Mass shootings

[Benton]

(03-19-2018, 08:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know there was a discussion at one point about how the school's disciplinary policies were part of the problem for the MSD shooting. According to some recent news, that may not be the case: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/us/nikolas-cruz-baker-act.html

It seems the school tried to get him committed.

It's a weird chicken and egg situation.

Here in Marshall, our sheriff and a lot of others in the state are pushing for mental health funding in relation to schools. On the flip side, our local county judge (functions like a city mayor, but for the county) is pushing for metal detectors and bigger checks, citing stats that say mentally ill people account for less than 1% of known school shootings. Side bar, he's also a Republican and one of the biggest pro-2nd guys I know.

So we don't know if mental illness relates to gun violence because we don't have a reliable, minimum level mental health system. But it doesn't look like lawmakers are interested in studying why gun violence happens, or establishing a mental health system. So we'll probably be sticking with a small number of known mentally ill people committing these acts.

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2018, 02:01 PM)Benton Wrote: It's a weird chicken and egg situation.

Here in Marshall, our sheriff and a lot of others in the state are pushing for mental health funding in relation to schools. On the flip side, our local county judge (functions like a city mayor, but for the county) is pushing for metal detectors and bigger checks, citing stats that say mentally ill people account for less than 1% of known school shootings. Side bar, he's also a Republican and one of the biggest pro-2nd guys I know.

So we don't know if mental illness relates to gun violence because we don't have a reliable, minimum level mental health system. But it doesn't look like lawmakers are interested in studying why gun violence happens, or establishing a mental health system. So we'll probably be sticking with a small number of known mentally ill people committing these acts.

In all seriousness, someone with a mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violence than they are to be a perpetrator. Focusing on mental health is not the solution to gun violence or school shootings, but intervention in this particular case may have saved lives. Also should note that I do want better resources for mental health, I just think that tying it to gun violence is harmful to discussions around both mental health and gun violence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2018, 02:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, someone with a mental illness is more likely to be a victim of violence than they are to be a perpetrator. Focusing on mental health is not the solution to gun violence or school shootings, but intervention in this particular case may have saved lives. Also should note that I do want better resources for mental health, I just think that tying it to gun violence is harmful to discussions around both mental health and gun violence.

Very true.  However, when you look at mass shootings of late the perpetrators have largely been either mentally ill or religiously motivated.  Aurora, Sandyhook, Florida, Virginia Tech, Naval Yard; mentally ill.  Pulse club, San Bernardino, Fort Hood; religiously motivated.  I'd honestly include the Vegas shooting under mentally ill, but that incident has apparently gone underground to the point were we haven't heard a thing about the investigation in months.

[Belsnickel]

(03-20-2018, 11:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true.  However, when you look at mass shootings of late the perpetrators have largely been either mentally ill or religiously motivated.  Aurora, Sandyhook, Florida, Virginia Tech, Naval Yard; mentally ill.  Pulse club, San Bernardino, Fort Hood; religiously motivated.  I'd honestly include the Vegas shooting under mentally ill, but that incident has apparently gone underground to the point were we haven't heard a thing about the investigation in months.

But you're leaving out quite a few others in there that would make the religious list larger, and would include some based on race, personal issues, etc. I don't think the percentage of those that have actually been mentally ill is as high as we like to think and the way you present that list perpetuates the bias that it happens more often. I'd be interested to see if we could find a good list that discusses motives and look at percentages.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2018, 08:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But you're leaving out quite a few others in there that would make the religious list larger, and would include some based on race, personal issues, etc. I don't think the percentage of those that have actually been mentally ill is as high as we like to think and the way you present that list perpetuates the bias that it happens more often. I'd be interested to see if we could find a good list that discusses motives and look at percentages.

Fair enough, I would hardly call my list comprehensive as I put it together based solely on memory.  What I think we can infer is that, while your claim that the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators, they are also disproportionately represented amongst mass shooters.

[Bengalzona]

(03-20-2018, 11:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd honestly include the Vegas shooting under mentally ill, but that incident has apparently gone underground to the point were we haven't heard a thing about the investigation in months.

It bothers me that we haven't heard more about that one. The episode really was more of an outlier from the other incidents in a lot of ways. Sniper attacks are pretty rare to begin with. I can only recall less than a handful.

