Time to ban the mentally ill

Originally posted by merkins
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

I think the world would be a much safer place if we banned psychopathy.
We'd be free of the NWO and the elites in no time.

As a brit i'm probably in a minority but the more guns in the hands of the public the better.
We cant uninvent them so we must use them to prevent and stop crime.

I wonder how many lives would have been saved if all the teachers and
staff had been openly carrying.

Spot on.

The first thing to cross my mind upon seeing the thread title was that Washington DC would be deserted. I was flipping through channels last night and stumbled across a documentary about mentally ill people, I think it was called "Duck Dynasty" or something like that.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


That's great and all but when did I narrow this down to murder and murder alone?

Im going for total crime reduction.

Besides, homicide exists independent of the method carried out.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

That's great and all but when did I narrow this down to murder and murder alone?

Im going for total crime reduction.

Besides, homicide exists independent of the method carried out.

That's fine then, can you find the statistics for all crime then? What percentage involves guns?

Also, I thought you said violent crime earlier, not just crime. Make up your mind.

reply to post by Dispo

1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

Presence of weapons in violent incidents, by type, 2009
Presence of
offender's weapon Violent crime Rape/
sexual assault Robbery Simple/
aggravated assault

Total 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %
No weapon 73 % 85 % 48 % 76 %

Weapon 22 % 10 %* 47 % 19 %
Firearm 8 -- * 28 5
Knife 6 8 * 9 5
Other 7 2 * 8 7
Type not ascertained 2 -- * 2 * 1
Don't know 6 % 5 %* 6 %* 6 %

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

I dont know if there are stats on jaywalkers with weapons. Ill check.

So lets take the mentally ill off the streets not the guns,guns like 15 round glocks and 30 round .223 bushmasters that fire as fast as you pull the trigger in civilian hands couldn't possibly be the problem could they.

If this guy legally could of only gotten a revolver and a bolt or lever action rifle there would of been a lot less dead

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures the nonfatal violent crimes o

measures the nonfatal violent

nonfatal

Again, stop cherry picking your statistics. Do you understand the point I'm making about the necessity of a full and complete picture or do I need to explain to you exactly why using the nonfatal violent crime statistics to argue about guns being cool is misleading at best and intentionally deceitful at worst?

Edit: just so we're clear, and you can't call me a freedom hating commie to your "friends" tonight, I love guns, guns are great, everyone should have guns, I think it would be wrong for Americans to have their guns taken away, I also appreciate that other people may have different opinions on the matter and I would gladly argue my point of view with them, maybe one of us would come out of it with a new perspective on things... BUT YOU ARE LYING TO PEOPLE TO MAKE THEM AGREE WITH YOU ON THE TOPIC OF GUN CONTROL IN A THREAD WHERE YOU HAVE SAID THAT ALL MENTALLY ABNORMAL PEOPLE SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY AND HIDDEN FROM CIVILISATION IN ORDER TO PROTECT PEOPLE.

reply to post by Dispo

nonfatal violent crimes of rape/sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

So you want stats for fatal rape and fatal robbery and fatal assault?

That's just murder and those numbers have already been posted.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Then why did you dismiss those stats as irrelevant when they are clearly relevant?

There is a difference between fatalities stemming from violent crime and fatalities stemming from other means e.g. gang warfare, crimes of passion and so on.

The point is, if somebody goes in to a robbery with a weapon, e.g. a gun, that crime is more likely to end in a fatality than if the robber did not have a gun.

Using nonfatal statistics to prove your point discounts all of the robberies and rapes and so on where a gun was used to successfully execute the crime, and ended in a fatality. The robberies ending in fatalities are more likely to have involved a gun, whereas the robberies not ending in death are less likely to involve a gun, therefore when your stats say 28% of robberies involved a gun, that is misleading.

In reality, 28% of robberies which did not end in death involved a gun, we do not know how many robberies which ended in death involved a gun.

Edit: let me try another way.

200 people are mugged in a day. 180 of the muggers used a gun.
160 of the muggers who used a gun killed their victim.
The real stats would be:
robberies involving guns: 90%
The stats according to your source would be:
nonfatal robberies involving guns: 50%

Your stats are misleading.

reply to post by Dispo


I dismissed the numbers as irrelevant because the point is not merely to save lives. The point is to reduce crimes altogether.

How many rapes and robberies were committed by the mentally ill?

