assertion.

3) You still neglect injuries. I guess you can't cherry pick those down quite as nicely.

But I'm feeling generous today. I accept your assertions for now. Even cooking your own numbers you're showing that you exaggerated your initial claim by at least a factor of 40.

See, 99.9999% is saying one in a million. 4,000 out of one hundred million is still 40 per million. Please be more careful. I suggest a good statistics class at some point -- it does wonders for realizing that numbers actually mean things and are not things just to sling like so much BS.

Now about your claim that these odds should be considered only over a single year. That assertion is ridiculous unless you can prove that gun owners voluntarily get rid of their guns after a year. Otherwise you have underestimated the CUMULATIVE effect of the odds.

So let's do this right, hmmmm?

So the odds you DON'T kill someone per annum is 1 - 40/1000000.

That sounds pretty good on it's surface I guess. That's like a
99.996% chance. That's per year of course. And only two orders of magnitude greater than your initial assertion even in your overly restrictive time period.

But that's where the cold equations come in. If you run those odds for
20 years, the net chance you still haven't killed someone is:

(0.99996)^20 = 99.92%.

I said 99.4%, you said 99.9999%. One of us was FAR closer to the truth on that one. And I am playing in your house by your rules on that one.

You have no argument on this. Additionally, I feel that the injury number is a far more important issue since it taxes the health care system to a greater extent. Please feel free to try to cherry pick those numbers down too.

[HooptieWagon]

155. So you want to include injuries?

Shall we pull up injury data from the CDC? Carefull, or we'll have to talk banning walking...more slip and fall injuries than gun injuries.

[Pholus]

156. I can understand why you want to change the topic.

Anything to avoid what the numbers are saying.

Look, if you want to start talking about all the stupid ways people injure themselves with even everyday items you're just arguing my point. Given the high representation of gunners you'd claim among the general population you have no grounds to cherry pick out general conclusions from any kind of injury.

And you're right. People injure themselves in the stupidest and most reckless ways they can. But given their representation in the general population it turns out most "responsible" gun owners probably shouldn't even be trusted with anything more than a soup spoon -- let alone those lethal mini-cannons deemed "rifles" these days thanks to 30 years of lobbying by those idiots at the NRA.

But that is a digression. The main point is that your 99.9999% figure was a BS off the top of your head number with NO basis in reality whatsoever.

And I think the point has been neatly made.

[HooptieWagon]

157. Uh, YOU were the one who indtroduced injuries into the discussion,

and you accuse ME of changing the subject? Nice try, troll... but we aren't buying your alternate reality.

[Pholus]

158. Troll? I guess that's your version of Uncle?

I already discussed gun-caused injuries. Now for some reason unknown to modern man you think this is relevant to "banning walking" or some other such false equivalence turd.

Whatever. Gun injuries are gun injuries. 100,000 per year given the number of gunners and taking it over 20 years says 1% of gunners will injure or kill someone. I already outlined my calculations. Refute them if you can. Your first attempt didn't go too well, but one should expect that when 99.9999% of your numbers are made up.

I haven't a single specific worth debating from you in a couple go-arounds so I'll leave with something that leaves a BIG OLD smile on my face.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/presidential-memorandum-engaging-public-health-research-causes-and-pre-0

Our President's victory over the smoky-back-room suppression of free and open inquiry by the NRA.

Have a nice day!

[liberal_at_heart]

60. quoting articles is like quoting the bible

You can find an article to justify any argument. I found an article in Psychology Today that said that untreated mental illness such as psychosis or someone with psychosis abusing drugs or alcohol are at increased risk of committing violent acts in particular mass murders. I will say it for the millionth time. No one is saying all mentally ill people are dangerous. but mental illness is often involved in mass murders.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

87. agree. why should we believe any details we are fed on this story.

let's get all of the facts. It seems to suit most everyone to just file it away as crazy person we couldn't have foreseen rather than a problem we need to address.

[geek tragedy]

146. "why should be believe any details we are fed on this story"

Careful how you phrase such things. . . .