That incident reminds me of Charles Whitman the most: he set up the nest in a high place, brought lots of weapons, and didn't really plan an escape. Because of that I tend to think this was probably more of a mental health issue, like Whitman. There is also a connection with their gambling habits.

[Belsnickel]

(03-21-2018, 09:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough, I would hardly call my list comprehensive as I put it together based solely on memory.  What I think we can infer is that, while your claim that the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators, they are also disproportionately represented amongst mass shooters.

I actually don't think that is the case. But I would need to see specific data to the point to say one way or the other with any degree of certainty. I'm sure I could do some research on it, but it's a snow day for me and I'm not spending it like that.

















I have research on other topics to do!

[hollodero]

(03-21-2018, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have research on other topics to do!

Also, you have a run for city council to prepare for.

#neverforget #annoytheprocrastinator

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-21-2018, 10:16 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: It bothers me that we haven't heard more about that one. The episode really was more of an outlier from the other incidents in a lot of ways. Sniper attacks are pretty rare to begin with. I can only recall less than a handful.

It bothers me as well, quite a bit.  The worst shooting in US history and we don't know anymore about what occurred and why than we did a few days after it happened.  There is something very odd happening with that case. 

Quote:That incident reminds me of Charles Whitman the most: he set up the nest in a high place, brought lots of weapons, and didn't really plan an escape. Because of that I tend to think this was probably more of a mental health issue, like Whitman. There is also a connection with their gambling habits.

Hell, it could honestly be anything at this point, as little as we've been told.  I tend to think he was suffering from mental illness as well, but we have no real evidence of that, aside from his insane actions.

(03-21-2018, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually don't think that is the case. But I would need to see specific data to the point to say one way or the other with any degree of certainty. I'm sure I could do some research on it, but it's a snow day for me and I'm not spending it like that.

I have to disagree, with just the examples I've given we're talking about a significant percentage of mass shooters exhibiting clear signs of mental illness.

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2018, 10:55 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to disagree, with just the examples I've given we're talking about a significant percentage of mass shooters exhibiting clear signs of mental illness.

But the examples you gave do not paint a comprehensive picture. Also, someone can exhibit signs of mental illness without being mentally ill. Without diagnoses we cannot say whether they were or were not mentally ill.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-22-2018, 11:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the examples you gave do not paint a comprehensive picture. Also, someone can exhibit signs of mental illness without being mentally ill. Without diagnoses we cannot say whether they were or were not mentally ill.

I'm getting your reticence now, you want a comprehensive diagnoses.  I'm rather content with labeling some of these guys as mentally ill with a less than full mental health evaluation.  Lanza, Holmes, Cho and Cruz exhibit(ed) very clear signs of mental illness.  I'm not a mental health professional so I don't have to follow the Goldwater rule.

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2018, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm getting your reticence now, you want a comprehensive diagnoses.  I'm rather content with labeling some of these guys as mentally ill with a less than full mental health evaluation.  Lanza, Holmes, Cho and Cruz exhibit(ed) very clear signs of mental illness.  I'm not a mental health professional so I don't have to follow the Goldwater rule.

Yeah, I'm not content with those sorts of things. Just as I am not ok with people diagnosing public figures with mental illnesses based on the signs they present. It's not a good practice to get involved in.

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2018, 11:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the examples you gave do not paint a comprehensive picture. Also, someone can exhibit signs of mental illness without being mentally ill. Without diagnoses we cannot say whether they were or were not mentally ill.

 You see behavior that you believe indicates mental illness, but you need a diagnosis. And the diagnosis is based largely upon.... their behavior.

Vicious circle, eh.

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2018, 12:30 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  You see behavior that you believe indicates mental illness, but you need a diagnosis. And the diagnosis is based largely upon.... their behavior.

Vicious circle, eh.

But a diagnosis is supposed to be made with a holistic look at their behavior, which is not often available to the public when viewing an suspect's behavior.

[masterpanthera_t]

(03-22-2018, 12:30 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  You see behavior that you believe indicates mental illness, but you need a diagnosis. And the diagnosis is based largely upon.... their behavior.

Vicious circle, eh.

Not to speak for Matt, and especially considering he can articulate his opinion and will probably do so soon, but more so to clarify my own understanding based on how I read Matt's comments, I think he' saying "surface" level behavior (like shooting people in a non-self defense/public safety scenario) itself doesn't lend to mental illness. I too am no psychologist/psychiatrist or involved in the mental health field so I'll stop right here. I think Matt is saying we cannot consider behavior at this level, but need to go much more deeper in order to actually understand the inner mind of these shooters to determine if they're mentally ill or not. 

