Is this really how it works? What are we supposed to tell you about the man who murdered 10 people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on Thursday morning? Gawker's Sam Biddle wrote on Thursday in defense of reporters contacting witnesses, via Twitter, even if it seems invasive and rude, because that is their job. That is reporting. At The Concourse, Barry Petchesky
Pour yourself about sixteen ounces of your favorite distilled spirits of alcohol. Consume it all in one quick swallow. If you don't drink, now might be a good time to start.
The nra is the lobbying apparatus of corporations that profit from death. There is no good or evil within this corporate personage. Only profit. If people die from their products, well that's what they are selling. They would also tell you cars kill people. Ho hum.
In 1996 my sister-in-law was taking a gap year from university and was visiting friends in Tasmania. They went to visit the Port Arthur prison colony, a big tourist attraction. They survived the massacre physically unscathed. Australia changed its gun laws almost overnight and the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 population in Australia went from almost equal to the USA to less than ⅓ in less than 10 years. Other societal changes include stricter gun licensing and banning of some types of fire arms, i.e. certain types of shotguns, military type rifles and sub-machine guns and other. People are still murdered by gun in Australia, but still, not by some one with an armoury on his back standing up in a movie theater or assaulting a first grade class. Personally I feel it should be easier to get a multi-engine pilot's license with an all weather certificate than it should be to pass a firearms exam and get a gun.
Was mental illness a factor in this incident? Well maybe, but I doubt it. This guy planned the assault for over a year, wrote a big manifesto ahead of time to justify it and emailed it to 14 people, and recorded a video of himself a couple of hours prior to beginning it and posted it online. He purchased the guns and ammunition specifically for this assault and spent time practicing to shoot them. They are not the actions of someone suffering from a severe mental illness. His actions were far too well-organized, well-planned and well-executed. (Review the manner in which he killed the three men in his apartment for some clear evidence of that.)
No, these were the actions of a profoundly bitter, self-centered and angry person. More than anything else they are reminiscent of the actions done by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine killers. Their assault on Columbine High School was also the result of careful planning over the course of at least a year, specific provisioning and practice sessions, and were also carefully documented by the perpetrators, exactly as done here. Were Harris and Klebold mentally ill? Apparently not -- no one is making that argument today. Being deeply bitter, having a warped view of humanity and having access to guns are not conditions that are found in the DSM IV.
This is not to say that mental illness is never involved in mass shootings. It was pretty clearly a factor in the Tucson shootings and was possibly a factor in the shootings in Aurora, Colorado. So yeah, sometimes it plays a role. But the truth is that the overwhelming proportion of people with mental illness are not violent. In fact they are statistically less likely to engage in severe acts of violence than is the population in general. That's right, the mentally ill are even less likely to engage in mass murder than you and I are. On the rare occasions when a person with mental illness picks up a gun, he or she doesn't do it to assault other people. No, in practically every case it is to turn it on themselves.
So all of this talk about improving mental health care after yet another mass shooting is just a distraction from the real problem here: easy access to firearms. Yes, the mental health system and mental health care in general in this country is certainly in need of increased funding and better support. But look, mental illness isn't a uniquely American problem -- it is found in every other society as well. But those other countries don't experience unprovoked mass shooting incidents. That's our specialty, our American Exceptionalism.
There is a sickness involved in these heinous acts, but it isn't found in the perpetrators. No, the sickness is in the rest of us in the United States, specifically in our politics and in our laws. That is the disease that is desperately in need of treatment.
Planning and organization do not necessarily indicate an absence of mental illness. The Unibomber planned well and was organized. I don't believe anyone, even with just basic knowledge of human psychology, wouldn't understand he was mentally ill.
But I agree that something like 1% of mentally ill are responsible for violence (not counting suicide) and should not be considered dangerous.
It's the so called "normal" people we have to be worried about.
After Sandyhook Hook I was prepared to strike and begged my friends to as well. Only a few agreed but we weren't able to drum up support.
When you're poor or middle-class, and want laws changed, but your extremely wealthy reps won't listen you have to do something to demonstrate that you're not going to take it anymore.
After South Carolina, again I was ready to strike and found even fewer of my friends would strike in protest of our nation's pussy reps' unwillingness to act on our behalf.
Both dems (if HRC has cared so much about gun violence & gun laws why didn't she propose changes when she was a NY Senator?) and repubs share equal blame.
How many billions do we spend on "Homeland Security"? The enemy is already here.