[Warren Stupidity]

109. No. I am stating explicitly this a deliberate deflection from the obvious problem with gun control.

[MichiganVote]

20. Maybe. In a court of law, sanity is not defined by a Dx of mental illness or not.

[sufrommich]

21. It's NRA diversion tactic # 290. nt

[kestrel91316]

55. Correct. Which is especially sad, them co-opting the subject. Because it is a REAL issue

and one we need to address. But the real problem is guns: too many, too powerful, in the hands of the irresponsible/reckless/uncaring/obsessed, and not secured where they can't be taken without owner consent.

[Marrah_G]

22. Because someone who kills 20 5 year olds, at close range, for no reason...

is definitely not sane.

[dkf]

24. If you've been reading everything and you think Adam Lanza was normal

Then I think he isn't the only one with a problem.

[Walk away]

25. You are right. Sane people commit horrible acts all the time. Was Hitler insane?

Osama Bin Lauden? How about when John McCain dropped bombs on villagers in Vietnam before he crashed his plane? People kill lots of innocent people every day and by most measures they are considered sane.
Apparently normal people snap and slaughter their families after they lose their jobs or because of divorce.

[backscatter712]

28. After doing a bit of research...

Yes, there's mental illness involved much of the time...

BUT...

Ease of access to firearms is a big factor in the equation that makes these attacks so deadly. Make guns harder to acquire, and the number of deaths from people "gone postal" will drop.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

31. He was obviously not playing with full deck....

I think the mistake is affixing a particular name to his disorder.

[Old and In the Way]

32. I think this act deserves its own special category of the criminally insane.

C.mon, this person killed 20 young, innocent children. He shot some multiple times. It may have been premeditated and he killed his mother to boot. What does a person have to do to meet the insanity threshold?

I think many gunshot murders are single victim acts that happen when the shooter is in a state of momentary rage and/or drugged state. Then, when the shooter calms down or sobers up, realizes the magnitude of his/her actions, and reacts in a relatively saneful way - even if that means turning the gun on themselves. This was way different. I'm only surprised that he didn't fire off all his ammo and then kill himself as his capture was imminent.

[Raine]

33. because he WAS mentally ill. nt

[still_one]

35. I am not sure if that is the case, however, it is in human nature to try and rationalize the

Senselessness of very horrific situations

[loyalsister]

37. Yes there is the line between EXTREME anger an mental illness

Pretty much everyone does things they regret or later find irrational when angry.
People who do not have mental illness may experience absolute rage. Some of us can comprehend incidents of domestic violence where a one spouse kills the cheater in that relationship and do not label it mental illness. It's because we have been in or close to those situations and we can make sense of it.
It's not impossible to understand a person who kills the employer who fires them right before christmas.

We can follow a disturbed logic that indicates anger and rage and does not necessarily imply mental illness.

The trouble is, we live in a culture that permits violence in response to personal anger. Listen to what people say and look at the cathartic entertainment produced. AND, the tools available to act on the angry emotions that drive those behaviors.

Our negligence when it comes to mental illness is abhorrent. I think that writing these incidents off as mental illness before exploring situation like these kinds of incidents is also negligent.

[etherealtruth]

40. ...Because its easy to scapegoat a group that really doesn't have a voice.

Mental illness has been so stigmatized those afflicted are often made to feel a sense of shame.

That and the NRA will scapegoat anything or anyone in order to take the focus off the guns in gun violence.

With that said, we as a nation have done a shameful job in providing treatment and care for the mentally ill.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

42. I appreciate everyone's thoughts. I just think "mental illness"

Is one of the many weapons in NRA's arsenal to deflect from the gun flood bringing about a river of blood.

[Live and Learn]

65. It may be one of their weapons but it doesn't mean it doesn't merit attention.

The families of the mentally ill themselves have been screaming for help for a long time. And getting better mental health funding does nothing to negate the fact the we need to reinstate all the gun regulation that was recently dismantled.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. I agree the two are not mutually exclusive

I had a twin sister who suffered from bipolar disorder until she died of cancer. But I won't accept that as an excuse to do nothing about guns on our streets and in our schools.

