• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Please stop blaming shootings on mental health

What else are we going to blame gun violence on? They don't want to blame things they support, so they have to just find a scapegoat.

It's gotten so bad lately, they are simply saying "this stuff happens". That is, you can't do anything about it. It's as insane as everything else right-wing right now.

Let's burn the Constitution now, and pat ourselves on the back as we stomp the ashes into soot.

:donkeyfla
 
i don't agree that mental illness isn't a significant factor in a lot of these shootings.

View attachment 67261171

i'm not a psychiatrist, but many of these assholes appear to be as crazy as ****house rats. the mental health system in the US has a lot of room to improve.

Mental health is a considerable factor in most mass shootings.

It is not the only factor, but a considerable one.
 
I have to agree with your premise - folks that make extremely bad personal decisions which harm themselves or others are not usually diagnosed as being mentally ill (based on how rare the insanity defense is successful even when backed up by "expert witness" claims of such evidence). Having unrealistic expectations of the outcome of a decision to act (in a criminal manner) is not synonymous with being mentally ill.

The act itself is an ultimate definition of profound mental illness.
 
Let's burn the Constitution now, and pat ourselves on the back as we stomp the ashes into soot.

:donkeyfla

That wouldn't change the existence of unalienable rights to life, expression and self defense. The Constitution is descriptive, not creative, of philosophy.
 
That seems a little cynical....

If you tell regular folks (some of them friends/relatives of the victims of these loons) that the solution is to give up more of their hard earned incomes to the fund the government's (contracted?) "experts" then they would not likely "buy into" that plan. The same resistance exists when folks who now own guns with "high capacity" magazines are told that they must give up and/or replace their property (for no compensation?) in order to hope that it (eventually?) "trickles down" to affect a few would be mass shooters who would have to reload more often if they bothered to obey the new "gun control" law(s).
 
To reword your post (which I completely agree with) in only the slightest way: if you're going to argue that the person carrying out the attack isn't an extremist or radical, then what you're essentially arguing is that there is no extremism but only mental illness.

As Fiddy might have argued if he was still participating, landing terrorists with the "mental illness" label is stigmatizing millions of people with mental illnesses who harm absolutely nobody.

Nonsense.

But the overwhelming majority of the mentally ill are not violent.
 
Then maybe you can tell me what motivated the Las Vegas shooter in 2017 ...
Other than a recent prescription for an anti anxiety medication it seems nothing stood out with him. If he suffered from an ongoing mental disorder it wasn't apparent to people around him and at his age it would be pretty amazing.
 
Good. Then doing a background check for mental illness before a gun purchase is completely unnecessary

I think the idea is to check voter IDs...

If you:

A) Are a Republican, libertarian or anything OTHER than a Democrat

or

B) Want to buy a gun

then

C) You're unfit to own one.

See how that works?
 
The act itself is an ultimate definition of profound mental illness.

When did committing mass murder become an involuntary reaction to a medical condition rather than a pre-mediated crime? IMHO, treating a mass murder perp as if they were a victim of a disease (which happens to have caused massive collateral damage?) is more evident of being "mentally challenged".
 
Almost no mass shooter is a woman. Seems like that there's more to your idea than meets the eye.

Women are too busy committing the majority of domestic abuse?
 
Desire for infamy.

This is also a factor, and fed by the ghoulish, plutocrat-controlled MSM.

The plutocracy also seeks to disarm the population, so the ghoulish spectacles also serve the purpose of propagandizing this cause.
 
To be clear.....there is nowhere on earth with lax gun laws and low gun deaths due to a great mental health system
 
How do you explain the lack of successful "not guilty due to insanity" defense claims? The simple fact is that intentionally being/acting criminally (doing harm to others) does not make one insane - these folks knew that their actions were illegal (and would harm others) but did not let that stop them. Insanity, as a criminal defense, requires not knowing that you are intentionally doing wrong (like thinking you were zapping bugs instead of killing people).

You assume that the insanity defense standard is reasonable.

Or sane.

It is not.
 
There are a very few exceptions of course, but the most common denominator found among all these shooters is not mental health or any kind of racial, political, or religious motivation, but it is being estranged from or distanced from their biological father in the home. Of course most kids from fatherless homes don't grow up to be mass murderers. But the fact that the large majority of the mass murderers do I think is a statistic that should not be ignored.

The war on men is an ingredient in the toxic stew as well.
 
i don't agree that mental illness isn't a significant factor in a lot of these shootings.

View attachment 67261171

i'm not a psychiatrist, but many of these assholes appear to be as crazy as ****house rats. the mental health system in the US has a lot of room to improve.

And people being able to report their concerns needs to be looked at.

Holmes literally told his Dr he fantasized about killing a large number of people. When police offered to place him on hold for evaluation, she declined.

Loughner has been suspended and his parents told he could not return until he had a psych eval. And to lock up any weapons they might own.

Lanza's mother confided her sons mental state seemed to be declining.

Elliot Rodgers mother called his psych doctor after seeing an alarming video he posted. The Dr contacted authorities who went to his door and then left when he said he was fine.

People need to start taking stuff like the above instances as something serious and not leave it to somebody else.
 
~ Hey - don't forget this guy... !
View attachment 67261183

David Richard Berkowitz, also known as the "Son of Sam" and the "44 Caliber Killer", is an American serial killer who pleaded guilty to eight separate shooting attacks that began in New York City during the summer of 1976. Using a .44 caliber Bulldog revolver, he killed six people and wounded seven others by July 1977.

Why do you hate talking dogs?
 
You assume that the insanity defense standard is reasonable.

Or sane.

It is not.

That (bolded above) is a matter of opinion on which we, and even legal and medical scholars, happen to differ - not a matter of fact.
 
It isn't a mental health issue in most cases (in a few it is). It is a moral health issue.

The moral health of the country - or lack thereof - is a factor in the toxic stew.
 
I'd prefer to see them treated before they take out a bunch of people. I have a family that I'm pretty attached to, and never leaving a well secured house is not a viable option.

Remember that mental health of the perpetrator is only one factor at work in these situations.

And that these situations are still INCREDIBLY rare.

Fearing them is like worrying you're going to be hit by lightning.
 
In most states a doctor can get your driver’s permit suspended.

I get that motor vehicle operation is a privilege and not a right.

So doctors are to be the arbiters of core constitutional rights?

Interesting...
 
Back
Top Bottom