One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Feb 17, 2018 03:42:36   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

Bill Gardner
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/can-mental-health-policy-solve-the-problem-of-mass-shootings/

Some people argue that mass shootings in America result from mental health problem and require mental health policy solutions.

Can this work?

Let’s think through the possible mental health policies for preventing mass shootings.

I see three:

We could reduce the social determinants of mental illness to lower the population prevalence of mental disorders,
2) We could increase the availability of treatments for mental illnesses, and 3) We could attempt to identify the specific individuals likely to kill and get
them into treatment.

1. Reduce the population prevalence of mental illness.

Mental illness is associated with social adversity.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09540261.2014.928270

The causality runs both ways:

Getting ill will hammer your life and, conversely, falling down the social gradient substantially increases your risk of getting ill.

Providing more and better jobs and improving the social safety net would raise the well-being of Americans and, plausibly, reduce the population prevalence of mental and substance abuse disorders.

However, the causal association between mental illness and mass killing is weak.

12/12/2914 Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242


Few mentally ill people ever kill anyone.

A mentally ill person is, at worst, only slightly more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Conversely, it is not clear how many mass shooters were mentally ill.

So even a substantial reduction in the prevalence of mental illness would have only a small effect on the number of mass shootings.

2. Increase the availability of mental health treatments.

Let’s stipulate that if you are mentally ill and you are at risk of carrying out a massacre, mental health treatment might help you avoid this tragedy.

Access to mental health treatment could be increased by training more evidence-based mental health providers, insuring the uninsured,.

And requiring that health insurance cover mental health treatment.

Unfortunately, the effect of increased access on mass shootings would be limited, because

a) It’s likely that many potential shooters are not mentally ill;
b) Even with improved access, not all mentally-ill potential killers will seek
treatment;
c) Mental health treatment doesn’t always work.

Policies 1 and 2 are eminently worth pursuing because they would reduce mental illnesses and the suffering they entail.

However, they would be expensive, and few of the politicians who talk about mental health as a response to mass killing support these policies.

In any event, these strategies would have at best small effects on mass murders.

3. Identify likely mass shooters and deliver mental health care to them.

This policy is a non-starter because of the mathematics of prediction. Murderers are too rare in the population.

Any conceivable prediction model will generate overwhelming numbers of false positives.

There is no Minority Report future world.

In summary: America needs better mental health care.

However, the nation is unlikely to make the required effort, and if it did, it wouldn’t have much effect on mass shootings.

I have updated my graphs of mass shootings to include yesterday’s killings in Parkland, FL, but nothing in the overall pattern has changed.

10/12/2017 Mass shootings, technology, and the future
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/mass-shootings-technology-and-the-future/

17 killed in mass shooting at high school in Parkland, Florida
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101

This graph plots the number of deaths in shootings that killed more than four people.


This plot only labels shootings that killed 20 or more, so Parkland with only 17 doesn’t get a label.

It is, oxymoronically, a routine massacre.

As someone noted on Twitter yesterday, it’s a bitter irony that the 1929 Valentine’s Day Massacre involved only seven murders.

The next graph plots the logarithm of the number of days between successive mass shootings against time and adds a smoothed curve.
The declining curve starting in about 2007 indicates that mass shootings are happening increasingly frequently.











Reply
Feb 17, 2018 05:51:51   #
Abel
 
An interesting write up. You made a number of reasonable statements and the charts bear you out somewhat. Good job.

I have my own opinions concerning mass shootings and trying to control them. First of all, I believe that anyone wanting to kill someone is usually caused by one person pissing off another, for whatever reason. Some people are a little more prone to violence than others, and this could be a mental problem, but a lot of people fit this profile and most learn to control their urges, depending a lot on how they were raised. If enough persons piss off some particular person to the point of a mass shooting, it was a probably a festering problem that just built up until the person finally got fed up and took the frustration out on a group. The bigger group shootings are probably done by copycat show-boaters trying to make a headline or two. Some may even be the result of terrorism induced by a gang of hoods or a fanatical religious group, which could have been from a lack of good parenting or getting a proper education. Stopping this kind of thing is nearly impossible in a free country.

Mental illness is a matter of not conforming to a norm, whatever that norm is, and it varies according to who you ask. I have a problem with the question of just whom is determining what the norm is. People who kill people do have some degree of mental illness, but to what degree? Some people have the urge to kill but learned to control it, up until something happens to trigger it, which may never occur during the persons lifetime. Of course, drugs could also be an issue, which would probably trace back to lack of good parenting and/or education at an early age.

