Stop using us as scapegoats

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Aye, can't not agree with that. People like to make jumps of logic. These days if your mentally ill suddenly your a deranged psychopath that is out for blood.

I don't know much about mental health but I do know it gets regularly wheeled out in these situations as a convenient "othering" response. "Oh, no normal, well-adjusted and intelligent person would ever do something like that. They must be crazy/psychotic/schitzophrenic" - which temporarily makes a few people feel better about themselves, No True Scotsman style, but also completely dodges the real issues at hand.

I remember in the weeks after the Anders Breivik spree, people were almost getting personally upset that he hadn't been diagnosed insane. "He killed kids, of course he's a madmen. He doesn't fit the existing definition of insane? Then the definition is wrong, let's redefine it!" Why? Because people felt revulsion and wanted to distance themselves from him, and by proxy, the act. Classic avoidance and dehumanisation.

Batou667:
I remember in the weeks after the Anders Breivik spree, people were almost getting personally upset that he hadn't been diagnosed insane. "He killed kids, of course he's a madmen. He doesn't fit the existing definition of insane? Then the definition is wrong, let's redefine it!" Why? Because people felt revulsion and wanted to distance themselves from him, and by proxy, the act. Classic avoidance and dehumanisation.

Same stuff basically as "The nazis were monsters". People find it uncomfortable to realise a normal person (read: they themselves too) could be capable of such acts given the right circumstances.


Although in Breivik's case it also counted that being ruled insane and sent to an asylum would mean he got reviewed every 3 years and released if he was found to be no longer mentally ill. And since claiming he was a paranoid schizofrenic looked pretty weak, that could theoretically mean he'd serve 3 years in an asylum and be free again. Of course that would never ever happen, because, shitstorm, but the chance existed.

People were also uncomfortable about prison, because there's a remote chance of him being released after 21, 26, 31 and so on year. Of course his sentence will be extended when the initial period of 21 years (he'll be 54 then) is up, and the earliest Breivik is ever getting out is when he's an old man, and he's more likely to only ever leave prison in a box, but merely the chance of it happening is enough to make people want a different outcome.

I don't see all that stuff really. The guy's as crazy as they come in regards to political matters, but I don't think a 70 year old Breivik will be a threat to anyone anymore. Most people get released on medical grounds around that age anyway, life sentence or not. For the Netherlands, of those who got life in the 1945-1970 period, only one of them died in prison, and that was due to being poisoned by another inmate. (which is ironic because he was convicted to life for poisoning his wife)
The rest all got released after 16-21 years, none of them lived more than 8 years after release. Everybody convicted after 1970, starting with one in 1982, is still locked up though, but up to the 90's, those were all exceedingly severe crimes, always multiple homicides.

Argh, yes. As mentioned, it's the last "othering" tactic.

You can be very sure that if he happened to be a Muslim, nobody would mention mental health, and everyone would talk about his religion instead.

Mentally ill people absolutely should not be stigmatised even more than they are already because of the actions of a small minority of people who probably aren't mentally ill anyway. How the fuck is that supposed to fix anything?

Arguably, anyone, anywhere, that commits any crime of any kind and severity is not "fully actualized". I think all of us are messed up in some way.

I am alarmed at USA neglect of people that really are too damaged to govern their own lives and there should be a constant discussion about the matter.

Take for example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/337353/treat-1-percent

"Erika Menendez, the 31-year-old woman who is alleged to have pushed a man to his death beneath a subway train in New York City, represents everything that is wrong with America's system of treating the mentally ill. This was the second fatal subway pushing in New York in less than a month. In both cases the person who allegedly did the pushing was described as having a severe mental illness that was not being adequately treated."

That isn't scapegoating. That's addressing a real problem.

Gorfias:
Arguably, anyone, anywhere, that commits any crime of any kind and severity is not "fully actualized". I think all of us are messed up in some way.

Well, then the term is too broad to be meaningful. Not that there's no truth to what you are saying.

Gorfias:
I am alarmed at USA neglect of people that really are too damaged to govern their own lives and there should be a constant discussion about the matter.

