NBC says mental illness isnt a major factor for gun violence

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

a reply to: muzzleflash

I didn't ask those questions to be snarky, funny or flippant. I asked them because they lead to a slippery slope, and are important to understanding the conversation, in my opinion.

The best way to prevent gun violence isn't removing guns. It's non-aborted fetuses. Non-aborted fetuses are more likely to commit acts of violence using a gun, than aborted fetuses. I can prove this too. I really should take this to NBC and get money to further research this. I wonder what the Koch Brothers are up to?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So someone wants to kill a mass of people anywhere...what do you call that?

I call it evil.
They might be mentally ill but's it's still evil.

That is it...America is the 3rd largest population on the planet and out of 330 million.. 330,000,000 two people decides to do evil...

a reply to: Involutionist

Unless, of course, you're suggesting--based on the extremely high rate of mass shootings AND gun violence--that America suffers from national psychosis? 

Being that mass shootings are committed by about .00001% of the population, I'd say that's nonsense.

By claiming it all boils down to mental illness and not access to guns--it looks to me that is exactly what you are implying... 

Correct. Gun access isn't as heavy of a factor in my opinion. You don't think people can get guns illegally in this country if they truly had the desire to murder others?

Here comes the million dollar question: Why do you give a f# what a news outlet stated that you felt the need to create a thread about it...? 

Really? It doesn't matter if it was NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS or any part of the conglomerate that deliver the prepackaged talking points. It's a deliberate and concerted effort to shape a narrative. And it's done so with falsehoods and a thinly veiled political slant.

That's my problem with it.

originally posted by: seagull

I would, in my obvious ignorance, call it an act of insanity... Otherwise known as mental illness.

But then, I'm one of those prollies whose opinion matters not in the slightest.

I just find it sad maybe funny that when a person crazy enough to mass kill someone calls them a racist.

a reply to: sunkuong

Isnt the real issue here about sensible, dare i say righ-minded legislation related to firearm access? 

It depends who you ask. From a globalist media standpoint...that's exactly the issue they want pushed. From my view, no. The issue is the mental illness associated with these individuals.

Rape is a big problem in some societies. Should all men be castrated because of it?

And it should be pointed out that a nation like Switzerland has a much higher percentage of their population owning legal firearms.

Mass shootings? None.

Easy access to Wholistic and Naturopathic medicine without the use of psychotropic meds? Plenty.

Back to topic. Have there been any properly conducted studies as to the mental health of those who commit mass murder? I would imagine (as a layman) that these people at least suffer from a psychosis, or illness impacting their empathy such as narcissism or psychopathy, even if temporary in nature. Arguably, a balanced person does not walk into a school and starts murdering people.

It's also well recognised that US mental healthcare is sub-optimal. It's a correct observation that the way the US generally deals with mental health is to send people to prison.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

In the spirit of the old motto of the site, "Deny Ignorance," I will point out -- again -- that the vast majority of mentally ill people are far likelier to be the victim of violence than a perpetrator of it.

The word you are looking for is "angry." Those with a history of violence are several times more likely to commit violence in the future.

Simple assault, road rage, DV and threatening social media posts are a far greater predictor of violence than depression, anxiety or PTSD.

Inrteresting...

According to the American Psychiatric Association, people with serious mental illness commit only about 3 percent of violent crimes.

“Routinely blaming mass shootings on mental illness is unfounded and stigmatizing,” the association's president, Rosie Phillips Davis, said in a statement Sunday in response to the shootings.

Even more interesting is part of the summation:

“The best predictor of future risky or violent behavior is past behavior,” said McGinty, who was involved with the report. “Having multiple DUIs or DWIs is one way of operationalizing that type of risk.”

In fact, people who had been convicted of driving under the influence at least twice in a five-year span were more likely to commit gun violence than a person with mental illness, the report found. A history of domestic violence or violent misdemeanors is also a red flag.

“If you want to screen for factors that might indicate people who are at high risk of committing gun violence, it’s these factors that suggest risk factors for future violence, not having a mental illness,” McGinty said. “Having a mental illness is not a dangerous behavior.”