Now, this is just my opinion, and lots of people obviously will disagree with me. The more liberal the disagreeing person is, the stronger will be the disagreement. However, IMHO, the best method to control mass killings, not necessarily just shootings, starts at home. Educating children about getting along with others. When it comes to shootings in particular, children should be educated in the use of guns and the safety precautions and attitudes involved at at early age. Guns are nothing more than a tool, like a hammer, or an axe, or a screwdriver, or whatever. Anything can be used as a weapon, not just a gun, and some training is needed when it comes to using any tool. A good mom and dad will teach their children about life, maybe even to fish and hunt, depending upon their family environment, but even urban dwellers can find a way if they try, or care enough. Many of these things are not taught in school, but are necessities of life and survival. I've known urban people who think milk and beef come from a supermarket, and weren't aware that a cow existed until I made them aware of it! I've even worked around and with mentally challenged people who were smarter in some ways than some people who had college degrees. The mental field is very large, and quite challenging to decipher in some people.

If the people, the government, or business people seriously wanted to protect people from mass shootings, they would not set up gun-free zones to attract those perpetrators who have the urge to shoot people. In other words, don't advertise your weakness, or lack of readiness, to the enemy!

In a gun-free zone, a perpetrator knows, with a pretty high degree of certainty, that he/she will have no armed opposition, and since he/she has the gun, he/she will be in control of the event, at least until the law enforcement arrives. The law enforcement usually arrives in time to help mop up the mess and fill out the reports, but seldom in time to prevent the action. The longer the delay of police assistance, the longer the shooter has to continue killing people.

If the area involved has no gun-free signage to inform the perpetrator, the perpetrator is less likely to choose the area for his/her attack, because someone that has been trained may be carrying a weapon to counter his/her attack, which affects the shooters overall confidence. A person with training in weapons handling has a distinct advantage over most mass shooters, who probably have little or no training.

The only sound way to prevent, or at least minimize the event, is to have someone already at the scene who is armed, trained, and ready to take out the perpetrator before he/she has time to get started with the shooting spree. This person could be a law enforcement officer, on or off duty, but if so, he/she should not be in uniform because that makes him/her an obvious target for the shooter that the shooter can make his/her first kill, thus eliminating his/her armed opposition. The guard should be inconspicuous in order to have maximum advantage during the situation. Armed concealed carry persons are also quite useful at such an event, because a shooter doesn't know they are there until it is too late for him to react to them. These people are trained in how to handle a weapon as well as good safety procedures, so they are able to save lives while the police are still enroute. We need to take advantage of everything available to us in such a situation.

Have a great day.

Doc110 wrote:
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

Bill Gardner
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/can-mental-health-policy-solve-the-problem-of-mass-shootings/

Some people argue that mass shootings in America result from mental health problem and require mental health policy solutions.

Can this work?

Let’s think through the possible mental health policies for preventing mass shootings.

I see three:

We could reduce the social determinants of mental illness to lower the population prevalence of mental disorders,
2) We could increase the availability of treatments for mental illnesses, and 3) We could attempt to identify the specific individuals likely to kill and get
them into treatment.

1. Reduce the population prevalence of mental illness.

Mental illness is associated with social adversity.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09540261.2014.928270

The causality runs both ways:

Getting ill will hammer your life and, conversely, falling down the social gradient substantially increases your risk of getting ill.

Providing more and better jobs and improving the social safety net would raise the well-being of Americans and, plausibly, reduce the population prevalence of mental and substance abuse disorders.

However, the causal association between mental illness and mass killing is weak.

12/12/2914 Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242


Few mentally ill people ever kill anyone.

A mentally ill person is, at worst, only slightly more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Conversely, it is not clear how many mass shooters were mentally ill.

So even a substantial reduction in the prevalence of mental illness would have only a small effect on the number of mass shootings.

2. Increase the availability of mental health treatments.

Let’s stipulate that if you are mentally ill and you are at risk of carrying out a massacre, mental health treatment might help you avoid this tragedy.

Access to mental health treatment could be increased by training more evidence-based mental health providers, insuring the uninsured,.

And requiring that health insurance cover mental health treatment.

Unfortunately, the effect of increased access on mass shootings would be limited, because

a) It’s likely that many potential shooters are not mentally ill;
b) Even with improved access, not all mentally-ill potential killers will seek
treatment;
c) Mental health treatment doesn’t always work.

Policies 1 and 2 are eminently worth pursuing because they would reduce mental illnesses and the suffering they entail.

However, they would be expensive, and few of the politicians who talk about mental health as a response to mass killing support these policies.

In any event, these strategies would have at best small effects on mass murders.

3. Identify likely mass shooters and deliver mental health care to them.

This policy is a non-starter because of the mathematics of prediction. Murderers are too rare in the population.

Any conceivable prediction model will generate overwhelming numbers of false positives.

There is no Minority Report future world.

In summary: America needs better mental health care.

