You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 04:09:30 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #150 on: October 08, 2015, 03:30:06 PM »
Personally I'm in favor of a licence system myself, you need one to hunt animals, need one to drive 2 tons of metal at 60 mph, so why not one for deadly projectile weapons.
You prove on a firing range you know how to handle, clean, and be safe with a gun, pass a background check (no drug charges, are able to distinguish fantasy from reality, are able to distinguish between right and wrong, and are able to comport your behavior in compliance with the law, did not charge the paper boy with a samurai sword last summer and wind up on the police blog, ect.), initial here, and list serial number for the weapon... wham enjoy your shotgun sir.

As it is MS13 gang members can drive to texas, go to a gun show, and drive away with a crate of assault rifles with no paper work required.

Adjusted.

Offline Blythe

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #151 on: October 08, 2015, 03:58:28 PM »
Just gonna point out again that, on average, people with mental illnesses and neurodivergent people are no more violent than the general population, and an order of magnitude more likely to be victims of violence.

If your justification for gun ownership is self-defence, this is a really shitty criterion that continues to push a false stigma.

I think it's important to try to take a moment to apply a principle of charity with debate posts.

Individuals that use 'insane' don't always quite mean that in my experience, and I've had quite a bit of experience with issues stemming from mental illness. Most often, individuals that use 'not insane' actually mean 'is legally mentally competent' in debates like this, which is a different can of worms.

It is possible to be mentally ill and mentally competent, and many are in a legal sense, yes.

I highly doubt Ironwolf85 is deliberately intending to push a negative/false stigma here. When in doubt, look for the most positive meaning or interpretation in what someone is saying, and ask them if that is what they mean. This can cut down on misunderstandings in general.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2015, 04:02:37 PM by Sherlock »

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #152 on: October 08, 2015, 08:41:17 PM »
Just gonna point out again that, on average, people with mental illnesses and neurodivergent people are no more violent than the general population, and an order of magnitude more likely to be victims of violence.

If your justification for gun ownership is self-defence, this is a really shitty criterion that continues to push a false stigma.
pretty much what Sherlock said, I was using short hand for mentally competent and the massive list of mental issues that might not make it legal to own a weapon. Such as delusions, paranoia, being a legal sociopath and so forth.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #153 on: October 08, 2015, 09:03:17 PM »
Is there such thing as an illegal sociopath? I didn't think it was considered a crime to have sociopathic tendencies

Offline Blythe

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #154 on: October 08, 2015, 09:32:33 PM »
pretty much what Sherlock said, I was using short hand for mentally competent and the massive list of mental issues that might not make it legal to own a weapon. Such as delusions, paranoia, being a legal sociopath and so forth.

When using 'legally mentally competent,' this is a list of of state-by-state information on the matter. I think this is a decent enough list, but it's been a bit since I looked at it.

It's better to try to use legal definitions when possible, since again, the list of things you mention are not necessarily going to result in a judgement of an individual being mentally incompetent.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #155 on: October 08, 2015, 09:48:53 PM »
pretty much what Sherlock said, I was using short hand for mentally competent and the massive list of mental issues that might not make it legal to own a weapon. Such as delusions, paranoia, being a legal sociopath and so forth.
Except... your examples are still bad. Funfact: "Sociopath" isn't a clinical term. People with the conditions you're thinking of as "sciopathy"? Are on average less violent than the general population. None of the examples you give actually correlate positively with violence.

However, the common perception of people with those conditions as violent does make it easier for people to harm them, and harder for them to get help.

I'm not assuming bad intent here - I honestly don't think it crossed your mind more than "crazies be dangerous", which is a common enough cultural meme that it's not worth faulting you for carrying it.

But these ideas, these statements, enable real harm to people who are already extremely marginalized and vulnerable, so they're worth pointing out and deconstructing. You are not a bad person, but these are bad ideas.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #156 on: October 09, 2015, 01:47:30 AM »
Except... your examples are still bad.

Perhaps provide a good example, rather than just critiquing?  Obviously we aren't psychologists, and the way you're entering this conversation comes across as judgmental and aggressive without actually contributing much, despite your intentions.  Do you feel there are individuals who, due to mental challenges, present a significant danger if given access to firearms?  How should we refer to these people in a way that respects their humanity but simultaneously recognizes their limitations?  I understand the desire for nonjudgmental inclusive political correctness, but I think there does come a point where we have to recognize our differences, as well (and frankly think we can, and should, take pride in them). 

