Orlando mass shooting

[revmic]

Of course no one in the thread mentioned 'mental illness' at all, except LO in passing, not blaming.

Wait a second... let's get something straight here.

The first mention of mental illness was by you.

But there is no reason in the mind of a mass murderer, their target could be gays, Christians, students, anyone. Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.

LunarOrbit, please note that I simply did not say anything about 'mental illness', and for the same reason that it appears gillianren finds it objectionable. You can talk about having a healthier mental state without talking specifically about mental illness. The mentally ill are largely nonviolent and this has been known for years, no argument here. But since I didn't even mention mental illness, am I breaching forum rules by requesting that words not be put in my mouth?

[LunarOrbit]

But since I didn't even mention mental illness, am I breaching forum rules by requesting that words not be put in my mouth?

How am I putting words in your mouth by quoting your exact words?

Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.

You are clearly saying "mental health" issues are the reason why the US has "such intensely violent people". Unless you are saying it's the healthy people that are causing the violence, I see no other way to interpret it.

[revmic]

But since I didn't even mention mental illness, am I breaching forum rules by requesting that words not be put in my mouth?

How am I putting words in your mouth by quoting your exact words?

Maybe those of us blessed with healthy minds should think about mental health in the States and why we have such intensely violent people.

You are clearly saying "mental health" issues are the reason why the US has "such intensely violent people". Unless you are saying it's the healthy people that are causing the violence, I see no other way to interpret it.

We're kind of splitting hairs here, but you are not quoting my exact words. I simply didn't say anything about mental illness because the mentally ill are overwhelmingly non-violent, and no, I don't think the Orlando shooter had a mental illness. I believe he likely had a mental disorder, was sane (although profoundly unhealthy, my main point) but did not have a mental illness, as contradictory as that sounds on the surface. Do you get how talking about mental health issues involving intense violence has little to do with the largely non-violent mentally ill?

So that is how I hope you can interpret it, violently unhealthy but not mentally ill (as an aside, this is my first shot participating in a forum so if I screw up, please excuse any lapses)

[ka9q]

Keep following this story. The newest twist is that the shooter himself seems to have been a regular patron of the nightclub, and several people who knew him suspect he was gay. That doesn't include his religious father, but that would hardly be surprising.

So it may be that we have an extreme example of something we've seen repeatedly in this country: a closeted gay who so completely internalizes the homophobia all around him that he "protests too much" and takes on the public persona of an aggressive homophobe. Fortunately it usually doesn't take the form of a mass murder.

Until now they have been mostly conservative Republican politicians and fundamentalist Christians. But given that homophobia seems universal in fundamentalist religion there's absolutely no reason to think it couldn't happen to a gay person raised in a Muslim family.

The point is very simple: homophobia kills, and in more ways than one. And it's about time people woke up to this fact.

[gillianren]

And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.

What metric do you base this statement on?

Flat numbers.  The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people.  No matter whose statistics you're using.  This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing.  The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims.  According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness."  Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."

[BazBear]

And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.

What metric do you base this statement on?

Flat numbers.  The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people.  No matter whose statistics you're using.  This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing.  The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims.  According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness."  Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."

I'm a well armed 2nd amendment defender....

I've come to conclusion I've been doing it wrong...for a few decades.

There is no quick fix here in the USA.

Nobody needs assault rifles. But I own one....

[Peter B]

I'm a well armed 2nd amendment defender....

I've come to conclusion I've been doing it wrong...for a few decades.

There is no quick fix here in the USA.

Nobody needs assault rifles. But I own one....

Do you mind me asking what you use it for?

[revmic]

And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.

What metric do you base this statement on?

Flat numbers.  The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people.  No matter whose statistics you're using.  This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing.  The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims.  According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness."  Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."

Yes, but the less than 5% figure refers to mass shooters previously diagnosed with mental illness, many may have gone undiagnosed prior to their crimes (the study you cite also notes 'reports that up to 60% of perpetrators of mass shootings in the United States since 1970 displayed symptoms including acute paranoia, delusions and depression before committing their crimes.'

I'm so tired, so very tired, of these things getting blamed on the mentally ill.  We are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators; sometimes, mass shooters are clearly mentally ill, and, yes, we need a safety net that will catch them before people die from another's mental illness.  But who's protecting us from you people?

Do you think that mass murder is an option for a mentally healthy person? And who are 'you people' and what actions/beliefs do they/we endorse?

If studies of the psychology of mass murderers shows anything, yes, it is.  The average mass shooter does not show any signs of mental illness; the only way you can make them do so is to assume that willingness to kill lots of people is in and of itself a mental illness that shares no symptom profile with any other condition.  And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.  The people we are a most danger to is ourselves.