I am not convinced that the Unabomber was mentally ill. I would classify him more as an extremist crank with a serious grudge and a perverse vigilante complex. The effects of psychosis are not limited to your sensorium (what you see, hear, feel, etc.) but also your basic cognitive and intellectual functioning. One of the characteristics of psychosis is an overall erosion of the sufferer's ability to engage in any organized activity and the suppression of the ability to visualize oneself in the future and to make plans. For the acutely psychotic there is no past and no future -- there is only the present. It would be almost zen-like if it wasn't so devastating. Ted Kaczynski carried out his bombing campaign over the course of 17 years. No one with acute psychosis would be able to keep it together and single-mindedly pursue such a project for anything approaching that length of time. And in contrast to a serial killer, he did not appear to have been motivated by some twisted murder fetish or compulsion.
Some of the doctors who examined Kaczynski diagnosed him as a paranoid schizophrenic. One or two others said he was not psychotic but suffered from schizoid personality disorder.
I believe Kaczynski exhibited numerous signs of mental illness but was not insane.
But I'm not a mental health professional. I'm basing my opinion on articles I read written by his brother; an interview with his mother, and articles about his diagnoses.
The discussion that you and I are having is one that the psychiatric community has been having practically since its inception. The reason that it hasn't been resolved is that there is plenty of merit in both sides of the debate and those involved all acknowledge it. The APA can compile a comprehensive diagnostic manual but its guidelines still have to be interpreted and applied to individual cases, and that is where things like professional judgement and thorough investigation come into play. As well as understanding the purpose for which the diagnosis is being sought. In the case of Ted Kaczynski, that diagnosis wasn't necessarily or primarily motivated by a need for treatment planning or insurance reimbursement or eligibility for public psychiatric services. Instead it had everything to do with establishing the nature of his legal culpability (but not the fact of it, which had already been established) and his eligibility for the death sentence.
Among psychiatric professionals, the question of what does or does not constitute mental illness for a particular patient often pivots on an assessment of the patient's overall level of functioning. This is a key step in the DSM diagnostic process.
Kaczynski refused to accept the offer of pleading not guilty due to insanity. I'm not certain every mental health professional involved in diagnosing him did not have compassion for Kaczynski and a sincere desire to help him
He was a child prodigy, genius IQ, and ability to live independently in difficult self-imposed exile from humanity would be proof he is high functioning.
Like many child prodigies, he had difficulty his entire life interacting with others. It seems that over time, he grew angrier and more resentful, he blamed technology, former colleagues and students, media and education institutions.
His family had sought treatment for him in the 50's and 60's. Kaczynski on his own as an adult sought treatment for his illness. Unfortunately, for whatever reason(s) he was unable to get the mental health care necessary.
Pour yourself about sixteen ounces of your favorite distilled spirits of alcohol. Consume it all in one quick swallow. If you don't drink, now might be a good time to start.
The nra is the lobbying apparatus of corporations that profit from death. There is no good or evil within this corporate personage. Only profit. If people die from their products, well that's what they are selling. They would also tell you cars kill people. Ho hum.
Well, you can hope he is impolite to someone packing heat. Packing heat. I love it. I should write for tv.
I agree. I was warped by Wiley Coyote and Elmer Fudd.
Irresponsible not to tug on it, you mean.(Sorry, it was just hanging there.)
I placed "hanging there" in my sentence just so you could also irresponsibly make a dick joke. :-)
In 1996 my sister-in-law was taking a gap year from university and was visiting friends in Tasmania. They went to visit the Port Arthur prison colony, a big tourist attraction. They survived the massacre physically unscathed. Australia changed its gun laws almost overnight and the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 population in Australia went from almost equal to the USA to less than ⅓ in less than 10 years. Other societal changes include stricter gun licensing and banning of some types of fire arms, i.e. certain types of shotguns, military type rifles and sub-machine guns and other. People are still murdered by gun in Australia, but still, not by some one with an armoury on his back standing up in a movie theater or assaulting a first grade class. Personally I feel it should be easier to get a multi-engine pilot's license with an all weather certificate than it should be to pass a firearms exam and get a gun.
Most of them veterans. Those were responsible gun owners, right there.
Mutual support is what Wonkette is all about.
Was mental illness a factor in this incident? Well maybe, but I doubt it. This guy planned the assault for over a year, wrote a big manifesto ahead of time to justify it and emailed it to 14 people, and recorded a video of himself a couple of hours prior to beginning it and posted it online. He purchased the guns and ammunition specifically for this assault and spent time practicing to shoot them. They are not the actions of someone suffering from a severe mental illness. His actions were far too well-organized, well-planned and well-executed. (Review the manner in which he killed the three men in his apartment for some clear evidence of that.)
No, these were the actions of a profoundly bitter, self-centered and angry person. More than anything else they are reminiscent of the actions done by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the Columbine killers. Their assault on Columbine High School was also the result of careful planning over the course of at least a year, specific provisioning and practice sessions, and were also carefully documented by the perpetrators, exactly as done here. Were Harris and Klebold mentally ill? Apparently not -- no one is making that argument today. Being deeply bitter, having a warped view of humanity and having access to guns are not conditions that are found in the DSM IV.
