Maybe we should try to ensure that the people who can have guns can:
a) distinguish fantasy from reality
b) distinguish between right and wrong, and
c) comport their behavior in compliance with the law.
I'd be far more okay with these as criteria than the other suggestions advanced here. Still not my ideal world, but it's a major step in the right direction without kicking anyone for no reason.
That would be why I listed specific facts from it in support of my statement, yes.
Then you noted that, even when examining only
mentally ill criminals, less than 20% of their crimes could be connected in abny way
to their illness? If so, why make the disingenuous "just under 50%" statement in the first place?
Interesting. That's not what I took away at all.
From the article I linked, specifically the section entitled "Are the mentally ill at increased risk of violence?":
Crime and violence in the mentally ill were associated with the same criminogenic factors thought to determine crime and violence in anyone else: factors such as gender, age, poverty, or substance abuse. Any elevation in rates of crime or violence among mentally ill samples was attributed to the excess of these factors. When they were statistically controlled, the rates often equalized.
It goes on to discuss the difficulties in obtaining accurate data and metrics, and the specific methodology used by the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study to address those difficulties and obtain the best data to date, then notes:
n this study, the prevalence of violence among those with a major mental disorder who did not abuse substances was indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighbourhood controls. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%). Delusions were not associated with violence, even 'threatcontrol override' delusions that cause an individual to think that someone is out to harm them or that someone can control their thoughts.
In short, no, mental illness is a very very poor indicator of violence - it tends to be comorbid with things which are
indicators, but is not itself one. Substance abuse, on the other hand is
an exceedingly dangerous factor - yet I don't see anyone calling for background checks into someone's drinking habits or regular drug screenings for gun owners.
The text you keep saying is wrong and are assigning your own meanings to?
He opened on "insane", with no further qualifiers. When he moved to specify, he cited paranoia, delusions, and sociopathy. Two of these things are, as has been cited in this thread three times now, not
indicators of violence, and the third does not exist
. So getting " determined by a qualified professional to be likely to commit violent acts (to others or themselves)" out of that is an extremely
strained read. Equating "insane" with "mentally ill", on the other hand, is a common colloquialism, and I repeatedly specifically pointed out that delusions are negatively
correlated with violence as compared to the general population. So... yes. The text he posted was in fact wrong. No, I am not assigning my own meanings to it. You, however, assumed an implication which had already been demonstrated to be wrong.
Indeed. So you're saying there are no mentally ill individuals who are prone to violence toward others, or harm to themselves, due to their medical condition? That such persons do not exist?
No, I'm saying that "mental illness" or "insanity" - as a broad category - is an incredibly shitty indicator of violence. Delusions and paranoia in particular are even worse
indicators of violence. Taking away rights available to the general public from these people, on the grounds that "they might get violent," is counterproductive and disenfranchising. Perpetuating the myth that these people are prone to violence makes violence against them more socially acceptable, defending them less socially acceptable, and the support and treatment they need harder to access. It is probable that most of the people in this thread were not previously aware of this, which is why I raised the point. Once you are aware of it, continuing to advance these narratives and policies is a really shitty
thing to do.
Because I think the conversation should focus on the small minority of mentally ill individuals who are a serious danger to themselves or others rather than lumping all mentally ill individuals into the same stigmatized stereotype as though they were homogeneous.
And yet you argue against me, when I object to the use of a label that is generally applied to mentally ill people as a category, and when I object to focusing on people who are no more dangerous than anyone else.