National, Regional and Local News

[Deuce]

The only statistic that matters is that 100% of mass killings are done by psychologically disturbed individuals.

[Owendonovan]

^Mostly men too.

[ponchi101]

^Mostly men too.

As Suliso said above, any mass shooters that are women? I can't recall a single one.

[Deuce]

^Mostly men too.

^ Thus far.

I think that's bound to change, simply because there are more and more of them (mass killings) - and there is no sign that the media plan on halting their sensational reporting of them... and so, as the numbers increase, it's just a matter of time before the women become involved, as well.
Women are not immune to mental illness - or to causing violence, for that matter. Men are more prone to creating violence, of course - but women are capable, as well.

All it would take is one to break the ice, I believe (with the typical plastering all over the media, which would encourage other women to follow).

[dryrunguy]

The only statistic that matters is that 100% of mass killings are done by psychologically disturbed individuals.

How are we defining "psychologically disturbed"? I am guessing we would all agree that anyone who decides shooting people as the go-to solution for solving problems is "psychologically disturbed". The problem is that the broader U.S. society doesn't use the same definition, especially the segment of U.S. society that doesn't view gun ownership just as a right--but as a REQUIREMENT.

(It also needs to be repeated here that, statistically speaking, people with mental illness are at significantly higher risk of being the VICTIMS of violence than being the PERPETRATORS of violence.]

That said, there's no question... These shooters are not well, and something is clearly, clearly wrong with them.

And the one common denominator across these violent act remains constant--the perpetrators are all male. Don't want that to get lost. Suliso alluded to it before, and he's right. So far.

[Deuce]

The only statistic that matters is that 100% of mass killings are done by psychologically disturbed individuals.

How are we defining "psychologically disturbed"? I am guessing we would all agree that anyone who decides shooting people as the go-to solution for solving problems is "psychologically disturbed". The problem is that the broader U.S. society doesn't use the same definition, especially the segment of U.S. society that doesn't view gun ownership just as a right--but as a REQUIREMENT.

(It also needs to be repeated here that, statistically speaking, people with mental illness are at significantly higher risk of being the VICTIMS of violence than being the PERPETRATORS of violence.]

That said, there's no question... These shooters are not well, and something is clearly, clearly wrong with them.

And the one common denominator across these violent act remains constant--the perpetrators are all male. Don't want that to get lost. Suliso alluded to it before, and he's right. So far.

Responding to the red above...

That may be so - but are people with mental illness also more likely to be the perpetrators of violence than are people who are not mentally ill - statistically speaking?
And what level of violence are we speaking of here? How is 'violence' defined?

We also must consider the fact that just because one has not been officially diagnosed as being mentally ill does not mean that the person is not mentally ill - it can simply mean an absence of an opportunity to diagnose... or that a professional missed the diagnosis.

Perhaps a better description would be 'psychologically unstable', rather than 'psychologically disturbed', as the former description includes the element of the behaviour of such people being largely unpredictable.

[JazzNU]

As Suliso said above, any mass shooters that are women? I can't recall a single one.

Yes there are.

[dryrunguy]

The only statistic that matters is that 100% of mass killings are done by psychologically disturbed individuals.

How are we defining "psychologically disturbed"? I am guessing we would all agree that anyone who decides shooting people as the go-to solution for solving problems is "psychologically disturbed". The problem is that the broader U.S. society doesn't use the same definition, especially the segment of U.S. society that doesn't view gun ownership just as a right--but as a REQUIREMENT.

(It also needs to be repeated here that, statistically speaking, people with mental illness are at significantly higher risk of being the VICTIMS of violence than being the PERPETRATORS of violence.]

That said, there's no question... These shooters are not well, and something is clearly, clearly wrong with them.

And the one common denominator across these violent act remains constant--the perpetrators are all male. Don't want that to get lost. Suliso alluded to it before, and he's right. So far.

Responding to the red above...

That may be so - but are people with mental illness also more likely to be the perpetrators of violence than are people who are not mentally ill - statistically speaking?
And what level of violence are we speaking of here? How is 'violence' defined?

We also must consider the fact that just because one has not been officially diagnosed as being mentally ill does not mean that the person is not mentally ill - it can simply mean an absence of an opportunity to diagnose... or that a professional missed the diagnosis.

Perhaps a better description would be 'psychologically unstable', rather than 'psychologically disturbed', as the former description includes the element of the behaviour of such people being largely unpredictable.

It's an intriguing question... I want to be sure I remain consistent with the data here... Historically and statistically speaking, people with mental illness are no more likely to commit violence against property or person than the general population, and statistically, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence, and particularly sexual violence, than the general population.

That's a different data set than the question you pose.

Are people who SHOULD be diagnosed as having mental illness, but are not diagnosed with such an illness because they are disenfrancised from mainstream healthcare services, more likely to commit violence against property or person?

The answer to that would be... maybe. But we don't know that. No data set exists that would capture that. At least not that I am aware of.

It's an intriguing question, though. And to the best of my knowledge, established, large-scale U.S. studies are not set up to capture it. They should be.

[Deuce]

How are we defining "psychologically disturbed"? I am guessing we would all agree that anyone who decides shooting people as the go-to solution for solving problems is "psychologically disturbed". The problem is that the broader U.S. society doesn't use the same definition, especially the segment of U.S. society that doesn't view gun ownership just as a right--but as a REQUIREMENT.

(It also needs to be repeated here that, statistically speaking, people with mental illness are at significantly higher risk of being the VICTIMS of violence than being the PERPETRATORS of violence.]

That said, there's no question... These shooters are not well, and something is clearly, clearly wrong with them.

And the one common denominator across these violent act remains constant--the perpetrators are all male. Don't want that to get lost. Suliso alluded to it before, and he's right. So far.

Responding to the red above...

That may be so - but are people with mental illness also more likely to be the perpetrators of violence than are people who are not mentally ill - statistically speaking?
And what level of violence are we speaking of here? How is 'violence' defined?

We also must consider the fact that just because one has not been officially diagnosed as being mentally ill does not mean that the person is not mentally ill - it can simply mean an absence of an opportunity to diagnose... or that a professional missed the diagnosis.

Perhaps a better description would be 'psychologically unstable', rather than 'psychologically disturbed', as the former description includes the element of the behaviour of such people being largely unpredictable.

It's an intriguing question... I want to be sure I remain consistent with the data here... Historically and statistically speaking, people with mental illness are no more likely to commit violence against property or person than the general population, and statistically, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence, and particularly sexual violence, than the general population.

That's a different data set than the question you pose.

Are people who SHOULD be diagnosed as having mental illness, but are not diagnosed with such an illness because they are disenfrancised from mainstream healthcare services, more likely to commit violence against property or person?

The answer to that would be... maybe. But we don't know that. No data set exists that would capture that. At least not that I am aware of.

It's an intriguing question, though. And to the best of my knowledge, established, large-scale U.S. studies are not set up to capture it. They should be.

But, again - how is 'violence' defined in the 'studies' which produce these statistics?
And, for that matter, how is 'mental illness' defined in those same studies?
This is important to know in order to assess the data properly.

For example, when I stated that 100% of the people who commit mass killings are psychologically disturbed (perhaps should have been 'psychologically unstable'), I believe that is an obvious fact. As you said yourself, they are 'not well', and 'something is clearly wrong with them'.
So... if 100% of people who commit mass killings are mentally ill, we have something there.

As for other forms of violence, and whether mentally ill people commit more of those other forms of violence than do people who are not mentally ill - as I said, we would need to know how the authors of those studies/statistics define 'violence', and how they define 'mentally ill'.

[dryrunguy]

Responding to the red above...

That may be so - but are people with mental illness also more likely to be the perpetrators of violence than are people who are not mentally ill - statistically speaking?
And what level of violence are we speaking of here? How is 'violence' defined?

We also must consider the fact that just because one has not been officially diagnosed as being mentally ill does not mean that the person is not mentally ill - it can simply mean an absence of an opportunity to diagnose... or that a professional missed the diagnosis.

Perhaps a better description would be 'psychologically unstable', rather than 'psychologically disturbed', as the former description includes the element of the behaviour of such people being largely unpredictable.

It's an intriguing question... I want to be sure I remain consistent with the data here... Historically and statistically speaking, people with mental illness are no more likely to commit violence against property or person than the general population, and statistically, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence, and particularly sexual violence, than the general population.

That's a different data set than the question you pose.

Are people who SHOULD be diagnosed as having mental illness, but are not diagnosed with such an illness because they are disenfrancised from mainstream healthcare services, more likely to commit violence against property or person?

The answer to that would be... maybe. But we don't know that. No data set exists that would capture that. At least not that I am aware of.

It's an intriguing question, though. And to the best of my knowledge, established, large-scale U.S. studies are not set up to capture it. They should be.

But, again - how is 'violence' defined in the 'studies' which produce these statistics?
And, for that matter, how is 'mental illness' defined in those same studies?
This is important to know in order to assess the data properly.

For example, when I stated that 100% of the people who commit mass killings are psychologically disturbed (perhaps should have been 'psychologically unstable'), I believe that is an obvious fact. As you said yourself, they are 'not well', and 'something is clearly wrong with them'.
So... if 100% of people who commit mass killings are mentally ill, we have something there.

As for other forms of violence, and whether mentally ill people commit more of those other forms of violence than do people who are not mentally ill - as I said, we would need to know how the authors of those studies/statistics define 'violence', and how they define 'mentally ill'.

In federal and federally funded studies, "mental illness" would be defined by DSM-IV, or more recently, DSM-V criteria. DSM-IV and DSM-V have their critics.

As for defining violence... Good luck trying to define that in the United States of America.

Very interesting discussion, Deuce. Many thanks for taking the time.

[Deuce]

It's an intriguing question... I want to be sure I remain consistent with the data here... Historically and statistically speaking, people with mental illness are no more likely to commit violence against property or person than the general population, and statistically, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence, and particularly sexual violence, than the general population.

That's a different data set than the question you pose.

Are people who SHOULD be diagnosed as having mental illness, but are not diagnosed with such an illness because they are disenfrancised from mainstream healthcare services, more likely to commit violence against property or person?

The answer to that would be... maybe. But we don't know that. No data set exists that would capture that. At least not that I am aware of.

It's an intriguing question, though. And to the best of my knowledge, established, large-scale U.S. studies are not set up to capture it. They should be.

But, again - how is 'violence' defined in the 'studies' which produce these statistics?
And, for that matter, how is 'mental illness' defined in those same studies?
This is important to know in order to assess the data properly.

For example, when I stated that 100% of the people who commit mass killings are psychologically disturbed (perhaps should have been 'psychologically unstable'), I believe that is an obvious fact. As you said yourself, they are 'not well', and 'something is clearly wrong with them'.
So... if 100% of people who commit mass killings are mentally ill, we have something there.

As for other forms of violence, and whether mentally ill people commit more of those other forms of violence than do people who are not mentally ill - as I said, we would need to know how the authors of those studies/statistics define 'violence', and how they define 'mentally ill'.

In federal and federally funded studies, "mental illness" would be defined by DSM-IV, or more recently, DSM-V criteria. DSM-IV and DSM-V have their critics.

As for defining violence... Good luck trying to define that in the United States of America.

Very interesting discussion, Deuce. Many thanks for taking the time.

Indeed, there are many criticisms and challenges of the DSM - most due to the fact that the DSM criteria for/definition of 'mental illness' has become more and more broad through the years... to the point where, if it is followed, the vast majority of the population could easily be said to suffer from it to some significant degree. This, of course, not coincidentally, aids the business of psychiatry (the DSM is written and updated by psychiatrists, and is published by the American Psychiatric Association).
But then, that is inconsistent with the findings that people with mental illness are less likely to commit violence than are people who are not mentally ill.
(Also, is this comparison between the mentally ill and the not mentally ill made per capita, or outright?)

I, myself, am more partial to the Thomas Szasz perspective (although I don't agree with every perspective of his).

Is the Definition of 'Mental Illness' Becoming Too Broad?

... For those who wish to delve deeper (newspaper article):
Rethinking Psychiatry...

...And for those who wish to delve MUCH deeper (very interesting stuff in my opinion):
Questioning the Direction of Psychiatry...

From the above link:
"Psychiatry is indeed creating an epidemic of “mental illness.” In the past forty years, we have seen a truly bewildering array of non-medical human problems arbitrarily and groundlessly converted to “mental illnesses” by the fiat of the American Psychiatric Association. Here is a short list:"

[Suliso]

I think we all will agree that people who do such things are not exactly "normal". Could one define it as clinically mentally ill is another question. In my opinion the issue is closely related to suicide and intimate partner violence. Basically these mass shootings are a form of murder-suicide. What makes US special is an easy availability of "tools". In other countries the guy would only kill himself and maybe his partner. Not that the later is somehow acceptable, but at least lots of other unrelated people are still alive.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

Please, don't re-elect him. Please. And then, send him over here to be President of South America.

[ti-amie]

The only video I will post here. I have not watched and don't intend to watch any other video that was released on Friday.