On a different note, "mentally ill" is a large enough umbrella that it may not be specific enough to cover the smaller number of psychosis that may actually be a threat to society/individual, that it's possible that if restricting gun rights to mentally ill individuals is considered/seriously debated, certain illnesses might be exempt-able . As an example at my "amateur" level, I would say someone with a seriously sociopathic disposition (no I'm not talking about SSF here ) and a mental illness that would fall on that side of the spectrum, would be a bigger threat to kill others versus someone who suffers depression. So I think the legislation should be more like a scalpel than an axe in accounting for this.

Edit:
Oops, Matt already sent out a reply.

[*PhilHos*]

Couldn't you argue that just from the fact of them perpetuating a mass shooting, these guys have some form of mental illness? Would someone of sound mind (or whatever you want to call someone with no mental illness) ever do such a thing?

[Belsnickel]

(03-22-2018, 01:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Couldn't you argue that just from the fact of them perpetuating a mass shooting, these guys have some form of mental illness? Would someone of sound mind (or whatever you want to call someone with no mental illness) ever do such a thing?

That's a slippery slope you don't want to go down. If that could be argued, could we not argue that anyone that engages in behavior that puts themselves or others at risk has some form of mental illness? Speeding on a highway does just that. I'm leaping to an extreme to make a point, but it is following a logical path.

[*PhilHos*]

(03-22-2018, 01:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's a slippery slope you don't want to go down. If that could be argued, could we not argue that anyone that engages in behavior that puts themselves or others at risk has some form of mental illness? Speeding on a highway does just that. I'm leaping to an extreme to make a point, but it is following a logical path.

I was actually going to mention that in all likelihood, most of us, if not all, probably have some form of mental illness (how many of us have a phobia, for example) in my post but decided not to, but doesn't it take a certain kind of mental illness to shoot up a school or a crowded nightclub?

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2018, 01:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I was actually going to mention that in all likelihood, most of us, if not all, probably have some form of mental illness (how many of us have a phobia, for example) in my post but decided not to, but doesn't it take a certain kind of mental illness to shoot up a school or a crowded nightclub?

This is the root of the problem. The answer to your question is no. There are quite a few mental and emotional conditions that could lead someone down that path, and in 99.99999% of the cases they don't. What leads someone down that path is a cocktail of conditions and circumstances that combine in a way which is unique in every incident.

Looking for the silver bullet diagnosis that will stop all or most these types of incidents is like looking for the cure for cancer. Which type of cancer? There are thousands of types and some are radically different than others.

A couple of decades ago, there was a study of inmates done at a prison where the brains of violent inmates were compared to non-violent inmates. The study concluded that there was a general difference in their pre-frontal lobes, the area of the brain used for decision-making. Specifically in ventromedial area of the lobe. This came to be known as pre-frontal deficit. Immediately, some people (non-scientists) grabbed onto this as "the cause" of violence. "If we could just scan peoples' brains, we could find the problem people and imprison them before they commit a crime!"

But that wasn't exactly what the research showed. First, it showed a "general" difference in pre-frontal lobes. Not an "all encompasing" difference. Second, the study was limited to inmates only. Further research showed that there are people with the condition living in society who never commit a crime, violent or otherwise. It was just an indicator of a propensity to act a certain way (i.e. risk negligent, impaired decision making, etc.), not an indicator that they would turn to a life of violence and crime (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1737651/ ) .

People want that Silver Bullet or Holy Grail that will automatically make something bad go away. I do to. But it is fantasy. The issues are more complex than that because of the multitude of different factors involved.

[Bengalzona]

(03-22-2018, 12:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But a diagnosis is supposed to be made with a holistic look at their behavior, which is not often available to the public when viewing an suspect's behavior.

I was deliberately being a wiseass, just to butt into the conversation.


But mental health practice is generally reactive rather than proactive. A diagnosis is not a prognostication. You can draw certain reasonable assumptions, such as this person is diagnosed with pre-frontal deficit, therefore they are more likely to commit a violent act in the future than someone who does not have that condition. But there is no way anyone could ever say with certainty that that person will pick up a gun and go on a spree until the act is underway.