So we have an article based on statements made by those with a vested interest in not stigmatizing mental illness that blames self-destructive substance abuse and a propensity toward violence (also known as mental illness) for the problem with violence, because they don't think mental illness is part of the problem with violence.

Oh, and get rid of the guns while we're at it. Of course.

Sounds to me like Beth McGinty has some issues with mental illness herself. Inmates running the asylum?

There is one statistic I didn't see pointed out. I looked, and if I didn't miss anything, 100% of all mass shootings in the United States over the past two decades have taken place in a gun-free zone. Maybe we should think about that little statistic?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you think that everyone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness should be banned from gun possession/ownership?

No.

Do you believe there is no difference between PTSD, repressed rage, arachnophobia, and depression? They are all forms of mental illness.

Do you think that everyone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness should be banned from gun possession/ownership?

It happens all the time, but no, I do not believe his actions indicate that he was unable to realize what he was doing. That is the legal standard.

Do you believe mental incapacity should never be considered when trying suspected criminals?

Might want to get a smaller brush. You're gonna hurt yourself painting with one that wide.

TheRedneck

eh ill give you the spin with all the extra crap they threw in but they aren't wrong about mentally ill people being far less likely to be violent then have violent actions done to them. that does not mean that some mentally ill people don't snap from time to time but pretty much all the medical and psychological research backs up the nbc article on that front


www.latimes.com... another member posted this in another thread but it seems childhood trauma is more likely to cause violence later in life then being mentally ill

First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality. Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence. Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many are radicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified. Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.

i mean they studied everything going back to 1966


www.theviolenceproject.org... and it was funded by the DOJ

www.researchgate.net... here is the actual pdf of the study

if you look at the earlier mass shooting/school shootings pre 1900s it does appear to be alot different from the current ones with most of the shooters being either kids or parents pissed about their kids/siblings getting either beaten or disciplined by teacher,the standard jilted lovers taking out the other half , a good deal of them were "accidents" either being prop guns in school plays or kids accidentally shooting classmates playing with guns in class or in about 20 cases legit crazy people just shooting at schools being either drunk or as the day would classify being "insane" and oddly females are much more represented in the early days vs now . and mass shooting being rarer in that time period ie more just screw that one guy im gonna pop him,but school shootings being still some what common

once you get into the 20s it starts having more body count as far as mass shootings go but that was mostly mob shenanigans
then you get to the school shooting aspect where again body count is mostly low and people shooting people they had beef with tell you get to about the 50s when that one school bombing happened and then the infamous clock tower shooting (bastard shot by cops and armed civilians)

as you get closer to the 80s and 90s when the crack epidemic was fueling violent crime you start to see body counts rise in both mass shootings (gangs) and school shootings go up a bit as we approach columbine which happened during the AWB yet still they managed a high body count

its once you get into the 2000s that counts go up for both in vastly larger numbers and after 2010 the true "mass shooting" issue starts to see people going for indiscriminate violence where they seem to go for high scores both in the streets and the schools and we start to see manifestos being more common and people start caring about race and political ideology with the occasional religious aspect tossed in and female shooters start showing up again but in far lower numbers then the pre 1900s and are mostly anomalies (think it was pulse night club)

the race of the shooter and the political ideology focus on the gunmen only showed up in the middle of the obama years and continued to where we are with "orange man bad" kicking in and any shootings that dont fit the mold are often over looked by some branches of the media when the shooter ends up being any other then shade of white and the dem media started focusing on those evil white supremacist republicans, note 60-70% percent of the us population roughly is white so statistically it would make sense for whites to be more often shooters then others,this isnt to blame whitey far from the truth but basic math as im far from one of those "every thing is racist" people. now if we cover all shootings its much more divided percentage wise by race with African Americans and Latinos being larger representations of gang violence with Asians being occasional perpetrators and native Americans being the lowest of all represented races as far as gun crimes go ( not many of them comparatively to us population numbers)

