Elephant in the Room - The Connection between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

[kentonio]

Clearly in the Beniverse sane people take their own lives all the time...

If you were Ben, wouldn't you?

[Lorizael]

The problem with taking guns away from the "crazies" is that most gun crimes are not committed by crazy people. Killing sprees (by crazies) are disproportionately represented in the media.

[kentonio]

The problem with taking guns away from the "crazies" is that most gun crimes are not committed by crazy people.

Except that anyone willing to gun down a group of strangers in a spree killing is by most definitions a crazy person.

[Lorizael]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Spree killings represent a very small fraction of gun crimes in the US, and most crazy people are never going to commit crimes like this.

[Dr Strangelove]

Only landowners with at least $100,000 in equity should be allowed to own guns.

[kentonio]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Spree killings represent a very small fraction of gun crimes in the US, and most crazy people are never going to commit crimes like this.

So what? Does it really need to be spelled out that someone who is not in complete control of their mental faculties is probably not the best person to have easy access to firearms? How many of the 'normal' murders commited do you think could have been prevented if the person in question had been receiving adequate mental care?

This isn't about further ostracizing mentally unwell people. At the same time protecting their 'right' to own a gun so they don't feel separated from the rest of society is exactly the kind of over the top nonsense that liberals are usually accused of by the right. If you want mentally unwell people to feel more valued in society, how about investing in proper mental health care and support instead?

[Lorizael]

So what? Does it really need to be spelled out that someone who is not in complete control of their mental faculties is probably not the best person to have easy access to firearms?

No, it doesn't need to be spelled out; it needs to be calculated. Let's look at the statistics. How much more likely are crazy people to commit violent acts, and how does that compare to other groups of people, and is the craziness causative or simply correlative?

How many of the 'normal' murders commited do you think could have been prevented if the person in question had been receiving adequate mental care?

That would depend on why most murders in the US occur. The most common reason is gang violence of one sort or another. Gang violence is a result of poverty, not poor mental health.

If you want mentally unwell people to feel more valued in society, how about investing in proper mental health care and support instead?

Indeed. But investing in proper mental health shouldn't be about preventing violence, because that's not really the main concern with mental health. The main concern is ensuring mentally unwell individuals can lead productive lives.

[kentonio]

No, it doesn't need to be spelled out; it needs to be calculated. Let's look at the statistics. How much more likely are crazy people to commit violent acts, and how does that compare to other groups of people, and is the craziness causative or simply correlative?

Ok. There aren't a huge amount of studies available, but the ones available seem to reach a pretty clear conclusion.

Given the only three studies done on this question to date, it seems reasonable to conservatively estimate that individuals with severe mental illnesses are responsible for approximately 1,000 homicides per year in the United States. No studies exist to ascertain whether this number has decreased or increased since the 1988–1992 period when these studies were done. Anecdotal data suggest that the number has increased and is continuing to increase.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/conse...homicides.html

That would depend on why most murders in the US occur. The most common reason is gang violence of one sort or another.

Except it isn't. The National Gang Centre has the figure at 1,659 for 2008 and that's for all murders, not just gun killings. The Department of Justices 'Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008' has the 2008 figure at around a thousand.*

Gang violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all homicides in 2008.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/S...-Gang-Problems

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

*I've used 2008 btw, because that's the last date available in that comprehensive DoJ study. The National Gang Centre figures go later, but the number never rises above 2,083 (2009).

This idea that gangs are responsible for all America's gun killings is just another example of gun rights propaganda seeping into the national consciousness.

Indeed. But investing in proper mental health shouldn't be about preventing violence, because that's not really the main concern with mental health. The main concern is ensuring mentally unwell individuals can lead productive lives.

Of course it shouldn't be about preventing violence, but a reduction in violence is a nice side effect. The main reason should just be that treating people like decent human beings is a right and just way to run a society. That kind of thing usually pays off in the end.