Take for example:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/337353/treat-1-percent

"Erika Menendez, the 31-year-old woman who is alleged to have pushed a man to his death beneath a subway train in New York City, represents everything that is wrong with America's system of treating the mentally ill. This was the second fatal subway pushing in New York in less than a month. In both cases the person who allegedly did the pushing was described as having a severe mental illness that was not being adequately treated."

That isn't scapegoating. That's addressing a real problem.

Well, there is a problem with that, though. Stories like that give a very bad impression of people with mental health issues.

It's all very well to report when someone who is mentally ill commits a pointless crime. However, when you don't report all the people who are mentally ill who are victims of crimes or abuse, you are implying that mentally ill people are disproportionately a danger to others.

One person takes an AR-15 and shoots up a public place, and there's call for a register of the mentally ill, to start locking people up, and so on. Any number of people who are mentally ill die alone and uncared for, and it doesn't make the headlines, and there's no outcry.

Except when you're talking about spree shooting it is totally a solution. Not violent crime in general, that is largely dependent upon socio-economic issues like poverty and education, but spree killers are generally mentally diseased. And for me this is not an issue of locking them up for the betterment of society (not solely at least). It is about helping them get past their own dissease. Does this help prevent spree killings as well? Certainly, and that is also good.

Revnak:
Except when you're talking about spree shooting it is totally a solution. Not violent crime in general, that is largely dependent upon socio-economic issues like poverty and education, but spree killers are generally mentally diseased. And for me this is not an issue of locking them up for the betterment of society (not solely at least). It is about helping them get past their own dissease. Does this help prevent spree killings as well? Certainly, and that is also good.

How do you identify spree-shooters in the making from mentally ill people that aren't dangerous?

Not people who fit the profile of spree-shooters, people that might become one some day, but people who will? Otherwise you are locking people up for crimes they may or may not commit some time in the future. You'll also never know which of them is innocent and which are merely currently-innocent.

thaluikhain:

when you don't report all the people who are mentally ill who are victims of crimes or abuse, you are implying that mentally ill people are disproportionately a danger to others.

One person takes an AR-15 and shoots up a public place, and there's call for a register of the mentally ill, to start locking people up, and so on. Any number of people who are mentally ill die alone and uncared for, and it doesn't make the headlines, and there's no outcry.

There certainly isn't enough of an outcry. We let the ill die on sidewalks when they should be hospitalized. The civil rights people say we have no right to hospitalize people. Maybe they're right. Budget crunchers ask, why spend money on someone that doesn't want the treatment? They're right too in a way. And not enough people are fighting them.

I'm told of a story in which a doctor is walking through a locking door at a psychiatric facility. A patient say, "doc, I have got to get out of here" as the patient is pulling the door closed for the doctor. The point being, as much as he wants out, the patient knows, until released, the hospital is the best place for him.

A free society presumes the competence of its members. What will haunt us is, what to do when some of our members really are not competent.

Gorfias:
There certainly isn't enough of an outcry. We let the ill die on sidewalks when they should be hospitalized. The civil rights people say we have no right to hospitalize people. Maybe they're right. Budget crunchers ask, why spend money on someone that doesn't want the treatment? They're right too in a way. And not enough people are fighting them.

I'm told of a story in which a doctor is walking through a locking door at a psychiatric facility. A patient say, "doc, I have got to get out of here" as the patient is pulling the door closed for the doctor. The point being, as much as he wants out, the patient knows, until released, the hospital is the best place for him.

A free society presumes the competence of its members. What will haunt us is, what to do when some of our members really are not competent.

That is certainly a major problem, yes, and its one of those issues that has been around forever and never been dealt with in a satisfactory way, and probably won't ever be.

But I meant the people that do want help, and aren't getting it. There's any number of mental health issues around, and any number of different levels of severity. Plenty of people would accept help (real helpful help, that is) if it were to be offered. It just seems not to be seen as a priority the way hospitals for physical injuries are.

Certain mental illnesses can make people dangerous.
Most people who carry out shootings have some sort of mental illness.
The media could be more specific but it is accurate to relate violence to mental illness.

thaluikhain:

Revnak:
Except when you're talking about spree shooting it is totally a solution. Not violent crime in general, that is largely dependent upon socio-economic issues like poverty and education, but spree killers are generally mentally diseased. And for me this is not an issue of locking them up for the betterment of society (not solely at least). It is about helping them get past their own dissease. Does this help prevent spree killings as well? Certainly, and that is also good.