May I ask for clarification: your wrote 'but who's protecting us from you people?' and that 'you people' meant the mentally healthy. Does this mean that by saying 'us', you are saying you are mentally ill? And when you say ' the people we are most a danger to is ourselves', does this refer to the same or different grouping?

[Al Johnston]

 

[gillianren]

May I ask for clarification: your wrote 'but who's protecting us from you people?' and that 'you people' meant the mentally healthy. Does this mean that by saying 'us', you are saying you are mentally ill? And when you say ' the people we are most a danger to is ourselves', does this refer to the same or different grouping?

Yes, I am mentally ill.  So are one or two other people around here who may not have spoken up.  Mentally ill people are more likely to kill themselves than others.  They are more likely to be killed by mentally healthy people than they are to kill mentally healthy people, but every time there's a crime like this, everyone leaps on the "dangerous mentally ill people" bandwagon.  Which, in fact, is part of why we're in more danger.  Because there's an assumption we will turn violent, even when that's not true, a common reaction is to feel threatened by us and to take out the threat.  And we die.  We are killed more often by police, because they aren't trained in the nonviolent ways of dealing with mental illness that produce the best results.  That isn't "and then they took out the shooter"; that's "and then they shot the guy who was ranting to himself in the middle of the street."  Unfortunately, my references on that one are books, not websites.  My references on most of this stuff has been books, because I read a fair amount about mental illness.

[revmic]

May I ask for clarification: your wrote 'but who's protecting us from you people?' and that 'you people' meant the mentally healthy. Does this mean that by saying 'us', you are saying you are mentally ill? And when you say ' the people we are most a danger to is ourselves', does this refer to the same or different grouping?

Yes, I am mentally ill.  So are one or two other people around here who may not have spoken up.  Mentally ill people are more likely to kill themselves than others.  They are more likely to be killed by mentally healthy people than they are to kill mentally healthy people, but every time there's a crime like this, everyone leaps on the "dangerous mentally ill people" bandwagon.  Which, in fact, is part of why we're in more danger.  Because there's an assumption we will turn violent, even when that's not true, a common reaction is to feel threatened by us and to take out the threat.  And we die.  We are killed more often by police, because they aren't trained in the nonviolent ways of dealing with mental illness that produce the best results.  That isn't "and then they took out the shooter"; that's "and then they shot the guy who was ranting to himself in the middle of the street."  Unfortunately, my references on that one are books, not websites.  My references on most of this stuff has been books, because I read a fair amount about mental illness.

Thank you, that's what it sounded like but wasn't sure. You sound strong in dealing with it it, and I think people in general are beginning to understand the difference between mental illness and antisocial/violent behavior, we are all learning. Good luck to you

[revmic]

Sadly, one does not get far suggesting the problem is anything to do with guns...

That genie isn't going back in the bottle in the States, though. I read somewhere that there are more firearms than humans here. Limiting magazine capacity always  made sense to me, people who think they need 50 rounds available before reloading are clearly preparing for a firefight, and I would have to question exactly what scenario they had in mind.

High powered weapons can be a real power symbol/totem. Always kind of wondered if getting one can take someone who is just mean and, just because of the extra power, edge him over the line to full-on homicidal? Chicken or egg problem

[Obviousman]

The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.

Don't get me wrong: I am not against firearms.

I believe that if farmers need them then there is no issue with them having rifles or perhaps shotguns.

I believe that sporting shooters can have weapons - providing that they are kept at an approved range.

I believe that people should be allowed to have weapons... providing they show a need (farmer / hobby / hunter) and undergo an appropriate background check.

Could he have obtained a weapon and killed people under the restriction I propose? Perhaps... but there would have been a greater chance to filter him out and prevent a weapon getting into his hands.

BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?

[darren r]

BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?

I'm not an American, or a gun owner (I used to be, until the gun laws changed in the UK after Dunblane, something I griped about but couldn't really argue with) but the response I've most often seen to that question is: 'Because I want one, and the law says I can have one.' The same way someone who was into cars or motorbikes might want the fastest, most powerful one they could legally have.

BTW, an AR-15 technically doesn't fall into the definition of 'assault rifle' because it doesn't (or shouldn't) have the capability to fire on full auto. However, it can be fired very rapidly just by pulling the trigger quickly so the  difference is academic really. However, it's one of those things always seized on in these discussions by people eager to point out that liberals don't know anything about guns so should keep their mouths shut.

[gillianren]

Thank you, that's what it sounded like but wasn't sure. You sound strong in dealing with it it, and I think people in general are beginning to understand the difference between mental illness and antisocial/violent behavior, we are all learning. Good luck to you

You're welcome.  It's not always easy, but I've survived so far.

As to the "I want one, and the law says I can have one" argument, I really do feel as though, if you can't argue better than my not-quite-three-year-old, it's just possible that you're not mature enough to own a killing tool.  And if you can't acknowledge that guns are killing tools, that's another problem.