Gun Control or Social Issues?

[Dante]

Why the emphasis on mental health? I know a whole load of people with no history of mental illness that I would never trust with a gun. Likewise I know some rather stable people who technically have mental health problems. Evaluating my friends on the 'most likely to snap one day and kill a large number of people' scale, it's the ones currently seeing (or trying to see) psychologists who get the lowest rating.

The person I'd least trust with a gun? Me, probably. I'm just downright unstable, I am.

The point: Gun control is silly. Gun prohibition is also silly. But the latter would at least go a long way to wiping out gun crime.

It would then be followed by an increase in knife crime and long-fingernail-to-the-eyeball crime, but hey, omelettes, eggs...

[Megashrap]

Why the emphasis on mental health? I know a whole load of people with no history of mental illness that I would never trust with a gun. Likewise I know some rather stable people who technically have mental health problems. Evaluating my friends on the 'most likely to snap one day and kill a large number of people' scale, it's the ones currently seeing (or trying to see) psychologists who get the lowest rating.

I think mental health is a larger issue because a disturbed person of this nature(cho),who gave clear signs of killing or wanting to kill was not monitored at all. We spend more time, money and resources for monitoring convicts on parole than you can imagine. Now if an ex-convict is out on parole and is not allowed to own or buy a firearm, then why not a truly disturbed person? Why not an ankle bracelet or some other means. Hell make it mandatory to put it on their ID or drivers licence or post it online if need be, they do it with convicts. I'm not talking about those diagnosed with clinical depression or agoraphobia...but those that are capable of homicide and actually put it on paper or some other avenue. Just a thought.

[Dante]

Because that would be silly.  :)

[erjin999]

A lot of people who would never actually do anything would be bandied along with them, thats why.

[Lord J]

I think mental health is a larger issue because a disturbed person of this nature(cho),who gave clear signs of killing or wanting to kill was not monitored at all. We spend more time, money and resources for monitoring convicts on parole than you can imagine. Now if an ex-convict is out on parole and is not allowed to own or buy a firearm, then why not a truly disturbed person? Why not an ankle bracelet or some other means. Hell make it mandatory to put it on their ID or drivers licence or post it online if need be, they do it with convicts. I'm not talking about those diagnosed with clinical depression or agoraphobia...but those that are capable of homicide and actually put it on paper or some other avenue. Just a thought.

Yes, yes!  Because mental illness is evil!  And we normal must be protected from the strange, mentally ill, evil people at all costs!

Hell, why don't we just crowd them all onto camps and gas them, or do important medical research on their living bodies?

I realize that this is probably not the extreme to where you're going with your argument, but it is essentially where such "tagging" would end.  I think people fear the mentally ill enough as it is.  Too much, in fact, considering that statistics have shown that a tiny, tiny insignificant number of the mentally ill are violent in any way.  Discriminating against the mentally ill in the way that you just suggested would be no different from racism and other types of bigotry that this country has tried to come away from.

[Megashrap]

My arguement was aimed at those who clearly show they want or are going to kill others and in some form or another show they intend to do so, NOT every single mentally challenged person.

Again, if it's the law which it is here that they cannot obtain a firearm, then whats wrong with incorporating it on their ID card? Got to have an ID to get a gun here. That's a far cry from racism. I'll stand by what I said anyday that a person that is mentally unstable as he was should not be able to buy a firearm period.

[Lord J]

Well, actually, if someone admits or shows signs of tendencies to harm themselves or others, the clinical psychologist, counselor, psychiatrist, minister, or any other type of counselor who is spending time with that individual is required by ethics to refer that person to in-patient care in an institution.  These referrals can include court-ordered commital to a mental institution against a patients' will.  In other words, there are stopgaps in place to keep violently mentally ill persons from being free to commit crimes.

But a permanent record that would prevent these people from the ability to purchase firearms would imply that they are not full citizens, and therefore are not capable of benefiting from the Constitution.  Mental illness is called "illness" for a reason; many people recover from stress- and relationship-related problems and go on to lead productive lives.  Sometimes people simply do not have stress coping mechanisms that they may develop within a controlled environment and counseling.  Once they leave the care of a mental health professional, or an institution, they may, in fact, be cured.  So why should they be discriminated against because of an illness?

To follow this argument to a legal conclusion; personal medical files are protected by law.  To allow a person to view another person's medical files without his or her consent is a violation of constitutional law.

Please note the difference here between mental illness and criminal record in the perspective of constitutional theory: mental illness is not a subject whereby a person may be discriminated against, whereas a history of felony crime is a subject that does change a person's life forever in terms of his or her rights.  I suspect that there is a difference drawn at the level of causation: medical history happens to a person; criminal behavior is perpetrated by a person.  Whereas a mentally ill individual may say or do things that are beyond thier perception of right and wrong, it is assumed that a criminal knows that their act is wrong: malice aforethought.

[Tatar Khan]

How are we to determine which person will go berserk tomorrow and kill people?