[Lorizael]

Ok. There aren't a huge amount of studies available, but the ones available seem to reach a pretty clear conclusion.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/conse...homicides.html

That doesn't answer my two other questions: how does that compare to other groups, and is craziness causative or correlative?

Except it isn't. The National Gang Centre has the figure at 1,659 for 2008 and that's for all murders, not just gun killings. The Department of Justices 'Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008' has the 2008 figure at around a thousand.*

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/S...-Gang-Problems

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

*I've used 2008 btw, because that's the last date available in that comprehensive DoJ study. The National Gang Centre figures go later, but the number never rises above 2,083 (2009).

This idea that gangs are responsible for all America's gun killings is just another example of gun rights propaganda seeping into the national consciousness.

Yeah. So, according to FBI data, about 20% of homicides are related to felonies in one way or another, 50% are for unknown or other reasons, and 30% are because of arguments.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used.html

Murders due to felonies are almost always going to have poverty as a root cause. Murders due to arguments might be unavoidable given human nature. Now, I'm all in favor of changing human nature, but that goes a bit beyond what most would consider to be adequate mental health care. Murders with unknown or other causes... well... that makes it a little more difficult to interpret the data.

Of course it shouldn't be about preventing violence, but a reduction in violence is a nice side effect. The main reason should just be that treating people like decent human beings is a right and just way to run a society. That kind of thing usually pays off in the end.

No argument here.

[kentonio]

That doesn't answer my two other questions: how does that compare to other groups, and is craziness causative or correlative?

Well I'm no mathematician but if 10% are committed by people with severe mental health issues, I'm going to guess that compares to the 90% that aren't..

Seriously though, what does it matter what other groups do? Either mental health/homicide is an issue worth considering or it isn't. It's not like we live in a world where only a single problem can be dealt with at any one time.

As for causation/correlation, apparently 6% of Americans have a severe mental illness, so if the homicide rate for them is 10% that seems a pretty clear causative effect, given that it also seems logical that someone who has difficult controlling their mental state is more likely to act outside the social norm. Can you provide any evidence to support another causative effect? (I know that's not a very scientific argument on my part btw, but unless you have something that contradicts it it feels too much like you're asking for the unanswerable.)

Yeah. So, according to FBI data, about 20% of homicides are related to felonies in one way or another, 50% are for unknown or other reasons, and 30% are because of arguments.

http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/333_murder_victims_circumstances_and_weapons_used.html

Murders due to felonies are almost always going to have poverty as a root cause. Murders due to arguments might be unavoidable given human nature. Now, I'm all in favor of changing human nature, but that goes a bit beyond what most would consider to be adequate mental health care. Murders with unknown or other causes... well... that makes it a little more difficult to interpret the data.

I don't understand what your point is. The current situation is that America doesn't take care of it's mentally ill citizens and as a result those citizens commit a disproportionately large number of murders because they get scared/confused/traumatized etc. Just because you have horrifically high levels of murder for a variety of other reasons as well (not least the easy access to firearms) doesn't seem like a good reason to just brush this under the carpet.

[Lorizael]

Well I'm no mathematician but if 10% are committed by people with severe mental health issues, I'm going to guess that compares to the 90% that aren't..

Seriously though, what does it matter what other groups do? Either mental health/homicide is an issue worth considering or it isn't. It's not like we live in a world where only a single problem can be dealt with at any one time.

We can deal with multiple issues at once, yes, but we do have limited resources to allocate. So we have to figure out the relative importance of any particular thing we want to spend our resources on. And because of the media's disproportionate response to spree killings by crazies, we think that violence due to crazies is more significant than violence due to non-crazies. But as your data show, 90% of homicides are by non-crazies, so that's where most of our resources need to go.

As for causation/correlation, apparently 6% of Americans have a severe mental illness, so if the homicide rate for them is 10% that seems a pretty clear causative effect, given that it also seems logical that someone who has difficult controlling their mental state is more likely to act outside the social norm. Can you provide any evidence to support another causative effect? (I know that's not a very scientific argument on my part btw, but unless you have something that contradicts it it feels too much like you're asking for the unanswerable.)