This is not to say that mental illness is never involved in mass shootings. It was pretty clearly a factor in the Tucson shootings and was possibly a factor in the shootings in Aurora, Colorado. So yeah, sometimes it plays a role. But the truth is that the overwhelming proportion of people with mental illness are not violent. In fact they are statistically less likely to engage in severe acts of violence than is the population in general. That's right, the mentally ill are even less likely to engage in mass murder than you and I are. On the rare occasions when a person with mental illness picks up a gun, he or she doesn't do it to assault other people. No, in practically every case it is to turn it on themselves.
So all of this talk about improving mental health care after yet another mass shooting is just a distraction from the real problem here: easy access to firearms. Yes, the mental health system and mental health care in general in this country is certainly in need of increased funding and better support. But look, mental illness isn't a uniquely American problem -- it is found in every other society as well. But those other countries don't experience unprovoked mass shooting incidents. That's our specialty, our American Exceptionalism.
There is a sickness involved in these heinous acts, but it isn't found in the perpetrators. No, the sickness is in the rest of us in the United States, specifically in our politics and in our laws. That is the disease that is desperately in need of treatment.
Planning and organization do not necessarily indicate an absence of mental illness. The Unibomber planned well and was organized. I don't believe anyone, even with just basic knowledge of human psychology, wouldn't understand he was mentally ill.
But I agree that something like 1% of mentally ill are responsible for violence (not counting suicide) and should not be considered dangerous.
It's the so called "normal" people we have to be worried about.
After Sandyhook Hook I was prepared to strike and begged my friends to as well. Only a few agreed but we weren't able to drum up support.
When you're poor or middle-class, and want laws changed, but your extremely wealthy reps won't listen you have to do something to demonstrate that you're not going to take it anymore.
After South Carolina, again I was ready to strike and found even fewer of my friends would strike in protest of our nation's pussy reps' unwillingness to act on our behalf.
Both dems (if HRC has cared so much about gun violence & gun laws why didn't she propose changes when she was a NY Senator?) and repubs share equal blame.
How many billions do we spend on "Homeland Security"? The enemy is already here.
I am not convinced that the Unabomber was mentally ill. I would classify him more as an extremist crank with a serious grudge and a perverse vigilante complex. The effects of psychosis are not limited to your sensorium (what you see, hear, feel, etc.) but also your basic cognitive and intellectual functioning. One of the characteristics of psychosis is an overall erosion of the sufferer's ability to engage in any organized activity and the suppression of the ability to visualize oneself in the future and to make plans. For the acutely psychotic there is no past and no future -- there is only the present. It would be almost zen-like if it wasn't so devastating. Ted Kaczynski carried out his bombing campaign over the course of 17 years. No one with acute psychosis would be able to keep it together and single-mindedly pursue such a project for anything approaching that length of time. And in contrast to a serial killer, he did not appear to have been motivated by some twisted murder fetish or compulsion.
Some of the doctors who examined Kaczynski diagnosed him as a paranoid schizophrenic. One or two others said he was not psychotic but suffered from schizoid personality disorder.
I believe Kaczynski exhibited numerous signs of mental illness but was not insane.
But I'm not a mental health professional. I'm basing my opinion on articles I read written by his brother; an interview with his mother, and articles about his diagnoses.
The discussion that you and I are having is one that the psychiatric community has been having practically since its inception. The reason that it hasn't been resolved is that there is plenty of merit in both sides of the debate and those involved all acknowledge it. The APA can compile a comprehensive diagnostic manual but its guidelines still have to be interpreted and applied to individual cases, and that is where things like professional judgement and thorough investigation come into play. As well as understanding the purpose for which the diagnosis is being sought. In the case of Ted Kaczynski, that diagnosis wasn't necessarily or primarily motivated by a need for treatment planning or insurance reimbursement or eligibility for public psychiatric services. Instead it had everything to do with establishing the nature of his legal culpability (but not the fact of it, which had already been established) and his eligibility for the death sentence.
Among psychiatric professionals, the question of what does or does not constitute mental illness for a particular patient often pivots on an assessment of the patient's overall level of functioning. This is a key step in the DSM diagnostic process.
Kaczynski refused to accept the offer of pleading not guilty due to insanity. I'm not certain every mental health professional involved in diagnosing him did not have compassion for Kaczynski and a sincere desire to help him
He was a child prodigy, genius IQ, and ability to live independently in difficult self-imposed exile from humanity would be proof he is high functioning.
Like many child prodigies, he had difficulty his entire life interacting with others. It seems that over time, he grew angrier and more resentful, he blamed technology, former colleagues and students, media and education institutions.
His family had sought treatment for him in the 50's and 60's. Kaczynski on his own as an adult sought treatment for his illness. Unfortunately, for whatever reason(s) he was unable to get the mental health care necessary.