[Megashrap]

Mental illness is called "illness" for a reason; many people recover from stress- and relationship-related problems and go on to lead productive lives.  Sometimes people simply do not have stress coping mechanisms that they may develop within a controlled environment and counseling.  Once they leave the care of a mental health professional, or an institution, they may, in fact, be cured.  So why should they be discriminated against because of an illness?

  Same could be said about alcoholics or drug addicted individuals that are so called "discriminated against"...but it happens everyday. Drivers license's revoked or suspended, it's made public record if and when they commit a crime or a DUI, or manslaughter. Actually that's not even discrimination, it's common sense that they are punished in such a way. They too may go on to lead productive lives afterwards. Still, they too can kill with a deadly weapon, mainly a vehicle but not limited to one. Do you have a problem with their license being taken away? and or altered? Many people may recover from stress, but many also do not. Mental illness of any kind should not EVER justify going on a killing spree simply because it's just an "illness".That's like saying,"I killed 6 people with my car, but hey...I have a disease." But then again lawyers try with all they can muster to show otherwise here.

How are we to determine which person will go berserk tomorrow and kill people?

Well I think it's obvious that we don't know who may go berserk and kill. However many do show signs and are just simply ignored sadly.

[Lord J]

Same could be said about alcoholics or drug addicted individuals that are so called "discriminated against"...but it happens everyday. Drivers license's revoked or suspended, it's made public record if and when they commit a crime or a DUI, or manslaughter. Actually that's not even discrimination, it's common sense that they are punished in such a way. They too may go on to lead productive lives afterwards. Still, they too can kill with a deadly weapon, mainly a vehicle but not limited to one. Do you have a problem with their license being taken away? and or altered?

True, though I disagree with your use of the term "punished" in that way.  Another example would be people like myself who wear eyeglasses.  Without these perscribed forms of treatment those of us who suffer from vision problems would also be deadly behind the wheel of a vehicle.  That is why there are restrictions on my drivers license.  But the differences between drug addiction or vision correction on the ability to obtain a drivers license and the ability of a formerly mentally ill individual obtaining a firearm are blatant to anyone who understands the processes involved:

Mental illness, even with violent tendencies, can be treated and cured.  Addiction may be cured, but the treatment involved does not always include in-patient care (rehab).

Therefore, people who are suffering from a particular illness, including addiction, or vision impairment, that would make them dangerous to society should be kept from engaging in behaviors that would endanger the lives of others.  This includes people suffering from mental illness that shows violent tendancies.

However, people suffering from mental illness with violent tendencies who have been adequately diagnosed and committed to an institution would not be able to purchase a weapon anyway, until they are treated and released from the institution.

The system is set up so that people who commit crimes while under the influence of a given drug eventually lose the "discriminating tag" on their ability to operate a motor vehicle due to the statute of limitations.  This is because, as I said before, treatment of addictions does not always involve in-patient care which is controlled for society's sake.  People who once suffered form mental illness, on the other hand, once released, should be normal, upstanding members of society, free to engage in the same freedoms guaranteed to toehr members of society.

In other words, the current system "discriminates" against people who wish to obtain a drivers license who are currently suffering from a condition that would impair their abilities.  However, if a treatment or cure for such a condition has been successfully administered, there is no constitutional or legal reason or justification for further discrimination against that individual.

Mental illness of any kind should not EVER justify going on a killing spree simply because it's just an "illness".That's like saying,"I killed 6 people with my car, but hey...I have a disease." But then again lawyers try with all they can muster to show otherwise here.

The implication you are making with this statement is that people who suffer from an illness get off free from the crimes they may commit and are brought to court for.  This is a clear misunderstanding of the legal and medical processes in dealing with such cases.  In fact, people who engage in violent crime against others and are found "innocent because of mental defect" are almost always committed (without parole) to institutions for a longer time than they would spend in prison.  People who are not familiar with the treatment of mental disorders are typically very ignorant of the treatment of the violently mentally ill.  Suffice to say, they are not "getting off" with a lighter sentence.

How are we to determine which person will go berserk tomorrow and kill people?

There are a number of signs, but, I agree with scar5150 in that they are sometimes ignored.  Typically, however, if a person has been diagnosed with a mental illness that includes violent tendencies, they are held in an institution until a licensed professional judges them "cured."

Please note that I am not saying that the government system or the science of psychology are perfect, but I am saying that such tagging as you suggested is clear discrimination and would be fought by thousands every step of the way.  It is a misunderstanding of the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, and of the actual harm that the mentally ill, at large, present.

[Egeides]

So.. in your view, the rise of Columbine-style non-sense is due to a greater number of mentally ill people? ???

[Megashrap]

So.. in your view, the rise of Columbine-style non-sense is due to a greater number of mentally ill people? ???

In my opinion the rise is three fold.

1).The media who over exposes those that do the killing. As ruthless as the media can be, you know they screwed up big time when THEY decide to not air the killer and his agenda.

2).Obvious and clear warning signs ignored that were put on paper by him could have been taken alot more seriously.

3).Severe mental/homicidal individuals ignored when there are valid reasons to be alarmed, be it a letter, package, pictures,videos etc. So yes I think along with these reasons, mental illness played a big role, but it wasn't the only problem. At least I don't think so. 