How do you identify spree-shooters in the making from mentally ill people that aren't dangerous?

Not people who fit the profile of spree-shooters, people that might become one some day, but people who will? Otherwise you are locking people up for crimes they may or may not commit some time in the future. You'll also never know which of them is innocent and which are merely currently-innocent.

You don't seperate them, you treat all of them. The fact that this will help stop spree killers is a nice bonus rather than the sole purpose of the endeavor. And you definitely do not lock them up unless they prove themselves to be a harm to themselves or others.

Edit- the locking up thing was a mix of reference and hyperbole (mostly the latter). I'm sorry if that went over your head.

Dis-empowerment: that in a nutshell is the reason why no one wants to give up guns. People just have to except that with greater power there's a greater chance for lethality and there really is no way around it. People just want to blame everything else that ills the world for the issues caused by mass gun ownership.

Revnak:
You don't seperate them, you treat all of them. The fact that this will help stop spree killers is a nice bonus rather than the sole purpose of the endeavor. And you definitely do not lock them up unless they prove themselves to be a harm to themselves or others.

Edit- the locking up thing was a mix of reference and hyperbole (mostly the latter). I'm sorry if that went over your head.

Ah, ok, I see, it's just that I've seen calls for locking up everyone that might be mentally ill around.

Very nice post.

Sadly i think that the of U.S citizens (or even the whole world) need a massive cure against stupidity and a good dose of common sense.
Unfortunately AMERUCA is a fear mongering country, and they will accuse any thing to keep that constant fear in place, which is why FOX and the NRA are so big it seems (well same thing can be said about here in France with the FN).

The U.S has one of the worst health care system among the "developed" countries,and when they have the possibility to have SOMETHING decent as a system, the lobbied politicians just tear it apart with fear campaigns (We are going to become SOCIALIST AND GODLESS!! BEWARE of equal rights of medical treatment for all BEWARE!!), while the masses are always as gullible, like in any country, so they make a big fuss about it, which gives the victory to the broken and corrupt system.

Also, PLEASE stop saying guns don't kill, just PLEASE try to be logical and ask your self what is the first purpose of a gun? NO, it is not self defense, just be quiet and THINK! ..... There did you give some thought to it? NO, well think some MORE. And now? Did you think about an answer? ... Yes, hunting is one use of guns, but what is hunting? YES, it is KILLING an animal from a SAFE DISTANCE, so what is the main purpose of guns? NO, it is not to PROTECT your FREEDOM. Think about it.....
Guns are a tool for KILLING, you know. BOOM. THUD. Now the thing you pointed at has a sever case of deadness, so why not restrict the use of KILLING tools, like for drunk driving. You can not stop it but you can reduce the chances of it happening, and if I bash your skull in with my shoes do you think some idiot will ask for a ban on shoes? No, because they have another use than killing and it is used in every day life.

TL;DR : Very good post OP. Those who blame the mentally ill are not blaming the right thing, it is the thing that is used repeatedly that should be blamed and put a stricter use (NO private sales, ALWAYS heavy background check, etc... ) and stricter punishment and maybe try to fight it the same way as drunk driving, stricter laws and stricter enforcing to REDUCE how many times it happens because you will NEVER eradicate it but it is not a reason to not try to reduce it.

I am sorry for the angry tone in this post but the general stupidity of those against any logical argument make me insane and i just had an argument with a family member (Proud AMURICAN citizen) extremely Christian, anti government and gun crazy who would just not listen to any counter argument. (It finished by "You are godless and i am the better person because i follow the way of god" i am not joking, she said that -_-")

yaydod:
Very nice post.

Sadly i think that the of U.S citizens (or even the whole world) need a massive cure against stupidity and a good dose of common sense.
Unfortunately AMERUCA is a fear mongering country, and they will accuse any thing to keep that constant fear in place, which is why FOX and the NRA are so big it seems (well same thing can be said about here in France with the FN).