[HooptieWagon]

44. Because it is mental instability that makes a person shoot another.

Because of the moral and legal ramifications, the vast majority of people (including gun owners) accept that it is wrong to shoot another person, self-defense excepted.
Therefore, it is logical to assume that a person who murders a number of people probably has a serious mental problem. 99.99....% of gun owners never shoot a person. Even fewer shoot multiple people.
Facts which the anti-gun crowd always ignore:
There are just over 30,000 gun deaths per year, which is a tiny fraction of the amount of guns and owners. The number of gun deaths has been on a steady decline, despite the number of guns and owners increasing, and the expiration of the AWB. Of the 30,000, over half are suicides (which is a mental health issue itself). Of the remainder, the majority are from handguns. Deaths from assault rifles and shotguns are barely a blip on the radar. Of the homicide deaths, most are committed by felons committing another crime. These aren't legal gun owners who would comply with a gun ban. so they will continue to obtain guns illegally and commit further crimes until they're locked
up. Most of their victims also have felony records. Most homicide victims know their killers. So if you aren't a felon, and don't hang out with felons, you have a low-probability of being a shooting victim. Mass shootings, while horrible, and headline-generating, statistically are a tiny percentage of gun-related homicides. The shooters usually have no felony record, so obtaining weapons is incredibly easy for them. This is all from FBI database, which I looked up online after Aurora shooting. Invite you all to do the same.

It seems pretty obvious to me that a mass killer is mentally ill. So the gun death problem isn't with the 99.99+% of gun owners who never shoot a person. It is with the career criminals (problem solved by locking them up), and with making access to guns so easy that mentally disturbed individuals (who haven't yet committed a crime) can readily obtain them. However, the problem will never be solved. The anti-gun crowd blames the 99.99...% of gun owners who will never shoot a person, and want all guns banned or similar nonsense. In the meantime, the gun lobby wants to make gun-ownership easier, because it increases sales. Most gun owners would support greater controls, keeping guns away from crazies, if they were assured popular models of guns wouldn't be banned. Less than 10% belong to NRA...I think more may belong to one of the non-politically affiliated organizations. The NRA and gun lobby is funded by manufacturers and retailers, only a tiny amount of funding is from individual members. Anyway, no solution will be reached when it's driven by misinformation and an emotionally-driven knee-jerk reaction.

[riderinthestorm]

46. We can turn that around - 99.9% of the mentally ill won't shoot anyone either.

Unfortunately we DO know that overcoming the urge to NOT shoot someone can be ingrained via training - military, police etc - without being labelled as mentally ill.

Shooting someone is actually glorified in our culture (military, police etc).

The mentally ill are FAR more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Those are stats you can take to the bank.

[HooptieWagon]

49. Right. There's a .00001% overlap that is the problem.

Blaming the 99.9999% of gun owners, and restricting their enjoyment of their hobby is as non-sensical as blaming the 99.999% non-violent mentally ill people and placing undue restrictions on them.

[kestrel91316]

56. Gun owners can have all the guns they want. They just can't be reckless with them.

Fail to secure them and they get used in a crime? You the gun owner go directly to jail just like the perp.

The easy solution for gun owners is to lock them up so children and the mentally ill cannot access them. In the alternative, they can get rid of them and find a safer hobby.

You want gun "rights"??? Then shoulder your gun responsibilities or STFU.

[HooptieWagon]

64. I agree with that.

And I'm fine with registering all private sales via a gun shop, limiting mail-order sales, longer waiting periods, and more thorough background checks. And I think many gun owners would support same, as long as all currently popular firearms are still available for purchase. Fuck the NRA.

[kestrel91316]

70. Nope. No more AKs and Bushmasters and the like.

Gun culture has shown it can't own them responsibly, so we the adults need to take them away. Just like children who can't play appropriately with THEIR toys.

[HooptieWagon]

83. Now you're just being silly.

AK47s are still tightly regulated. And the Bushmaster functions the same as any other semi-auto hunting/target rifle, regardless how its styled.
The simple facts, available on FBI website, are that deaths by so-called "assault" rifles aren't very common. Deaths by automatic weapons are virtually non-existant. The majority of gun deaths are by handguns. The shooter would have been just as deadly using them. And in the Aurora shooting, the shooter's large magazine jammed (which has a high likelyhood of occuring), and he did a lot of his shooting with a handgun.