Anyone who watched this play out on TV on what ever channel saw more about the killer than the victims before they finally decided to stop airing him and his video/pictorial and manifesto by most major networks. However, the damage and insults to the families from what the media did was already done by then.  What the media did was fuel others somewhat that plan such a thing knowing they will be immortalized by the media. So in my opinion it's a combanation of events that cause such a tragedy, and lack of concern or certain things not taken seriously when it really should. 

[Lord J]

So.. in your view, the rise of Columbine-style non-sense is due to a greater number of mentally ill people? ???

Although a certain percentage of a given population will always show signs of mental illness, and given the increase in population, it is only logical for the number of people with mental illness, even those with violent tendencies to increase, I find it doubtful that Columbine-like shootings are necessarily completely associated with mental illness.  It seems to me that many of these people came to worship the violence in films, videogames, and news media, then decided to attack on a date that coincided with the Waco, Texas situation.  All of this questions the largely impulsive nature of mental illness.

In other words, when evidence is compiled, it is more likely the environment played a much larger role in creating these individuals than any developmental brain defect.  Society leads to these killings, not mental illness.

[Tatar Khan]

It seems in most cases the shootings occured as a revenge against bullying or lack of attention, not mentall illness. There is very little evidence to suggest that those people were all mentally ill.

[erjin999]

Duh !

If you think lack of attention or bullying justify killing that many innocent people (not even just the bullies) then you are suffering from some mental issues.  ::)

[Megashrap]

It seems in most cases the shootings occured as a revenge against bullying or lack of attention, not mentall illness. There is very little evidence to suggest that those people were all mentally ill.

Bottled up anger and resentment or being picked on by others, or lack of attention that results in the person going on a killing spree IS mental. Now everything I just mentioned I experienced at one time or another in high school alone except the killing spree...even some ass-tards I would've loved to take out with an uzi, but I didn't. You say there is no evidence of mental illness, I say it was mostly due to mental problems that he never dealt with.

[Acriku]

Let's not get into an Orwellian atmosphere here people. We can't herd off all of the people showing "signs" of potential rage away from society, largely because the entire New York City would be suddenly empty and various other microcosms. We all have potential to be murderers, and we all have potential to be mass/serial murderers. Trigger us the right way, and we'll be going to school/work with a bag full of guns.

[erjin999]

No way could I plan something like that. Rage, sudden...yes. Planned murder ? No.

Trouble me enough and like most guys, I will grab whats near and start to swing with it. But to stockpile weapons, make videos/pictures and stuff ? I am a bit more "normal"  then that.

So yes, we all have the potential to be murders, but not to plan murders like these guys.

Like that film minority report where they couldnt pick up impulse murders, but could pick up preplanned one.

[nemafakei]

"even some ass-tards I would've loved to take out with an uzi, but I didn't"

I'm glad to hear it. However, all that proves is that we are not mindless automata with regard to social factors. We each react to bullying in different ways at different times - some of us get by, others eventually succumb to anger. Moreover, even with superficially comparable situations, we are all subject to wildly different influences, and in practice, comparisons are pretty vain.

Nevertheless, remove bullying and social alienation, and in all likelihood you remove the precondition for lashing out.

[erjin999]

But I believe most people in our society do not have it in them to lash out in this premeditated way. They deal with it in other ways (unfortunately, the opposite can be suicide, a more common way of dealing with these kinds of "issues" people have).

[Acriku]

The human condition is frail enough for a level of influences in the right manner and time to extract the rage or sociopathy appropriate for planned murder. To go further, our perception of reality is fragile and with the right push we can be turned into one of "them". We only seem normal to ourselves because we are currently able to maintain our perception of reality.

[erjin999]

The human condition is frail enough for a level of influences in the right manner and time to extract the rage or sociopathy appropriate for planned murder.

For me, those two highlighted words above dont go together well enough. "Hate" and "planned murder" yes...hate built up over time. Hate and resentment. Rage ? No, that subsides. A person calms down after a while and thinks, thank God I did do it (spur of the moment rage/madness murder thing).

So while I agree that people have it in them, I dont beleive they necessarily have it in them to do it in a planned and premeditated manner.

My belief. <shrugs>  :-

[MrFlibble]

Strong emotions (negative or positive alike) do not necessarily diminish human capabilities for thinking over and planning their actions. As Acriku- pointed out, we all can snap under the "right" circumstances, and then the negative emotion (hate, anger, rage, etc.) may "take over" and guide all our actions that will still remain "human" in the way that they're considered in the cause-and-effect terms, i.e. planned, designed by the mind, not by "instincts", but destructive in their essence.

This is horrible, but it's part of our human nature.

[nemafakei]

York: 11-year-old boy arrested over school shooting (BBC)

Laudable restraint, no sensationalism at the BBC...

[Kokiri-Mentat]

well, it was a pellet gun :D, but yes a less respectable news company may have well gone to town with that one.  speaking of guns, the news report was made the day after hitler's birthday and columbine shooting, and was two days after the aniversary of OK city bombing and Waco texas incident. but i'm not a conspiratist. :)