Also, there is a difference between medical definitions and common usage.  I'm not sure where you're coming up with your claim about sociopaths, but per dictionary.com:
Quote
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
"Often criminal" sounds quite a bit more violent and dangerous than the general population. 

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #157 on: October 09, 2015, 03:25:58 AM »
Do you feel there are individuals who, due to mental challenges, present a significant danger if given access to firearms?

According to the latest studies of the American Psychiatric Association Mental Illness is not usually linked to crime.

With any scientific investigation separating correlation from causation is difficult, it becomes an extraordinarily difficult task to figure out whether criminal acts are caused by a mental illness. However the current consensus appears to be that the stigma, social isolation, poverty and other related factors contribute more to crimes being committed by the mentally ill rather than actually being symptomatic. (Source: J. Peterson et al. How Often and How Consistently do Symptoms Directly Precede Criminal Behavior Among Offenders With Mental Illness? Law and Human Behavior 2014, Vol. 38, No. 5, 439449)

As such we have the tricky question of whether it is appropriate to restrict a group of people's rights for being correlated with a particular risk, rather than that factor being the direct causation or even whether it is appropriate to restrict anyone's rights without them first having committed a criminal offense.

I'm not sure where you're coming up with your claim about sociopaths, but per dictionary.com:"Often criminal" sounds quite a bit more violent and dangerous than the general population.

The dictionary is a linguistic resource, it's an inappropriate reference material for psychological definitions. The DSM-V is the appropriate material to reference, it's all available online. Using a word like 'sociopath' in any sort of serious context is a little like using the word 'Phlogiston' while talking about the risks of house-fires. It was once a related word from the scientific lexicon but now science has moved past that former understanding.

The condition known as Sociopathy is no longer used within the psychological sciences since the DSM-III. While there isn't a 1 for 1 correspondence, the common consensus is that disorders previously described as 'Sociopathy' are now usually diagnosed as personality disorders especially Antisocial Personality Disorder.

The clinical definition is quite considerably more complex than the dictionary. As you can see below:

Source: American Psychiatric Association. (Link)
(Modern) Diagnostic Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder
The essential features of a personality disorder are impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning and the presence of pathological personality traits. To diagnose antisocial personality disorder, the following criteria must be met:
A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b):
a. Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure.
b.Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
AND
2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
a. Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.
b. Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.

B. Pathological personality traits in the following domains:
1. Antagonism, characterized by:
a. Manipulativeness: Frequent use of subterfuge to influence or control others; use of seduction, charm, glibness, or ingratiation to achieve one's ends.
b. Deceitfulness: Dishonesty and fraudulence; misrepresentation of self; embellishment or fabrication when relating events.
c. Callousness: Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one's actions on others; aggression; sadism.
d. Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults; mean, nasty, or vengeful behavior.
2. Disinhibition, characterized by:
a. Irresponsibility: Disregard for and failure to honor financial and other obligations or commitments; lack of respect for
and lack of follow through on agreements and promises.
b. Impulsivity: Acting on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on a momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difficulty establishing and following plans.
c. Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard for consequences; boredom proneness and thoughtless initiation of activities to counter boredom; lack of concern for one's limitations and denial of the reality of personal danger

C. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations.

D. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are not better understood as
normative for the individual‟s developmental stage or socio-cultural environment.

E. The impairments in personality functioning and the individual's personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct
physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head
trauma).

F. The individual is at least age 18 years.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #158 on: October 09, 2015, 03:49:53 AM »
The whole question of mental illness in the context of violent crime is certainly a topic worth debating, but when it comes to the aftermath of school shootings and similar incidents it is nothing more than a smokescreen, thrown up by politicians who do their damndest to deflect the debate away from gun control. Politicians, I might add, who then do nothing to improve mental health care, once they have turned the debate away from gun control in general.

Yes, mental health is a topic that should be talked about, but I firmly believe that it is something that should be talked about on its own merits, as a more general topic outside the context of violent crime and gun control.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #159 on: October 09, 2015, 04:54:33 AM »
According to the latest studies of the American Psychiatric Association Mental Illness is not usually linked to crime.

"Not usually" doesn't mean "Not," it means "Less than 50%".  For instance, that study notes that 10% of crimes by bipolar disorder sufferers were a direct result of their symptoms.  The article also notes there are 1.2 million persons currently incarcerated with mental illness.  When we discuss millions of individuals involved, that is not a minor figure (certainly far more than the number of mass school shootings which are currently dominating the 2nd amendment conversation). 

