That was certainly not my intent, and if that’s how it appears, I apologize. I consider this a very serious issue. I’m sure it’s not your intent to come across as condescending, though IMO, you appear to be.
I did “read” the article, I just didn’t “read” it with your particular perspective on what it meant. To be accurate, I did not say or quote that “18/35 had the belief they were receiving messages…” You deliberately omitted a significant component of the context. The point I quoted from the study was that “18/35 had schizophrenia that included the belief they were receiving messages…”
Beyond this, I’m not going to spend any time arguing further with you. I will say, however, that my “purpose” was to share an article relevant to gun ownership. And when I ask the question “what does cause a mass shooter to kill 3-4+ people,” this is in reference to opinions that seem to doubt serious, un-diagnosed mental illness could be a contributing factor.
See, here’s the problem with trying to understand serious mental illness: logic, reason, and rationality are incapable of describing processes which are, by definition, illogical, unreasonable, and irrational. The “thought structures” of the mentally ill are in direct opposition to the fundamental structures of the psychiatric discipline. The two are mutually exclusive.
Mental Illness can be described as an individual who holds a world-view sufficiently divergent from societal/cultural norms as to be noteworthy or disturbing to one who is firmly ensconced within the norms. Carried to not very distant extremes, any person who’s speech or behavior is not aligned with popular norms could be thought of as mentally ill to some degree.
I believe that not all persons with mental illness would be mass shooters. It’s a complex subject also in that, it runs the risk of generalizing others who have a mental illness but are less prone to violence, further stigmatizing them. Many with mental illness are high-functioning, non-violent, know right from wrong, are safe, and loving people.
Still, some of those who were mass shooters, if treated before their crime, may have been thwarted. Though challenging as that may seem, is a worthwhile cause.
These discussions made me also think of not the mass shooter, but of the person who shoots one person, as in the recent article/video linked below. Although I advocate for firearm rights, when I also hear of a single shooting, which was a crime, and not in self-defense, I cannot help but feel for the victims and see it as a threat to our rights (otherwise law-abiding folk). I ask how I can help mitigate such occurrences, no matter how few.
What hurts me more deeply is if and when I learn that the shooter obtained his/her “arm” legally. I’ll fight for our rights with devotion, but I also have concern and want to help reduce similar incidences:
I was going to make a smart-ass remark about the study, but I realize it actually works to weaken anti-2A arguments favoring gun bans or registries. Some day when the mood is lighter I might give you my bit on this study. Maybe it will cause some people to laugh. Goodness knows we could stand some levity.
Now they are doing a study on the GUNS used in mass shootings to see if they have undiagnosed psychiatric illnesses. Since its a very liberal University my guess is they will determine that the guns have more Psychiatric illnesses than the person who used the gun!
The problem is when there’s no study, and someone makes a claim, the response will be (and rightly so, btw), “where’s the evidence?”
Unfortunately, and especially in our current politically over-pressurized environment, that seems to skew in only one direction. Common sense gun laws (i.e. no evidence) vs. hard data that shows guns reduce crime.
This is my point. They’re really trying to create academia background to use to justifying banning guns. Come on man, that’s what they’ve been doing all along. If you say something long enough it must be true. Nope! Not true.
Our generation of “thinkers” rush to psychiatric explanations after the fact because they’ve jettisoned the idea of evil. In their clouded minds there is no moral line not to be crossed, no sin or evil, just an innocent soul bruised by traumatic circumstances and a dearth of opportunity to flourish without the kind leading hand of government sponsored programs and interventions.
These “diagnoses” were performed at a considerable distance. The majority of the killers took their own lives before they could be interviewed.
There should be little doubt that many of these shooters did have significant social, emotional, and possibly psychiatric or neurological disorders. (Charles Whitman had a brain tumor). But not all people with poor adjustment to social situations or reality commit mass murder. Evil is evil. It needs no understanding or explaining away. Simply confront it, and bear in mind what Solzhenitsyn recognized, that "the line between good and evil runs through the hearts of each one of us .