from what numbers i could find from media roughly 1 in 5 Americans(roughly 65 million) gets diagnosed with a mental illness in their life times but as the DSM has expanded over the years a whole lot of "new conditions" get labeled each year and occasionally diagnosis get removed and the spectrum ranges from oh hey that dude does not like being around crowds to oh that guy sees demons and hears voices telling him to eat his siblings or mothers hearing voices to go kill there kids just as token examples

i mean i get it to most "normal" people cant exactly fathom how some one could just wake up one day and decide hey sure im gonna go kill as many people as possible and makes a nice convenient scapegoat but its pretty much the same as the old claims its Marylin Manson music! no its the video games! no its the drugs! no its the devils work! ,no its just evil white people!no its the crazies! no its the dems no its the republicans etc
from all the research the only links to mentally ill being More likely to be predisposed to violence is when substance abuse co occurs with mental illness and child hood trauma but in general as a population were more likely to take our selves out and occasionally romantic partners/sadly their kids. this isn't to say every now and then one goes fully "off the reservation"

a reply to: TheRedneck

exactly and every time this kind of thing gets tossed out (ie blaming the mentally ill or as ats seems so fond of saying the crazies the retards etc) you get less people willing to go to treatment and the few ones who are more likely to go decide hey im gonna go pop a bunch of people slip through the cracks due to stigma

thanks for posting that link glorious redneck as it saved me about half a page of rant that normally gets ignored and for you good as usual points

ill ask something i tend to ask literally every time this gets brought up and still havent gotten an answer too "how does America intend to go around attempting to ban a protected class from exercising their 2nd amendment rights?" in ye old days the tried to ban blacks from owning guns and that got over ruled by SCOTUS (dont have citation handy)
but change the verbiage and test its constitutionality
1.lets ban white people from owning guns? would that be legal?
2. lets ban gay people from owning guns would that be legal?
3.hey lets ban the Asians from owning guns would that be legal?
4. lets ban the conservatives from owning guns would that be legal? how about banning dems from owning guns would that be legal?
5. Muslims? what about Christians or the Amish? etc i could go on but probally pointless as each side as shown by the

threads here wants to blame something else other then actually research it, when a leftist shooter pops some people the right cheers and says hey look they are the violent ones! then a right winger does it hey see its those evil white supremacists trump supporting nazi republicans doing it!! no one seems to give a flying frack about WHY they happen and just wanna toss out the blame game,oh hey look at those violent inner city blacks they must be murderious thugs! oh hey its that evil whitey and privileged selfs just trying to keep the minorities down! each shouted with joy as each sides internal biases are re enforced, Muslim pops some one oh hey its the religion of peace then a christian does it oh hey its those bigoted Christians see see my beliefs are validated! blame them no blame them no blame this blame that all the while no one seems to give a crap about actually looking into doing something about this other then the constant mantra of omg get rid of the guns! lock up the crazies its for the children you know!

there currently is a way of banning the mentally ill from owning guns they need to have been institutionalized against their wishes and be declared adjudicated mentally defective(highly stigmatizing term) and forcibly committed and its been the law for what over 80 years?

those that cheer the red flag laws and tossing out innocent before guilty and want to take the rights away from a good 5th of our country just for a mental illness would do well to remember that today your all normal but those same laws could be applied to you some day, and in 10 years who's to say what the "new mental illness" will be. when they come for me and mine and you do nothing don't expect those you tossed under the buss to do anything but laugh at what you wrought on you and yours by allowing these things to pass for perceived safety just because it was more convenient to blame something you either irrationally fear or don't under stand and refused to research the actual causes vs the boogeymen in your own minds

so once again ill end a big wall of text with my own version of Niemöller's words
First they came for the mentally ill
And I did not speak out
Because I was not Mentally ill

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the republicans because of what they did to the socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a republican

Then they came for the democrats because they did it to me first
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a democrat and remembered what they did to us

Then they came for me and i Frigging deserved it for throwing my country men away
And there was no one left
T
o speak out for me because we all lost our inherently given constitutional rights because i was to busy throwing every one else under the bus for the illusion of safety and every increasing spread of fear of the unknown and by the time it was done we lost not just the second but the first ,then suddenly soldiers were forcibly stationed in our homes to control what was left of the free populace and we lost the third,

the 4th was next the right to be free of warrant less search had disappeared and nobody even noticed it . the 5th that went the way early on with the introduction of red flag laws and overzealous asset forfeiture now you have to prove your innocence instead of the state having to prove guilt ,those that decided the futile act of defending themselves in court languished in prisons for years as with the core 5 gone who needs the 6th?