I will also point out that, to my understanding, the notion here was to limit access to individuals who have been determined by a qualified professional to be likely to commit violent acts (to others or themselves), not ban anyone with a mental illness. 

As such we have the tricky question of whether it is appropriate to restrict a group of people's rights for being correlated with a particular risk, rather than that factor being the direct causation or even whether it is appropriate to restrict anyone's rights without them first having committed a criminal offense.

Yes. 

I will, however, point out that we do this all the time.  Consider the eye exam typical of obtaining a driver's license which has nothing to do with your past offenses, but is instead considered a strong predictor of future performance. 

The dictionary is a linguistic resource, it's an inappropriate reference material for psychological definitions.

And you'll note I addressed that immediately before the quote.  This forum isn't a medical journal; we aren't doctors; this is a discussion, not the DSM.  So I'll ask you as well as Ephimeral: if you want it called something more appropriate, provide the term to use.  That needn't involve agreement with the concept, but so far this debate is like trying to have a discussion about the prevalence of racism while one side keeps insisting the term doesn't exist.

Yes, mental health is a topic that should be talked about, but I firmly believe that it is something that should be talked about on its own merits, as a more general topic outside the context of violent crime and gun control.

That feels like trying to reduce crime without discussing poverty: you'll end up with a hemorrhaging budget and civil rights disaster and not understand why measures still keep failing. 

I agree there isn't enough being done about mental illness, and won't defend any politicians, but the public shares in the blame.  We've stigmatized it to the point that warning signs and treatment are veiled behind a wall of privacy and arguments of entitlement. 
« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 05:03:32 AM by eBadger »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #160 on: October 09, 2015, 02:37:51 PM »
"Not usually" doesn't mean "Not," it means "Less than 50%".  For instance, that study notes that 10% of crimes by bipolar disorder sufferers were a direct result of their symptoms.  The article also notes there are 1.2 million persons currently incarcerated with mental illness.  When we discuss millions of individuals involved, that is not a minor figure (certainly far more than the number of mass school shootings which are currently dominating the 2nd amendment conversation).

I'm trying very hard here not to be sarcastic, but... maybe read the sources provided to you before saying things like "Oh, it means less than 50%"? In a group comprised entirely of mentally ill criminals, they still found that less than 20% of crimes could be linked in any way to mental illness. I already provided evidence to you specifically, in response to your explicit question that the mentally ill, as a group, are no more violent than the general population.

In short, people with mental illnesses are no more violent - and in fact less deliberately violent - than the general population. The mental illnesses most stigmatized as "violent" and "crazy" are actually those least prone to violence.

I will also point out that, to my understanding, the notion here was to limit access to individuals who have been determined by a qualified professional to be likely to commit violent acts (to others or themselves), not ban anyone with a mental illness.
Then you're reading things in that were not in the actual text as posted.

And you'll note I addressed that immediately before the quote.  This forum isn't a medical journal; we aren't doctors; this is a discussion, not the DSM.  So I'll ask you as well as Ephimeral: if you want it called something more appropriate, provide the term to use.  That needn't involve agreement with the concept, but so far this debate is like trying to have a discussion about the prevalence of racism while one side keeps insisting the term doesn't exist.
I'd suggest "a mental illness in no way correlated with gun violence", myself. But... I'm a bit of a smartass.

That feels like trying to reduce crime without discussing poverty: you'll end up with a hemorrhaging budget and civil rights disaster and not understand why measures still keep failing.

I agree there isn't enough being done about mental illness, and won't defend any politicians, but the public shares in the blame.  We've stigmatized it to the point that warning signs and treatment are veiled behind a wall of privacy and arguments of entitlement.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure how exactly arguing against people who call out and reject stigmatization, ignoring evidence that the stigma has zero basis in reality, is supposed to help this situation.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #161 on: October 09, 2015, 06:44:07 PM »
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.

Offline Cycle


Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #163 on: October 09, 2015, 11:40:20 PM »
I'm trying very hard here not to be sarcastic, but... maybe read the sources provided to you before saying things like "Oh, it means less than 50%"?

That would be why I listed specific facts from it in support of my statement, yes. 

the mentally ill, as a group, are no more violent than the general population.

Interesting.  That's not what I took away at all. 

Then you're reading things in that were not in the actual text as posted.

The text you keep saying is wrong and are assigning your own meanings to?

I'd suggest "a mental illness in no way correlated with gun violence", myself. But... I'm a bit of a smartass.