Yeah, that's not how you measure causation at all. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, for example, that poor mental health could be correlated with, say, poverty, and poverty is highly correlated with crime. Statistics showing simply that people who are crazy are also people who are more likely to commit crimes don't really mean anything, though. Part of the report you cited mentioned diagnosing violent offenders after the fact. Without more data, the correlation present could just as easily mean that violent crime causes craziness, and that doesn't seem all that unreasonable a hypothesis, either.

I don't understand what your point is. The current situation is that America doesn't take care of it's mentally ill citizens and as a result those citizens commit a disproportionately large number of murders because they get scared/confused/traumatized etc. Just because you have horrifically high levels of murder for a variety of other reasons as well (not least the easy access to firearms) doesn't seem like a good reason to just brush this under the carpet.

Oh, for one, I was agreeing with you that it's not gang violence. My bad. But two, you simply haven't proven that poor mental health is a causative factor.

[DinoDoc]

But as your data show, 90% of homicides are by non-crazies, so that's where most of our resources need to go.

Professor Stephen P. Segal’s recent study of murder rates and mental-treatment policy, “Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates,” examined state-by-state murder rates and mental-health services and found that “less access to psychiatric inpatient-beds and more poorly rated mental health systems were associated with increases in the homicide rates of 1.08 and 0.26 per 100,000, respectively.” There was an even greater difference in the homicide rate between states with different involuntary civil commitment (ICC) laws. “Broader ICC criteria were associated with 1.42 less homicides per 100,000.” In short, states where involuntary commitment was easy had roughly a third less murders than states where it was very hard to civilly commit a mentally ill person.

[Lorizael]

In short, states where involuntary commitment was easy had roughly a third less murders than states where it was very hard to civilly commit a mentally ill person.[/I]

Yes, I imagine it's more difficult to commit murder when you've been committed.

[kentonio]

We can deal with multiple issues at once, yes, but we do have limited resources to allocate. So we have to figure out the relative importance of any particular thing we want to spend our resources on. And because of the media's disproportionate response to spree killings by crazies, we think that violence due to crazies is more significant than violence due to non-crazies. But as your data show, 90% of homicides are by non-crazies, so that's where most of our resources need to go.

Except that as you said, a lot of murders are due to either issues you can't track, or issues that you don't have a solution for. Helping mentally unwell people meanwhile has a huge raft of benefits alongside the murder issue, including being an obvious choice for a civilized society to make.

Yeah, that's not how you measure causation at all. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, for example, that poor mental health could be correlated with, say, poverty, and poverty is highly correlated with crime. Statistics showing simply that people who are crazy are also people who are more likely to commit crimes don't really mean anything, though. Part of the report you cited mentioned diagnosing violent offenders after the fact. Without more data, the correlation present could just as easily mean that violent crime causes craziness, and that doesn't seem all that unreasonable a hypothesis, either.

It seems like a ridiculous hypothesis if you're going to put it up against severe mental illness making a person more likely to commit crime. Seriously, how on earth can you even find that reasonable?

As for causation, you also get into serious difficulties looking at poverty as a cause, because having a severe mental illness is far, far more likely to lead a person into living in poverty in the first place.

I'm more confused though by why you're fighting against the idea of mental illness being a cause of increased violence. It's perfectly logical, it's not in any way an attempt to demonize though people suffering from it, so why the defensiveness? It feels like you're looking at a guy standing over a body with a smoking gun and arguing that the smoke could have been added later.

Oh, for one, I was agreeing with you that it's not gang violence. My bad. But two, you simply haven't proven that poor mental health is a causative factor.

So it's a coincidence that mentally unwell people commit more murders than the national average? Surely at some point the onus should be on you to provide some counter evidence? I'm not trying to meet some legal burden of proof here (for one thing I don't think the studies even exist to adequately do so), but when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

[Lorizael]

kentonio, what should we do about the fact that black people are much more likely to commit violent crimes than white people are?