neighbors who said the wrong thing and didnt comply with "group think" or political correctness disappeared in the night never to be seen again its not like we had any reason for juries any more as obviously the state was far more informed then us prole citizens, the 7th barely any one knows what that even means now let alone when we get to this point. 8th bail who needs that every one is guilty why would we even risk letting these crazy people out of jail wont we think of the children?!?! lets make every citizen have to give up 90 percent of their wealth just to attempt to hide their guilt.the 9th? naw we dont need that any more if we were guaranteed rights they would have been listed in the document we shredded i mean they would have listed it all so we could decide what actually matters right? 10th? how dare the states try to preserve rights the federal government wants to take away? how could the states be so foolish to not understand the federal government knows whats best why even let them have governments and waste the time appointing licksppilttle governors as the fed is the only law that matters?


may sound like hyperbole but im sure thats what the jews thought in ww2,then it was the gays gypsies malcontents "mental defects" sure its what the japanese american citizens thought before they were all rounded up and sent to the internment camps the natives on the trail of tears


it cant happen to you until it does and if you let it get that far you have only your self to blame,either the Constitution applies to ALL citizens or its meaningless
(the latter part isnt directed at redneck just general statment)

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I thought NBC was one of those fake news outlets? Why would I care what they think?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you think mental illness plays no role in these shootings?

a reply to: TGunner

They are, and I believe the point of this is to highlight that.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Many in the MSM and many politicians are worried stiff they will be exposed as sociopaths and psychopaths and the medical boards will classify those as mental illnesses and bingo, they get locked-up tight never to be heard from again !! 😎🎯😎

If I'm not mistaken, Fox.. psychopathy in almost all its flavors have been
SCRUBBED from the DSM5. Probably some 5-letter pill pusher from
Kenilworth got a hernia carrying a sufficiently sized mirror... PS Double-Cork, you.

Just from an old has-been, but the APA Document Committee also
rebranded at about the same time into the D(iagnostic and) S(tatistical)
M(anual's) Task Force. I guess it was because it sounds more scary, military
and deadly. My scare is because nobody admits to being the carrier in it.

"What would Lee Trotsky do??" said NO MDPhD EVER. Let us full stop them.
For all his good sense, taste in firearms, and humor--- it's times like this
I miss Beezer more so. Nobody could call off an air strike like him.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

People shooting people doesn't create mental illness I don't know what does. I've yet to meet anyone who's shot anyone and said it didn't affect them. If they weren't mental before hand killing someone will ensure that they are now. So if mental illness wasn't a factor before they went rank, they are now.

The fake news spins and spins like this crappy song no one wants to remember but can't forget.

a reply to: Involutionist

Canada has universal healthcare, so people are probably more likely to be able to get treatment and less likely to quit their meds cold turkey because they need that money for something else.

reply to Involutionist

en.wikipedia.org...


If you look at the link, Canada has had a few killing as well. So not quite the picture of innocence.

What drove those people to kill others? Was it the meanness bleeding over from the US?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
Not surprised by this media spin. Its absolutely irresponsible and disgusting.

Mental illness isn't a major risk factor for gun violence, but here's what is



Soooooo, if mental illness isn't a major factor, then what is?

Having access to a gun is more of a risk factor for violence than being diagnosed with a mental illness, research shows.

Of course! ::forehead slap::
The guns!!

Mind you, this is under the "health" heading on NBC News. They elaborate:

Experts and lawmakers who are once again trying to make sense of what drives gun violence in the United States, however, disagree about what role, if any, mental illness plays.

Notice "IF ANY".

Could. Not. Be. More. Blatant.

I take it you believe mental illnes is a uniqely American problem and mental illness can not travel to other countires ::forehead slap::

It cant be the guns, no its everything else but the guns ::forehead slap::