Al B Sure, please reconsider your outlook on life

[Sava]

Define "severely"

or stfu

[Lorizael]

Considering we already saw those figures earlier which seem to show that around 10% of murders are committed by severely mentally ill people who account for 6% of the population, then it's not really useful to only focus on the actions of just schizophrenics who only account for 1% of the population.

Sure, but as I said, looking at any other group of mentally ill only makes the non-crazies look worse in comparison.

[Sava]

All I hear is:

"If we establish an arbitrary standard based upon a meaningless, non-medical term ('severely mentally ill") and then take away those peoples' constitutional rights in absence of an actual crime.... that will reduce spree killings....

BECAUSE



In many states, whether a stay in an in-patient program was voluntary or involuntary just simply doesn't matter. So what happens is, you penalize people for seeking help.

Meanwhile, if you're a drunk who beats his wife (cuz its only a misdemeanor LOL)... you can still legally buy guns.

BTW, what will the standard for "mental illness" be? Is denial of basic reality part of mental illness? Should climate denialists automatically not be allowed to buy guns? Would belief in God qualify as a mental illness?

[kentonio]

Define "severely"

or stfu

I'm not sure why we're discussing this in here as opposed to the other thread which is actually about mental health and guns, but basically the definition is provided by the National Institute of Mental Health as 'severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI)' which is defined as 'Disorders typically subsumed under this rubric include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, autism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder'.

[Sava]

I can only react to what's in front of me.

[kentonio]

Sure, but as I said, looking at any other group of mentally ill only makes the non-crazies look worse in comparison.

The total figure for the severely mentally ill is higher than for non-ill people, so I'm not understanding your logic.

[Sava]

I'm not sure why we're discussing this in here as opposed to the other thread which is actually about mental health and guns, but basically the definition is provided by the National Institute of Mental Health as 'severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI)' which is defined as 'Disorders typically subsumed under this rubric include schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression, autism, and obsessive-compulsive disorder'.

In my experience with the mental health system, I've seen all of those things treated as a spectrum... rather than a black and white "you have this" label.

[kentonio]

All I hear is:

"If we establish an arbitrary standard based upon a meaningless, non-medical term ('severely mentally ill") and then take away those peoples' constitutional rights in absence of an actual crime.... that will reduce spree killings....

BECAUSE

It's not about spree killings, it's about murder if general which is disproportionally committed by severely mentally ill people because they're not receiving proper care. It's pretty ****ed up to say that not only should they not be given proper care, but hey we'll also arm them.

In many states, whether a stay in an in-patient program was voluntary or involuntary just simply doesn't matter. So what happens is, you penalize people for seeking help.

So what? Is owning a gun more of a 'penalty' to people than not receiving medical care would be?

Meanwhile, if you're a drunk who beats his wife (cuz its only a misdemeanor LOL)... you can still legally buy guns.

Which is obviously stupid and ridiculous, but one bit of a law being stupid isn't a reason to not fix other stupid parts.

BTW, what will the standard for "mental illness" be? Is denial of basic reality part of mental illness? Should climate denialists automatically not be allowed to buy guns? Would belief in God qualify as a mental illness?

We can only hope..

[Sava]

So, 0-1 then...?

I always found rejection insults to be a bit... pre-pubescent... like insulting someone if they have divorced parents.

... as if randomly going up to attractive strangers was a good way to get a date.

At best, a person could hope for a pity date.

[Sava]

murder if general which is disproportionally committed by severely mentally ill people

This is absolutely false.

If your entire premise stems from this false assumption, you need to rethink your entire conclusion.

[kentonio]

In my experience with the mental health system, I've seen all of those things treated as a spectrum... rather than a black and white "you have this" label.

So leave it to the doctors to decide whether people are mentally capable enough. They're the ones who'll be deciding on medication and treatment, so they're already being trusted with life and death, this seems like a pretty small thing by comparison.

[kentonio]

This is absolutely false.

If your entire premise stems from this false assumption, you need to rethink your entire conclusion.

Please go read the other thread so you can be wrong less.

[Sava]

Please go read the other thread so you can be wrong less.

I'm well aware of the stats on murder. Your opinion on the matter doesn't agree with the facts.

If you want to unsuccessfully make that case, I'll be happy to watch, point, and laugh.

Here... let's start with your original premise... and I'll keep the laughing to a minimum.

You said this

murder if general which is disproportionally committed by severely mentally ill people

First... what does "murder in general" mean. Define this.

"disproportionally "... define this... or rather, define HOW disproportionate. As Lori pointed out, a greater proportion of black people commit crimes than so called "severely mentally ill" people.

By your logic, all black people should be banned from owning guns... just by virtue of their skin color.

Your premise was stillborn.

[Lorizael]

The total figure for the severely mentally ill is higher than for non-ill people, so I'm not understanding your logic.

Total figure for what?

My point was this: schizophrenic individuals are a small subset of the population, but the ones most likely to commit violent acts. Given that segment of the population, there's a certain percentage chance that one of them will commit mass murder in a year. If you look at any other group of mentally ill that is larger than the schizophrenic segment, then the percentage chance for an individual goes down, because you're dividing the same number of mass murders into a larger group.

What this means is that the comparison I was making was in your favor. Virtually any other comparison you could choose to make would not be in your (non-crazy) favor. The odds of a random UKer murdering a family member are either the same or greater than the odds of a mentally ill individual committing mass murder. Thus, it is just as plausible for me to say that you are a potential murderer as it is for you to say that Kid, BK, or Speer are potential mass murderers.

[Sava]

Total figure for what?

My point was this: schizophrenic individuals are a small subset of the population, but the ones most likely to commit violent acts.

I'm pretty sure individuals under the influence of alcohol commit a great percentage of crimes. Should everyone who has ever had a drink have their constitutional rights restricted in absence of a crime... just because they belong to a group more likely to commit crimes?