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?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how exactly arguing against people who call out and reject stigmatization, ignoring evidence that the stigma has zero basis in reality, is supposed to help this situation.

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. 
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 12:47:13 AM by eBadger »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #164 on: October 10, 2015, 06:10:58 AM »
... The article also notes there are 1.2 million persons currently incarcerated with mental illness.  When we discuss millions of individuals involved, that is not a minor figure (certainly far more than the number of mass school shootings which are currently dominating the 2nd amendment conversation).
First of all, a little above 1 million is not millions, unless you round very generously.

Second, the statement in the APA article
Quote
In the United States, more than 1.2 million people with mental illness are incarcerated in jails or prisons, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.
is incongruent with the data provided in the actual study (PDF) the article is based on and with the data provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

The study states that
Quote from: (emphasis added)
In the United States, approximately 14%16% of the 7.3 million people under correctional supervision (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009) suffer from serious disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression. This translates to approximately one million people with a major mental disorder currently involved in the criminal justice system.
Now, if you look at BJS statistics, the number of people "under correctional supervision" is about 7 million. But that doesn't mean they are behind bars. The number includes those on parole or probation. People on parole or probation make up 69% of that total, those detained in federal, state, or local jails about 31%.

While I have not found the source yet for the claim in the APA article that
Quote
People with mental illnesses also are on probation or parole at two to four times the rate for the general population.
the "also" here strikes me as highly misleading, as it seems to imply that the number of people with mental health problems on parole or probation is in addition to people in jail, which is just not the case, as far as I can determine from the underlying statistics.

So if we assume that the ratio of jailed people with mental illness to those just "under supervision" is roughly the same as for people without mental health problems we arrive at about 300,000, perhaps 400,000 tops (Iam being vague here, as the statistics used are from slightly different years, so actual number may vary a little). But... if the claim in the APA article that people with mental illnesses are actually more likely than the general population to be on parol or probation, that would mean even less of the prison population suffers from a mental illness or the number would not add up. If we assume those people may be actually more likely to be on parol or probation we might end up with well below 200,000 people with a mental illness actualy behind bars. Either way, I find the difference to a prison population of 1.2 million rather striking.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #165 on: October 10, 2015, 03:07:35 PM »
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?":
Quote
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:
Quote
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.

That's strange.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2015, 03:09:59 PM by Ephiral »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #166 on: October 11, 2015, 11:47:37 AM »
Okay so I'm confused here. Why does it matter the rate at which mentally ill people commit crimes?

Are we actually arguing that individuals like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and others were not mentally ill? As in evaluated by licensed psychiatrists and determined that they do not have the same mental state as the majority of people?

The instance of how often the entire population does something is irrelevant when we're addressing the individuals that are actually doing it. And what we observe seems to be that your major mass shootings seem to always go back to mental illness as far back as the one most people think of, Columbine. So I don't think it's somehow absurd to think that maybe, just maybe, mentally ill people shouldn't have access to firearms?

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #167 on: October 11, 2015, 11:58:06 AM »
Setting aside whether it is even a good idea to do so, I see a practical problem to the proposal of doing "background checks" to see if potential gun buyers have "mental issues."

I mean, how do you do that? 

You can't compel a person's psychotherapist to disclose their condition any more than you can compel a doctor to disclose a patient's illnesses.  Granted, if a psychotherapist notices signs of imminent danger to the patient or others, they may be able to take action.  But that's not going to help with routine pre-purchase "background checks" as those are incident-specific situations.

I'm starting to wonder if this whole line of argument is a rabbit hole created by really savvy anti-gun control factions to get people to waste their time.  They know it can't ever work, so they throw it out there and encourage everyone to debate it, thus making it look like something is being done when really nothing is.

Maybe we're falling for a distraction here, folks.

Online Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #168 on: October 11, 2015, 12:06:16 PM »
Setting aside whether it is even a good idea to do so, I see a practical problem to the proposal of doing "background checks" to see if potential gun buyers have "mental issues."

I mean, how do you do that? 

You can't.  Doctor patient confidentiality. 

So requiring stricter, or more extensive background checks won't help with that aspect.  They will be able to tell you who is/isn't a felon, or who has/hasn't broken the law and what they did, but as far as any potential mental issues, that won't show up in a background check. 

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #169 on: October 11, 2015, 12:12:36 PM »
You can't.  Doctor patient confidentiality. 