So if you want to waste political capital banning irrelevant hardware, then you'll find there'll still be killings. Just saying.
If you want legislation that will actually reduce gun deaths, then support private sales via gun dealer (where a background check can be initiated), more thorough background checks that include mental health database checks, and limiting handgun sales/ccw permits.

[riderinthestorm]

57. Hmm, let's balance their "hobby" vs "a person's life" when it comes to restrictions

"undue" or otherwise.

Which side to lean towards...so hard to decide... someone's "hobby" or someone's life....

Gee.

Tough call.










Not.

[HooptieWagon]

63. A hobby that's a constitutional right.

And it's been upheld numerous times over the past 200 years. So if you desire to place additional controls on those who use that right, a knee-jerk reaction based on misinformation and emotion isn't likely to get very far. Just sayin', cause I don't have a dog in the fight.

[LanternWaste]

134. Many, many sane German Wermacht committed mass killing against unarmed civilians

Many, many sane German Wermacht (not merely SS, just the rank and file German army) committed mass killing against unarmed civilians on a regular basis. Many Soviet soldiers did the same after they entered Germany.

Is it then your contention that every soldier who were part and parcel of these mass killing were also mentally unstable?



"It seems pretty obvious to me that a mass killer is mentally ill."
Where's Dr. Frist when we need him to make another cross-country diagnosis based on inference rather than knowledge...?

[Historic NY]

51. I'm not most people know right from wrong........

if not then getting easy access legally or illegally to weapons is the case.

Weapson always start out as legal when they are on the assembly line, they need human intervention to change that status.

[Warpy]

52. Probably because they are afraid to imagine

that a sane, well adjusted person could possibly go off the rails and do this.

More information is coming out about the kid--brilliant but got his GED instead of graduating, no sign of a job or plans for college. Something was going on there that rendered him incapable of progressing toward adulthood.

We don't know what was going on because either he refused treatment or his mother thought she was capable of dealing with him.

[kestrel91316]

54. Mental problems played a role, but those guns were not stored securely by their owner.

SHE bears great responsibility in this. She allowed a sick person access to her lethal toys. If she hadn't been killed, she should have been subject to punishment enough to wish she had been.

[frustrated_lefty]

69. I'm bothered by the same question.

I think it's a convenient excuse to avoid addressing exactly what we're doing in this society that makes people become capable of mass-murdering shooting sprees.

[Honeycombe8]

71. The 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. One is the CAUSE, the other is the METHOD of violence.

They really have nothing to do with each other.

You're right, though, about him possibly not having mental illness. I've not heard any official diagnosis of that.

[jberryhill]

77. Because it was certainly not driven by rationality

[Lil Missy]

80. Because a sane person would not shoot up a bunch of helpless children. n/t

[cliffordu]

90. Because it's the easy, lazy, and fills the need for a group to blame.

God forbid some 'normal' motherfucker just gets tired and kills a bunch of people.

[Egalitarian Thug]

91. So you joined yesterday just to post this? n.t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

94. no. I joined to have a conversation about a lot of things. but this spurred me to join. An

inflection point in the gun debate that I hope will lead to reduction of guns in our society.

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. whether or not he met the legal and technical definition of insanity is one thing - but of course he

was stark raving nuts. There is absolutely nothing within the hierarchy of needs that would lead a person of otherwise sound mind to shoot up a kindergarten class and kill more than 20 little children. It is a bit silly to suggest that he might have been of sound mind and he was just a nasty person making bad decisions - give me a break.

[coalition_unwilling]

97. This society was perfectly willing to invade and occupy a country (Iraq) under

demonstrably false pretenses and then not hold its policy makers responsible for the ensuing war crimes and crimes against humanity that were the inevitable result.

All the breast beating about gun control and mental illness pales before that reality.

As my wife said yesterday with a plain-spoken eloquence I can only dream of achieving: "A society that consistently wages war creates a violent atmosphere that is bound to inform the behavior of its citizens."

Or, for those who prefer the visual:



How many Iraqi children did the U.S. military kill from 2003-2011? I'll bet it was a fuck of a lot more than 20. I never once saw the media go into full-blown meltdown mode over the death of any of those Iraqi kids.

