Al B Sure, please reconsider your outlook on life

[kentonio]

Are you sure? Because it doesn't sound like you do.

I'm an eternal optimist.

I told you why you were wrong. The standards of "severe" are arbitrary, broad, and unscientific.

That was terminology being used by actual mental health organizations. Calling me a dumbass for using them seemed a little unfair.

I got news for you... this is the way the world is. In America, our past two presidential elections have been:

"OBAMA IS A SECRET GAYISLAMOFASCISTSOCIALISTMUSLIM FROM KENYA"

versus

"uh, no."

with the "winner" of the debate winning by being not-a-******.

America ≠ The World.

[Sava]

btw, even with very exact methods of diagnosis, I still don't see why "severe" mentally ill people should have their 2nd amendment rights restricted without ever committing a crime.

This amounts to some sort of minorty report pre-crime bull****

[Sava]

That was terminology being used by actual mental health organizations. Calling me a dumbass for using them seemed a little unfair.

I called the terminology stupid... and you just by association.

And no, it was not unfair. It's a dumbass term.

America ≠ The World.

It's part of it, last time I checked.


but srsly, you should be more appreciative. I'd only call you a dumbass to bring it to your attention so you could stop being a dumbass. I have your interests in mind here.

[kentonio]

btw, even with very exact methods of diagnosis, I still don't see why "severe" mentally ill people should have their 2nd amendment rights restricted without ever committing a crime.

This amounts to some sort of minorty report pre-crime bull****

Bear in mind I think most gun ownership is utterly ridiculous anyway, so having crazy people with guns is never going to seem like the worlds greatest idea to me.

[MRT144]

Why can't we just appoint me as final arbiter of everything. Would make things simpler for you peons.

[Sava]

Bear in mind I think most gun ownership is utterly ridiculous anyway, so having crazy people with guns is never going to seem like the worlds greatest idea to me.

I agree with you. Gun ownership in general is stupid.

That being said, "mentally ill" people shouldn't be singled out. At best, a weak correlation to violence can be established.

As it's been pointed out, stronger correlations exist. Gender. Income level. Skin color. (I'm sure correlations can probably also be found for age level, geography, job or industry one works in, veteran status, month you were born, body composition... just about anything you can think of)

If we really, really have to make stupid laws that create a second class of citizens in order to reduce murder, we should start with those other, more significant, groups first.

[kentonio]

I agree with you. Gun ownership in general is stupid.

That being said, "mentally ill" people shouldn't be singled out. At best, a weak correlation to violence can be established.

As it's been pointed out, stronger correlations exist. Gender. Income level. Skin color. (I'm sure correlations can probably also be found for age level, geography, job or industry one works in, veteran status, month you were born, body composition... just about anything you can think of)

If we really, really have to make stupid laws that create a second class of citizens in order to reduce murder, we should start with those other, more significant, groups first.

Depends. If you counter the removal of guns with a huge investment in mental health care, then it'd seem like a fair deal for everybody. If there really is a correlation between mental health and homicide then you have to consider everyone in societies well being, not just the mental health sufferer.

Then again I really don't get the idea that stopping people having guns makes them somehow second class. We don't let blind people have drivers licenses either, is that making them second class citizens?

[Sava]

Depends. If you counter the removal of guns with a huge investment in mental health care, then it'd seem like a fair deal for everybody. If there really is a correlation between mental health and homicide then you have to consider everyone in societies well being, not just the mental health sufferer.

Then again I really don't get the idea that stopping people having guns makes them somehow second class. We don't let blind people have drivers licenses either, is that making them second class citizens?

Consider, yes. Actually do? No. Laws shouldn't be lazy. If there's a better way to do it, someone should figure it out. If not, then we have to live with it until someone does.

Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.

Arbitrarily stripping someone of civil rights makes them a second class citizen (e.g. all other things being equal, denying gun ownership rights)... by definition.

[kentonio]

Consider, yes. Actually do? No. Laws shouldn't be lazy. If there's a better way to do it, someone should figure it out. If not, then we have to live with it until someone does.

Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.

Arbitrarily stripping someone of civil rights makes them a second class citizen (e.g. all other things being equal, denying gun ownership rights)... by definition.

What about if you turn that on it's head? Would denying black people drivers licenses be ok because car ownership isn't constitutionally protected? Yet we do it for blind people because we accept that the safety of society is more important than an individuals rights in particular instances.