I agree fully, one does not need to be “psychotic” to kill. The Left bombards us with “world view”, that people can have different view points. One of those is that life is not that important in comparison to one’s “world view”. I have had conversations with those from the Mid-East that otherwise would be considered “normal” stating that we in the USA have too much freedom, and that “something” needs to be done about that. We have had numerous examples of what that “something” is, nothing we would consider “normal” nor “good”. Does that make them “psychotic”? Only to those same “psychologists” that completed this study.
History of mental illness is predominant among perpetrators of mass shootings. Take a look into Gunfacts.info. Also, of interest is “Guns and Control: A Nonpartisan Guide to Understanding Pass Public Shootings, Gun Accidents, Crime, Public Carry, Suicides, Defensive Use, and More” by Guy Smith. Smith is the founder of Gun Facts Project. A definitive investigation into the Columbine perpetrators is “Columbine” by David Cullen.
As with so many studies (60% can’t be reproduced), this was designed to get the result they wanted and to ignore the facts that don’t support their want. They clearly ignored the biggest source of “mass shootings”, i.e. gangbangers. Now if they clearly stated they considered those a different situation, the story did not include that information.
Just kidding. You can have a mental episode by loosing a parent, I did. I broke down almost everyday for what seemed for no reason. I don’t/didn’t have a “mental illness” just grief.
I am with you though there needs to be changes in the mental health community in the way they treat people.
As someone who has PROSECUTED and defended around 40 or more, actual MURDER jury trials, and more persons accused of some category of “homicide,” I learned about the “PCL-R.” That is the checklist developed by Dr, Hare, Phd. .Though others, academic PHD’s, Psychiatrists ,M.D, 's and equally experienced, and/or educated, or both, in criminology, law enforcement, have, over the years criticized it and modified it, but, its framework has survived all of that appropriate examination. The letters are the acronym for the "PSYCHOPATHIC DHECK-LIST - REVISED ". Along with that is the "“ASPD,” the diagnostic factors for Anti-Social Personality Disorder ( sociopathy). The “PCL-R” is copyrighted but Hare, and access tp the actual checklist requires royalty payment. “ASPD” is available for free in a year old “Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disease-Disorder…”. It is used by all USA persons responsible for evaluating and/or treatment of mental health illnesses and disorders. Either one is reviewed by Wikipedia, very reliably done. Anyone who competently carries a weapon for personal defense and defense of others should become familiar with the factors in both. It adds to the "observation process, and risk determination—IS IT APPROPRIATE TO USE DEADLY FORCE? It is an aspect of use of a deadly weapon that is mostly ignored. The knowledge is a factor that can make a critical decision about present risk, sometimes immediate, sometimes over a period of time that reaches a “Critical Moment” before any of us uses deadly force. Early in my career as a major felony trial lawyer, I was fortunate to be given access to both, throughout a career, 40 years as a lawyer, taught by my father since age 10 to use a handgun (center-fire), and licensed for over 40 years. In my career I had to make the “Critical Decision” enough times but resolved matters without pulling the trigger. The closest was serving in a hostage situation, facing a 12 ga. pointed at me from 30 feet. There were easily 40 other LEO’s on scene but the hostile and known mentally ill fellow insisted on me and would not communicate unless he could clearly see me. He relented, released the hostages and surrendered–no shots fired. I was at least as “ready” as he was, but I was subtle and yet, he knew I was holding a powerful handgun. He had previous knowledge of me; he used that, and I used my experience with him. My point in this long comment is my familiarity with the check list, PCL-R and the diagnostic manual. I did not have to shoot him; I am glad, though legally justified under the circumstances. Hostages at risk probably changed everything I did… I had been given the “go-ahead” because I was the only one with a relatively “clear shot” with the least risk to the hostages. BE INTELLECTUALLY ABLE TO LOGICALLY DECIDE WHETHER YOU MUST FIRE !!
You got me thinking, might not all mass shooters actually have a mental illness, but still be criminally disturbed (per se) in that moment; And not all of those with a mental illness are violent.
Still, I’m all for trying to catch a would be assailant before the fact, to help reduce harm, if we could.