So requiring stricter, or more extensive background checks won't help with that aspect.  They will be able to tell you who is/isn't a felon, or who has/hasn't broken the law and what they did, but as far as any potential mental issues, that won't show up in a background check.

  Exceptions exist. Don't insurance companies have access to medical files? Not saying its a good idea, but legally at least it seems doable.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 12:19:07 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #170 on: October 11, 2015, 12:42:07 PM »
I'm starting to wonder if this whole line of argument is a rabbit hole created by really savvy anti-gun control factions to get people to waste their time.  They know it can't ever work, so they throw it out there and encourage everyone to debate it, thus making it look like something is being done when really nothing is.

Maybe we're falling for a distraction here, folks.
That's why I called it a "smokescreen" a little while ago, but no one listens to me. *grumbles and stomps his foot*  :D


You can't.  Doctor patient confidentiality.
There may be exceptions when someone is assigned a legal guardian by a court. That might not tell anything about the diagnosis of someone, but it should be information available to the government without violating doctor-patient confidentiality. But as long as the courts don't get involved the only other situation I can think of would be someone reporting themselves as unfit to ever handle a gun.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #171 on: October 11, 2015, 12:58:05 PM »
Okay so I'm confused here. Why does it matter the rate at which mentally ill people commit crimes?

Are we actually arguing that individuals like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, and others were not mentally ill? As in evaluated by licensed psychiatrists and determined that they do not have the same mental state as the majority of people?

The instance of how often the entire population does something is irrelevant when we're addressing the individuals that are actually doing it. And what we observe seems to be that your major mass shootings seem to always go back to mental illness as far back as the one most people think of, Columbine. So I don't think it's somehow absurd to think that maybe, just maybe, mentally ill people shouldn't have access to firearms?
You're getting this backward. We're not trying to prevent Lanza or Holmes from doing anything - people are talking about policies that would prevent the next one. So what we need to do is identify traits that are indicators of violence. Even if a given shooter was mentally ill (by the way, the diagnosis you're thinking of for Lanza is a developmental disability, not a mental illness), when we look at broader patterns, mental illness is not a good indicator of violence. If you're looking for a common pattern in mass shootings, you're looking for a young, poor white man who recently experienced rejection or frustration in his personal or work life and who has a substance abuse problem. Yet somehow, nobody's suggesting we stop men from having access to guns. Or young adults. Or white people. Or poor people. Or anybody who's had a major setback.

There's a narrative among those who want strong gun rights that guns are necessary for defense, and thus the general populace must have access to them. Personally, I disagree with these points, but if we accept them as true, then we need justification for restricting this access - evidence that providing guns to this group of people is more dangerous than providing them to the general public, or at least that this group is in far less danger than the general public. Mentally ill people, as a group, are no more prone to violence than the general population, but are eleven times more likely to be victims of violence. By basic pro-gun logic, shouldn't they be among the first people we arm? If not, how do you justify calling access to guns a "right", but taking it away from them?



That's why I called it a "smokescreen" a little while ago, but no one listens to me. *grumbles and stomps his foot*  :D
I argue the point because, for people like me, it's not just a smokescreen - it's something that makes it easier to hurt us. That's worth addressing in addition to gun control (about which I've already made my position amply clear).

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #172 on: October 11, 2015, 01:15:35 PM »
*laughs*

I note that discussing mental illness in connection with gun control is a deliberate distraction ploy.  A trick.  Something we shouldn't fall for.

So what happens?

We continue to discuss mental illness in connection with gun control.  XD


Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #173 on: October 11, 2015, 01:32:03 PM »
So this entire thread should be dictated by what you deem important, then? All ongoing conversations should cease immediately when you decide they don't matter, regardless of how these real issues affect real people?

I would've said I was on your side on that - Mental illness is used as a distraction, and this hurts the mentally ill. But... I refuse to stand with someone who would rather silence a mentally ill person speaking out against being scapegoated than consider how these things affect other people.

Probably won't be back in-thread for a while for fairly obvious reasons.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 01:35:26 PM by Ephiral »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #174 on: October 11, 2015, 01:39:18 PM »
So this entire thread should be dictated by what you deem important, then? All ongoing conversations should cease immediately when you decide they don't matter, regardless of how these real issues affect real people?

I would've said I was on your side on that - Mental illness is used as a distraction, and this hurts the mentally ill. But... I refuse to stand with someone who would rather silence a mentally ill person speaking out against being scapegoated than consider how these things affect other people.

Probably won't be back in-thread for a while for fairly obvious reasons.

Wow.