[lbrtbell]

98. He was diagnosed with mental illness

According to his relatives. But don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.

[OrwellwasRight]

99. I'm not even sure Aspergers qualifies as a mental "illness".

Isn't it more of a disability (e.g., you can't cure it like depression, you are born with it, it is a permanent condition of your brain where it doesn't operate the way the "normal" brains do)?

[HereSince1628]

103. Aspergers is an autism spectrum disorder. 299.00 Autism is listed in the 2000 revision

Aspergers is listed in that version of the DSM as code 299.8

I'm not sure what is happening with it in the DSM-V which is going to be released in spring.

[OrwellwasRight]

135. Yes, I know quite well what it is, but I don't know that that qualifies as a mental "illness"

Is Down Syndrome a mental illness? Just because it affects your brain does not necessarily make it a mental illness.

Likewise, Austism is a "brain development disorder" (http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism); I do not think that is the same as a mental "illness."

This may just be semantics because either way to me, it is not an excuse to shoot people, and it is the person (or people) responsible for the care of said person with whatever illness, disorder, or simply rotten temper that they will have to look out for the signs of danger to others and to deal with them by reporting the person to the police, getting them on the right meds, locking them up (if necessary), or whatever. I do not think it is OK to watch your son going mad or to see that his disorder makes him dangerous and to do nothing. To me, there is no excuse for that.

[HereSince1628]

138. The reason it has a diagnostic code is because it's recognized as a disorder.

I think that Down's Syndrome is considered an Axis III medical disorder due to chromosomal abnormality, although it may have symptoms that could (in the DSM-IV) meet the criteria for mental retardation.

[OrwellwasRight]

139. Again, that is my point.

I don't think "illness" is the same as "disorder." The OP mentioned mental illness. Asperger's (if that is indeed what he had--we don't have any doctor's diagnosis) is a condition you are born with, a disorder, a birth defect, whatever you want to call it. It is not the same as depression, which can be contracted temporarily, and then either cured or perhaps just controlled.

I don't feel this conversation has progressed at all because you have not addressed my point that I don't think Asperger's is a mental illness. Just repeating that it is a disorder, (which I agree with) isn't taking us down the road toward mutual understanding.

PS The DSM is not particularly useful. It now classifies grief as a mental illness (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/grieving/2012/03/complicated_grief_and_the_dsm_the_wrongheaded_movement_to_list_mourning_as_a_mental_disorder_.html). It is not. It is a legitimate response to the death of a loved one. It also over-classifies potentially normal behavior as mental illness (http://harpers.org/archive/1997/02/the-encyclopedia-of-insanity/).

[HereSince1628]

140. You can think what you want about the semantics, I'm good with that.

I do know a fair amount about the weaknesses of the old DSM's and the weaknesses of the psychiatric community and the debates about pathologizing 'normal' conditions.

The issue you are talking about with grief is the same sort of thing that's been argued over with PMS.

Both debates make more sense if you think about the way that pathology is defined and considered by clinicians and PAYERS.

a pathologic condition is indicated by a transition from normal function to dysfunction.

If you think about respiratory illnesses, they come in different types and severity, this is the pathological spectrum

it goes from sub-clinical dysfunction that doesn't require treatment all the way to virulent dysfunction that kills. You might get a cold and not go to the Dr. that's the definition of subclinical. But you might take an antihistamine or other drug to make you feel better.

If you have grief or serious PMS there are prescription drugs that really help. But the aren't available over the counter. You need a diagnosis and a prescription to get them and that costs money, for most Americans that means help from an insurance company.

The DSM is as much a diagnostic manual as it is a bible for billing for services. If a dysfunction isn't listed a patient won't get insurance coverage for it.

So, a person may have issues with grief that makes them feel very bad but most people get over it without help. If you are out gardening and end up with a bacterial infection on a finger, you might just scrub on it a home and get over it. But you might also want to get an antibiotic for that.

Similarly a person suffering grief might not want to tough it out, they may want, and clinicians may agree, a fast acting anti-depressant would help (more than a bottle of Jack Daniels). Many people couldn't get that without insurance assistance, and that can't happen without it being in the DSM.

Very similar issues surround pre-menstral syndrome, and feminist groups were fairly hostile to the notion that a normal body function could be pathologized. But some women, about 8% experience really life disrupting symptoms from it, and they are much helped by now available medication. But again, many can't afford it without insurance, and without being in the DSM insurance won't pay.

So, yes, there is a debate about whether the DSM-V has gone on to pathologize 'normal' = common conditions of dysfunction.

But the issue isn't normal conditions...it's about getting insurance payments for prescriptions that help people feel better and function normally when they have trouble with a 'normal' = common dysfunction.

[Skidmore]

100. Because it is not a line. The man's mental health issues were part of the

whole event. Mental health and mental illness are areas that this nation avoid addressing as part of the healthcare needs of the society. As a result, we find prisons serving as lock wards with no treatment options and people being homeless because they can't get the care they need. Acts of violence like this are not undertaken by sane people. The only sane act of violence, I believe, is one committed in self defense. Otherwise, no human being capable of empathy or sympathy uses a weapon of any type to take someone else's life. In the mean time, we also need to address the issue of untreated or inadequately treated mental illness.

[HereSince1628]

108. Ironically, much aggressive violence against others by the mentally _IS_ reactive defense

from the point of view of the person who is mentally ill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1142

[get the red out]

101. Both

Our country has too long embraced guns for all and healthcare for few.

[Buns_of_Fire]

102. It's possible he was simply a rotten, evil, little SOB.

No DSM tags for that, but it happens.

[Jamastiene]

104. Because people are looking for any scapegoat they can find. It is misplaced aggression.

The individual who decided to take guns and kill a lot of young innocent children can never be prosecuted because the person is dead now too. Never mind individual responsibility for what HE did. He cannot be responsible because he is dead. Even if he had lived, they would still blame "the mentally ill." They are refusing to place the blame where it belongs...with the person responsible for what happened, the shooter.

So they deflect their anger to any group of people they can safely scapegoat without any real backlash. "The mentally ill" (they say it like we ALL have the exact same condition and are ALL plotting to kill people at all times) are safe to blame for just about anything...If we object to being placed in the same category as a mass murderer of innocent children, they say we are unstable for daring to contradict their armchair psychology based on no known facts. See? That's how it works. When mentally ill people object to having all these horrible things said about ALL of us as if ALL of us are violent, they talk down to us and tell us we are stupid an unable to think too, basically.

For the record, though, Ted Bundy was completely sane and had no mental illness. So were most other serial killers. So, for the "sane" people, who are blaming "the mentally ill" for this horrific shooting, own him. He's yours, along with a host of other mass murdering assholes. Remember the human pyramid in that prison? Those people who perpetrated that hideous act were sane too and NOT mentally ill. The MIC would never be called "the mentally ill" either and they kill thousands of children in any given year. Yet, somehow, the majority seem to blame "the mentally ill" when something so horrific as the slaughter of innocent children happens like this. And people wonder why we say there is a stigma attached to admitting publicly to mental illness.

Gee, thanks for telling me that I am responsible for all the gun violence in the US when I have been around guns my entire life and am considered severely mentally ill, yet, no one ever has or ever will die by my hands, because I am NOT violent and not a mass murdering fuckhead, but don't let that get in your way while you say I am a potential murderer waiting to happen.

Not ALL mentally ill people are violent. Yet, these things are always laid at our doorstep as if all we are to blame for everything. It is salt in the wounds of those of us who are reeling with grief and horror at the atrocity that happened to those innocent children too, because we get to be told the person who did it is one of us and not "normal" and that we are to blame for any and all acts like that. I am thoroughly disgusted at being told that the person who did this just HAD to be just like me, because they could not be "normal" like the majority.

[HereSince1628]

112. This event created tremendous emotion stress and triggered deep fear

Because of human physiology, everyone touched by this has got to do something with the dynamic potential that releases.

People desperately need to have a reason. If they get a hold on a reason, they can do things that protect themselves.

For some, that includes making broad sweeping statements about a nameless mental illness/boogeyman that helps assuage their fear... the internal response to "THE ANSWER" is "I am not and people I know are not one of THOSE", "THAT" is not part of my life, I promote protecting 'US' from 'THEM.

