Whatever happened to anger and rage?
The kind of range that tempted people to shoot up wall street or Bank of America? Are those so appropriately channeled that they are considered to be "sane." Yet, a person who channels similar rage in a more disturbing direction is mentally ill.
In retrospect, would anyone seriously argue that Charles Starkweather or Bonnie and Clyde were mentally ill? Imagine the carnage if they had had the kinds of weapons available today.
Far more lethal than any "Assault rifle" available today.
Perhaps history is not your strong suit.
No one who does what Starkweather or Bonnie and Clyde or Adam Lanza did is sane.
Doesn't mean that the mentally ill are by and large a 'dangerous' group of people, any more than knitters are.
the navigators and radar operators that helped put bombs on target?
on edit: and it means we've got a number of police/security forces running around the country that are "at some level" mentally ill.
I guess you aren't the insight filled genius that certainty suggested
but just needed an outrage fix.
Hope you feel better !!!!! Yay You !!!!!
You could edit that damned post and make it say something that reflects something that really reflects the kind of understanding and empathy you believe you possess.
learn the lesson to think before hitting "post" and move on.
who are mentally stable but trained to throw out some of their important values in certain situations?
when a paper was posted about it. I think 2005 or 2006 can't be sure...
lots of people not happy that their road rage was potentially symptomatic.
Now in fear, anger looks to everyone like mental illness.
.45 caliber, fully automatic.
There was a reason for what Bonnie and Clyde did. Same with Dillinger, Nelson and so on.
This Lanza asshole profitted nothing from what he did, he just killed to kill. Big difference.
How do you know this? And what exactly were Fugate and Starkweather's, Bonnie and Clye's profits?
If a person with a house in foreclosure shot the banker who approved their loan would you consider them mentally ill? What would be their profit?
They do beg the question if these are suicides with the homicide as a horrible last message.
It's a dirty, sometime murderous business but there is a legitimate goal. You gain nothing from shooting bunch of kids and then blowing your brains out. Best to just kill yourself first. What point is there in doing anything unless you get something out of it? That's the difference between being amoral and being legitimately insane.
Shooting the loan officer doesn't make the loan go away, it might mean you're crazy but it certainly means you're stupid. Robbing a bank does temporarily alleviate the problem of impecuniousness. There's a difference.
And you know this how? Did Bonnie and Clyde always kill only enough people to make their profit and get away? What about Starkweather?
Is it possible that there was some sense of relief or personal satisfaction that makes as no sense to me or most of us?
Or is it possible that likemany things, killing is misunderstood but not representative of the mental illness that people are struggling with along with their endlessly stigmatized existence?
It seems to me that there is no gain in killing a bunch of people, even if that's what you like, and then killing yourself. But maybe there is, who knows?
I just see a huge difference between 1930's gangster bank robbers and psychotic mass murderers.
What makes a human being mentally healthy?
First off to be "mentally healthy" does not exclude the absence of negative experiences, emotions, or responses. An ability to successfully cope with every single good, bad, even neutral thing that comes our way is not required for mental health.
To be generally "emotionally well adaptive" and able to successfully interact with peers most of the time would signify a high degree of mental health. But, there may be situations that cause distress that affects the same person's behavior.
A person is grieving because they have lost a loved one may, for example cry a lot. Indeed, a woman going through menopause do so as well. It is very often not fun to be around people who are going through a divorce or break up. People who are perpetually angry over financial problems are viewed as justified. Sometimes people having a bad day get an armchair diagnosis from coworkers who do not like them.
The point is there are times when we fail to adapt to environments and events well and are not the perfect picture of mental health. The day or some days later or time later we see\are back to the picture of contrast between ourselves and our grumpy neighbor.
Those maladaptive behaviors do not rise to the level of mental illness. We all know, or and are these people. There are people who do not meet the criteria of mental illnesses but do react to their environments some events with responses that are extreme. They are sometimes people we have known and "broken up with" for one reason or in one way or another.
The behavior of someone who is considered mentally healthy, but angrily trashes house that the bank foreclosed on is not necessarily mentally ill, but most definitely is adapting to those circumstances in an extremely very maladaptive way.
Dude was the picture of mental health.
Try buying a Thompson or BAR nowadays. Back in the 30's, real machine guns could literally be mail-ordered. A thompson has a drum magazine of .45 caliber on tap - full auto. A BAR is so much more firepower than an AR15 it's rediculous. Full auto .30-06 versus semi .223? HA!
The real statement should be, imagine if the shooters nowadays had access to Bonnie & Clyde's arsenal.