Nearly any psychiatric symptom can be associated with criminality, because such symptoms can impair judgment and violate societal norms. For example, an individual with insomnia due to major depression may fall asleep while driving and kill a pedestrian, subsequently being subjected to a manslaughter conviction.

link

However, individuals with these illnesses are not criminals merely because they have the disorder. It is more accurate to say that these disorders are more closely linked to criminality, because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for diagnosing these disorders include symptoms that tend to violate the rights of others.[1]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


From your own source:

It is essential to keep in mind that most people with mental illness are not violent.[2] A study of psychotic individuals found that those with a mental illness were responsible for only 5% of all violent crimes.[3]

Edit: just putting the link in my post so you can't delete it.
emedicine.medscape.com...

reply to post by Dispo


I saw that and Im trying to find the original paper because it doesnt make sense.

A survey of people with psychosis showed 5% of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness.

Mental illness is broad and covers much more than psychosis so why did they only survey people with psychosis?

And if they did how can that 5% encompassing all mental illness number be valid?

Found it, reading it now: ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

It focuses on "severe" mental illness not all mental illness. Making the excerpt from the first source somewhat misleading in that the 5% number is those with psychosis not all mentally ill.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I love how hypocritical the quote in your avatar says LIVE FREE OR DIE, yet you want to lock up what you deem as 'mentally ill'
It should read LIVE FREE IF YOU FALL INTO MY ACCEPTED NORM

reply to post by HomerinNC


Hey, just trying to save society. It's obvious that nobody really wants to live free so I'm just going to play the game along with everyone else.

You want to live free that's great. So do I. Not gonna happen though. Better get used to tyranny and jump on the bandwagon because liberty lost.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Dispo

 

I saw that and Im trying to find the original paper because it doesnt make sense.

A survey of people with psychosis showed 5% of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness.

Mental illness is broad and covers much more than psychosis so why did they only survey people with psychosis?

And if they did how can that 5% encompassing all mental illness number be valid?

First, it was not a survey, it was a study. The implications of substituting study for survey are absolutely massive and leads me to believe you have no background in any scientific field and have no business discussing this issue. I'm not being a semantic nitpicker here, that is a massively important difference in wording that should never be made.

As for your confusion over the figures, psychotic in this context is implied to be a catch all term for mentally ill people, this can be verified by the next sentence which counts sexual offenders in the topical group, who are in most instances, not psychotic in the classic sense.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I DO want to live free, but I got mental issues well, I suffer from bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, so I should be locked up away from everyone else because you believe ALL mentally ill people are prone to go on violent rampages?
Just so you know, I am sickened by people like YOU for even VOICING this kind of opinion.
Maybe you should be locked away as well, isnt xenophobia, which is what you might be suffering from, a form of a mental illness?

Ban People, not guns.

People will kill people even if there are no guns. Guns will not fire/kill if there are no people around.

Ban people, not guns.

If you locked up everyone who had a psychiatric issue and/or is/was a criminal there wouldn't be anyone left to unlock the door.

Er, Prison Planet.

Maybe we're all nuts because we're half Nephilim.

Er, pass the meds.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Dispo

 

I saw that and Im trying to find the original paper because it doesnt make sense.

A survey of people with psychosis showed 5% of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness.

Mental illness is broad and covers much more than psychosis so why did they only survey people with psychosis?

And if they did how can that 5% encompassing all mental illness number be valid?

Found it, reading it now: ajp.psychiatryonline.org...

It focuses on "severe" mental illness not all mental illness. Making the excerpt from the first source somewhat misleading in that the 5% number is those with psychosis not all mentally ill.

edit on 15-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)

Fair enough then, I was wrong when I asserted that the term psychotic was used as a catch all term.

Alright, psychotic (schizophrenic and other groups, even though to begin with you were only talking about schizophrenics) people account for 5% of all violent crime, you'll have to find stats for mentally ill non psychotic perpetrators of violent crime if you want to prove your point that you "get more bang for your buck by locking up nutters than taking away guns."

You're looking for around 20 percentage points worth of violent crime from non psychotic mentally ill individuals to even get close to proving your point though, so good luck.

reply to post by HomerinNC


Sure, why not?

The world is little more than one giant asylum anyway.

You cant have anything sharp because a lunatic might use it to cut somebody.

You have to watch what you say, draw or write because some lunatic might hear it or see it and go off.

All that's missing is the white coats.

Originally posted by Dispo
You're looking for around 20 percentage points worth of violent crime from non psychotic mentally ill individuals to even get close to proving your point though, so good luck.

That's a lot of points and my free time is about to run out.

I've found this:

Altogether, 42% of patients and 31% of non-patients had a criminal record. A higher criminality rate was found in bipolar patients and in patients suffering from unipolar minor or intermittent depression, whereas no increased criminality rate was found in patients with unipolar major depression.

link

Damn journals are all behind pay walls.