The U.S has one of the worst health care system among the "developed" countries,and when they have the possibility to have SOMETHING decent as a system, the lobbied politicians just tear it apart with fear campaigns (We are going to become SOCIALIST AND GODLESS!! BEWARE of equal rights of medical treatment for all BEWARE!!), while the masses are always as gullible, like in any country, so they make a big fuss about it, which gives the victory to the broken and corrupt system.

Also, PLEASE stop saying guns don't kill, just PLEASE try to be logical and ask your self what is the first purpose of a gun? NO, it is not self defense, just be quiet and THINK! ..... There did you give some thought to it? NO, well think some MORE. And now? Did you think about an answer? ... Yes, hunting is one use of guns, but what is hunting? YES, it is KILLING an animal from a SAFE DISTANCE, so what is the main purpose of guns? NO, it is not to PROTECT your FREEDOM. Think about it.....
Guns are a tool for KILLING, you know. BOOM. THUD. Now the thing you pointed at has a sever case of deadness, so why not restrict the use of KILLING tools, like for drunk driving. You can not stop it but you can reduce the chances of it happening, and if I bash your skull in with my shoes do you think some idiot will ask for a ban on shoes? No, because they have another use than killing and it is used in every day life.

TL;DR : Very good post OP. Those who blame the mentally ill are not blaming the right thing, it is the thing that is used repeatedly that should be blamed and put a stricter use (NO private sales, ALWAYS heavy background check, etc... ) and stricter punishment and maybe try to fight it the same way as drunk driving, stricter laws and stricter enforcing to REDUCE how many times it happens because you will NEVER eradicate it but it is not a reason to not try to reduce it.

I am sorry for the angry tone in this post but the general stupidity of those against any logical argument make me insane and i just had an argument with a family member (Proud AMURICAN citizen) extremely Christian, anti government and gun crazy who would just not listen to any counter argument. (It finished by "You are godless and i am the better person because i follow the way of god" i am not joking, she said that -_-")

What about those of us that live in America who are Athiest, pro health care, and pro gun control? o O;

Colt47:

yaydod:
snip

What about those of us that live in America who are Athiest, pro health care, and pro gun control? o O;

Sadly it seems that you guys are the minority :( You right level minded people

On a more serious note : The U.S needs some stricter form of gun control, just make as restrictive as it is on the boose. Seriously, last I was there me (18 years old), my little bro and sister couldn't eat at the only restaurant in the area (right next to our motel room) because they served some alcohol, they even had an Arcade and some "kiddy" games around. They wouldn't even let us play with those (it was during a snow storm and our parents went to town to get stuff before it got too bad).

So if they are willing to punt in place such strict laws on guns it might work better and maybe leading to less gun killing over time

taciturnCandid:
It is an issue that comes up every single time there is some sort of mass shooting Instead of looking at the issues, the response is quick by the media and pundits.

And that is to blame mental illness. Claim that the problem that the US has such violent crime rates is because of mental illness. Over and over they talk about how untreated people are dangerous and how the solution should be better mental health care.

I don't know what news shows you watch or whose commentaries you read, but in my experience, the media's reaction to any sort of shooting is "GUNS R TEH EBIL!!!11!"

I am going to post a link to this on facebook. This is beautiful.
image

This really hits home for me as well. My OCD may be a mild case (I rarely need medication for it), but when certain neuroses get set off people look at me like I'm a lunatic. It's nice to know someone has the common sense to not immediately point fingers at us.

I don't understand why we blame guns/violent video games/movies or even our culture on these tragedies. Why don't we blame the person that actually did it? A video game didn't motivate this guy to go shoot school children. A gun didn't grow legs and go on a shooting rampage. Mental Illness didn't cause the man to grab a shotgun and rape and kill women. We always try to find a "solution" to this problem and blame it on something that's inanimate or pix-elated violence. Its the person that did it. I wouldn't even consider them human, a person doesn't decide one day that he's going to shoot people in a movie theater. These people are monsters. And they should be treated as such. Quit blaming mental illness for a man murdering someone. He made that decision, he is the one responsible, make him pay for it.

If someone has murder in their heart they're going to try there hardest to do it. Nothing will prevent him from attempting it, but there has to be someone willing to stop him from succeeding. And that's what we need to focus on, giving people the ability to stop an evil monster because they will always exist.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked