Yes. People struggle and rather than taking away their rights we should be available to support them, and more importantly encourage and support them when they reach out for help.
Hmm.... interesting topic, I think it depends on what classifies as a mental illness. If someone really can't tell right from wrong or doesn't have empathy, remorse or any other emotion to halt them from killing other people I can't think of anything else but a mental illness.
Racism on the other hand is different, I think it nurtured, witnessed and learned from others. In my country there are people who don't look kindly at people like me ( those with Turkish ancestry ) and since a lot of literature and large portion of Bulgarian history is about the Ottomans taking over and treating the natives in despicable ways it often leads to people not being able to let that hate go despite the centuries that have passed.
Pretty much that's one of the reasons I keep my heritage a secret if I can and I'm doing well since I can't be distinguished from a regular Bulgarian in any way.
Thanks for the link Rooster. The headline on that article reads - "Actually, there is a clear link between mass shootings and mental illness"
So, it's in direct opposition to the claim of the OP. Very interesting!
A post like this might be made by someone that is trying to justify repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Just so I understand, are you two saying that every mentally ill person will become a shooter?
When I went to school we were taught the difference between:
So for those that missed it,
Most mentally ill people never shot anyone, i.e., mental illness does not lead to shooting. However, most shooters are mentally I'll, i.e., there is a "link".
Again it seems to be your mission to misunderstand my words and then argue about what a jerk I am.
Have at it.
Poor, poor Vic.
His easily read and understood statements get refuted by a left leaning publication - and it's OUR fault for misunderstanding!
Thanks for proving my point. You just don't seem to understand how English works.
And now you double down?
Your head line - "Just a reminder that mental illness does not lead to shooting, nor does it cause racism."
LA Times Headline - "Actually, there is a clear link between mass shootings and mental illness"
Now, explain to me real slow how I misunderstood. And then while you're at it, since you know all about how English works - explain to me how what was written gets anywhere close to your claim that what I wrote was "that every mentally ill person will become a shooter."
Are you absolutely sure that I and or Rooster are the ones with an English problem?
As I have consistently pointed out, this is the trouble humans experience when they attempt to communicate.
Here is the definition I had in mind when I wrote this post: If an action or event leads to something, it causes that thing to happen or exist.
Clearly you read it with a definition closer to: to begin the process of.
Are either of us wrong? Does your definition make mine wrong? No. We simply failed to communicate clearly.
I have already acknowledged that most shooters are mentally ill. Contrary to your first comment this isn't about repeal of the 2nd it is about silencing claims that people with mental illness cannot be trusted with guns. You didn't read it that way, OK. But you don't get to tell me what I meant.
My comment about "how English works " means that in the dictionarymost words have more than one meaning. I like to consider all possible meanings before responding.
Well, now that you've explained yourself in such great detail, I can see that I understood what you said just fine!
When you wrote - "Just a reminder that mental illness does not lead to shooting..."
And them later explained that what you meant was that it's
"about silencing claims that people with mental illness cannot be trusted with guns."
I find those words to be saying pretty much the same thing and equally thwarted by the LA Times article that wrote -
"Actually, there is a clear link between mass shootings and mental illness"
I understand that not all people with mental illness will kill other people. But, I also understand that there is a high percentage of killers with mental disorders. And, for you to apparently support gun ownership by people with mental disorders is beyond my comprehension.
And, may I point out that I'm fully aware of the potential slippery slope that might present. I mean the left tried early on to claim that Trump was mentally ill - for no reason and without any study - just because he beat Hillary.
Psychology Today has had several articles with titles like "Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity?"
Is it impossible to think that if / when the pendulum swings back left again, and there is another whack job like Obama in the White House, that the left may declare conservatives to be crazy and so "we'll confiscate their guns?" Impossible? I don't know. They already targeted conservatives by weaponizing the IRS, didn't they?
But then, I'm a conservative - looking for solutions to problems. And from my perspective, keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people would be a giant step forward.
And then I gotta wonder how you (a leftist) support mentally ill owning guns and other leftists don't even want teachers and or administrators to have guns.
You lefties are strange birds.
Everything you said here makes sense on some level.
I oppose using mental health tests for gun ownership for the reason you site, there is no scientifically sound gauge for mental health. It is too easy to have a perfectly sane person committed.
As I have repeatedly said, I oppose all restriction on gun ownership. I do support holding manufacturers accountable for the safety and purpose of their products. But I don't care to debate that issue on this post.
If you could propose a fair test of mental stability I might change my mind, but I don't think all conservatives are crazy.
DWFs post included some suggestions that seem more objective than "mental illness "
Firearm prohibitions should be expanded to include:
More individuals with a history of violent behavior, which greatly increases the risk for perpetration of future violence toward others.
Specifically, individuals convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes and those subject to ex parte domestic violence restraining orders should be temporarily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.
Individuals with a history of risky substance use, which heightens risk of violence toward others.
Specifically, individuals convicted of multiple DWIs or DUIs and multiple misdemeanor crimes involving controlled substances should be temporarily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.
I think he's listed some good ideas.
Great post Vic, there's nothing I can say that would add anything of importance. Everything you say is true.
I'd be willing to wager the majority of those suffering from mental illness don't commit acts of violence at all, much less mass casualty attacks.
If I may quote
Most persons with serious mental illness are never violent. However, small subgroups of persons with serious mental illness are at increased risk of violence during certain high-risk periods, such as during a first-episode of psychosis and the period surrounding inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
People with serious mental illness are rarely violent. Only 3 to 5 percent of all violence, including but not limited to firearm violence, is attributable to serious mental illness. The large majority of gun violence toward others is not caused by mental illness.
People with serious mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence, including but not limited to firearm violence, than the perpetrators of violent acts.
Rates of violent crime victimization are 12 times higher among the population of persons with serious mental illness than among the overall U.S. population.
So shooting people and being racist means you're mentally healthy?
That seems unlikely.
But not all mentally ill people are shooters or racists.
The point is don't blame racism on metal health issues, some racists are mentally healthy, just misguided.