I'd agree that you'd have to link mental health with homicide a lot more thoroughly than seems to have been the case to date though. Perhaps if that investment in mental healthcare ever actually comes, we'll see more research.

[Sava]

What about if you turn that on it's head? Would denying black people drivers licenses be ok because car ownership isn't constitutionally protected? Yet we do it for blind people because we accept that the safety of society is more important than an individuals rights in particular instances.

No. We deny blind people the privilege of driving because they can't pass the driving and vision test. They aren't not issued licenses because of their status as "blind". If a self-identified "blind" person could pass all the relevant tests by some means, they would be issued a license.


BTW, I would be all for some sort of pre-gun-owning questionnaire or sanity test designed to weed out crazies.

[Lorizael]

It's probably premature to form a completely concrete conclusion, but equally how could you ever completely discount other factors? I haven't found figures on it, but if for instance a study showed that people in poverty with severe mental health issues committed more homicides than people in poverty without them, would that be enough to make the case? How do we determine how many barriers there are to overcome to reach a conclusion that you'd find satisfactory?

Studies such as those are only ever going to show correlation, of course. There will always be confounding factors. For example, maybe mentally unwell individuals are more likely to be caught/convicted due to institutional biases or the mentally unwell being less able to cover their tracks, thus skewing the data to make it appear as if they commit more homicides. Or perhaps mental illness is more likely to be diagnosed in areas of high crime (urban areas), thereby making it look as if the mentally ill commit more homicides, while the undiagnosed mentally ill in rural areas live violence-free lives.

Given all that stands in the way of a firm causative link, I'd say we're very far from a satisfactory conclusion. But assuming such a conclusion were reached, the question arises of what to do about it. No matter what, we must contend with limited resources. Even if mental illness directly causes an increase in homicide risk, what is the marginal increase in that risk? If it's small, and most of the apparent increase is a result of confounding factors, then our resources should go primarily toward combating those confounding factors.

We may also find that mental illness increases the risk of being in potentially violent situations, but does not necessarily increase the risk of violence directly. In that case, what are we going to reap greater rewards from? Dealing with mental illness, or dealing with violent situations? (This is an open question; I don't know the answer.)

And finally, even assuming that mental health is a dominant factor in the risk of committing homicide or other violent acts, how do we ensure that the mentally ill are treated as equal citizens under the law? Or in society more generally? Simply restricting their freedoms is not an answer.

[kentonio]

No. We deny blind people the privilege of driving because they can't pass the driving and vision test. They aren't not issued licenses because of their status as "blind". If a self-identified "blind" person could pass all the relevant tests by some means, they would be issued a license.

Fair point. Then again you do disenfranchise felons.

BTW, I would be all for some sort of pre-gun-owning questionnaire or sanity test designed to weed out crazies.

[Sava]

Fair point. Then again you do disenfranchise felons.

No I don't.

[kentonio]

Studies such as those are only ever going to show correlation, of course. There will always be confounding factors. For example, maybe mentally unwell individuals are more likely to be caught/convicted due to institutional biases or the mentally unwell being less able to cover their tracks, thus skewing the data to make it appear as if they commit more homicides. Or perhaps mental illness is more likely to be diagnosed in areas of high crime (urban areas), thereby making it look as if the mentally ill commit more homicides, while the undiagnosed mentally ill in rural areas live violence-free lives.

Feels like you're setting the bar pretty high.

Given all that stands in the way of a firm causative link, I'd say we're very far from a satisfactory conclusion. But assuming such a conclusion were reached, the question arises of what to do about it. No matter what, we must contend with limited resources. Even if mental illness directly causes an increase in homicide risk, what is the marginal increase in that risk? If it's small, and most of the apparent increase is a result of confounding factors, then our resources should go primarily toward combating those confounding factors.

Yeah, this is fair. Doing it as a standalone measure would be a kick in the face to the mentally ill. "We don't trust you around us but we also don't care enough to help you".

And finally, even assuming that mental health is a dominant factor in the risk of committing homicide or other violent acts, how do we ensure that the mentally ill are treated as equal citizens under the law? Or in society more generally? Simply restricting their freedoms is not an answer.

Good question. I'm trying to think of a comparable group, but nothing springs to mind.

[kentonio]

No I don't.

For the purposes of this discussion you are representative of all Americans living and dead.