Re: National, Regional and Local News
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:45 am
The only statistic that matters is that 100% of mass killings are done by psychologically disturbed individuals.
We still talk about tennis. And much more.
https://www.talkabouttennis2.com/
^ Thus far.
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.
Responding to the red above...dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:05 amHow 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.
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.Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:14 amResponding to the red above...dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:05 amHow 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.
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.
But, again - how is 'violence' defined in the 'studies' which produce these statistics?dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:40 amIt'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.Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:14 amResponding to the red above...dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:05 am
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.
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.
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.
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.Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:51 amBut, again - how is 'violence' defined in the 'studies' which produce these statistics?dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:40 amIt'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.Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:14 am
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.
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.
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'.
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).dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 5:56 amIn 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.Deuce wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:51 amBut, again - how is 'violence' defined in the 'studies' which produce these statistics?dryrunguy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 24, 2023 4:40 am
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.
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'.
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.