It doesn't matter if they are talking about mental illness or the now popular phrase "GUN NUT". They are making this noise in an effort to find peace of mind, because they currently must respond to a psychic stressor.

As mentally ill persons, you and I may have better understanding than many DUers about how people need to be supported as they process very powerful reactions to an event that can stress many triggers.

At the same time, as people who look like the target of their emotions, we've got to protect ourselves from transference. Much of this rhetoric is simply people seeking catharsis about a mass murder that is indeed revolting, fearful, and incomprehensible.

They are NOT emoting about US.

This is about their fears and their dismay.

Their fear isn't really about us.

This about things going on in THEIR minds

it is not about you and I, not, at all.

[Jamastiene]

117. Horrible events like the school shootings seem to create a need for mental help

for everyone, regardless of what their mental health status was before the event.

I think I understand what you are saying about their need to process the unthinkable information and reaching for some way to cope.

Maybe we all need mental help to cope with the horror of things like school shootings. It is unthinkable that something like this has happened...AGAIN. Whatever the solution ends up being, I think it will be more than merely gut reaction to blame "THE OTHER." Too bad they cannot see how this hurts those of us who are just as horrified as they are. I wish they could see and understand that we are horrified too.

[HereSince1628]

119. Yes, they do create that need.

The immediate survivors will get counseling,

The rest of us will be mostly on our own to work it out as best we can.

It's really not about every or even any particular mentally illness. Most people would be pressed to name one mental illnesses connected with violent criminality.

It's not about you or I. Our sensitivity is a consequence of identifying with the object of their fear. Their fear is a phantom. It isn't us.

[Zorra]

105. Anyone that shoots a bunch of kids in cold blood is insane. Non-debatable statement.

The end.

[HereSince1628]

113. It would be great if society could operationalize that certainty so that it becomes

a knowledge that protects us from such horrible events in the future.

Unfortunately it turns out to be rather hollow.

Is there one insanity or many insanities? How do you tell them apart? Among the diacritical features that distinguish one from another are there any that can with useful precision foretell the future?

I think the unfortunate reality is that although belief that this was insanity helps us individually process an incomprehensible act, forensic psychiatry can't actually take this certainty of insanity and do anything useful with it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. Res ipsa loquitur

[Zoeisright]

114. It's the intellectually lazy way to get themselves off the hook.

Because the wee little gun nuts get their widdle feelings hurt, so, as the delicate little flowers that they are, they search for anything and everything else to get the heat off themselves.

It's a straw man argument. And stupid.

[HereSince1628]

116. That may be some of it, how much I don't know...

But people, including DUers, in processing their reaction to the mass murder will follow the cultural pathways available to them. And those paths will lead them to answers that conform to their experience and contexts.

I suspect that for many people seeking resolution of their turmoil over Friday's massacre such an answer, even if it is partly true and mostly false, is better at providing catharsis than no answer at all.

[librechik]

124. you aren't seriously suggesting that there wasn't mental illness in the case.

Go away. You are nothing but trouble.

[No Compromise]

125. Because Big Pharma pays the corporate media a lot of money to divert attention

What if it were mental health 'treatment' that turned out to be the problem...

Adam's uncle who said he was taking an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt.

reported side effects of the drug Fanapt:
Psychiatric side effects including restlessness, aggression, and delusion have been reported frequently. Hostility, decreased libido, paranoia, anorgasmia, confusional state, mania, catatonia, mood swings, panic attack, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, delirium, polydipsia psychogenic, impulse-control disorder, and major depression have been reported infrequently.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

127. because sane

people don't do this.........

[slackmaster]

128. Because obviously mental illness was the root cause of the tragedy

[Cetacea]

132. People seem to have a problem with the words "vast majority"

As in a vast majority (92-96 percent) of people with mental illness are not violent. And people with SEVERE mental illnesses are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime than the cause. I wonder why...

The pundits and journalists don't seem to get it, either.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

136. Just don't buy the idea the kid was emotionally unstable

No warning signs. Isn't it possible for someone to decide they want to commit a horrific act and ignore their own moral framework?

It is first and foremost about GUNS and gun culture.