However, the nation is unlikely to make the required effort, and if it did, it wouldn’t have much effect on mass shootings.

I have updated my graphs of mass shootings to include yesterday’s killings in Parkland, FL, but nothing in the overall pattern has changed.

10/12/2017 Mass shootings, technology, and the future
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/mass-shootings-technology-and-the-future/

17 killed in mass shooting at high school in Parkland, Florida
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101

This graph plots the number of deaths in shootings that killed more than four people.


This plot only labels shootings that killed 20 or more, so Parkland with only 17 doesn’t get a label.

It is, oxymoronically, a routine massacre.

As someone noted on Twitter yesterday, it’s a bitter irony that the 1929 Valentine’s Day Massacre involved only seven murders.

The next graph plots the logarithm of the number of days between successive mass shootings against time and adds a smoothed curve.
The declining curve starting in about 2007 indicates that mass shootings are happening increasingly frequently.
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the prob... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 06:41:14   #
out of the woods Loc: to hell and gone New York State
 
As the morality of our nation .declines, the killing increases. Yes those who are mentally unstable, are the perpetrators, it is likely, as they are more suseptible to the evil suggestions of the society. It is really , I believe a spiritual problem, the shooters are a symtom of a nation that has turned its back on God. In the media, online, there is such a presence of evil, these are those who fall prey to the suggestion.

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2018 07:25:03   #
rebob14
 
Abel wrote:
An interesting write up. You made a number of reasonable statements and the charts bear you out somewhat. Good job.

I have my own opinions concerning mass shootings and trying to control them. First of all, I believe that anyone wanting to kill someone is usually caused by one person pissing off another, for whatever reason. Some people are a little more prone to violence than others, and this could be a mental problem, but a lot of people fit this profile and most learn to control their urges, depending a lot on how they were raised. If enough persons piss off some particular person to the point of a mass shooting, it was a probably a festering problem that just built up until the person finally got fed up and took the frustration out on a group. The bigger group shootings are probably done by copycat show-boaters trying to make a headline or two. Some may even be the result of terrorism induced by a gang of hoods or a fanatical religious group, which could have been from a lack of good parenting or getting a proper education. Stopping this kind of thing is nearly impossible in a free country.

Mental illness is a matter of not conforming to a norm, whatever that norm is, and it varies according to who you ask. I have a problem with the question of just whom is determining what the norm is. People who kill people do have some degree of mental illness, but to what degree? Some people have the urge to kill but learned to control it, up until something happens to trigger it, which may never occur during the persons lifetime. Of course, drugs could also be an issue, which would probably trace back to lack of good parenting and/or education at an early age.

Now, this is just my opinion, and lots of people obviously will disagree with me. The more liberal the disagreeing person is, the stronger will be the disagreement. However, IMHO, the best method to control mass killings, not necessarily just shootings, starts at home. Educating children about getting along with others. When it comes to shootings in particular, children should be educated in the use of guns and the safety precautions and attitudes involved at at early age. Guns are nothing more than a tool, like a hammer, or an axe, or a screwdriver, or whatever. Anything can be used as a weapon, not just a gun, and some training is needed when it comes to using any tool. A good mom and dad will teach their children about life, maybe even to fish and hunt, depending upon their family environment, but even urban dwellers can find a way if they try, or care enough. Many of these things are not taught in school, but are necessities of life and survival. I've known urban people who think milk and beef come from a supermarket, and weren't aware that a cow existed until I made them aware of it! I've even worked around and with mentally challenged people who were smarter in some ways than some people who had college degrees. The mental field is very large, and quite challenging to decipher in some people.

If the people, the government, or business people seriously wanted to protect people from mass shootings, they would not set up gun-free zones to attract those perpetrators who have the urge to shoot people. In other words, don't advertise your weakness, or lack of readiness, to the enemy!

In a gun-free zone, a perpetrator knows, with a pretty high degree of certainty, that he/she will have no armed opposition, and since he/she has the gun, he/she will be in control of the event, at least until the law enforcement arrives. The law enforcement usually arrives in time to help mop up the mess and fill out the reports, but seldom in time to prevent the action. The longer the delay of police assistance, the longer the shooter has to continue killing people.

If the area involved has no gun-free signage to inform the perpetrator, the perpetrator is less likely to choose the area for his/her attack, because someone that has been trained may be carrying a weapon to counter his/her attack, which affects the shooters overall confidence. A person with training in weapons handling has a distinct advantage over most mass shooters, who probably have little or no training.

The only sound way to prevent, or at least minimize the event, is to have someone already at the scene who is armed, trained, and ready to take out the perpetrator before he/she has time to get started with the shooting spree. This person could be a law enforcement officer, on or off duty, but if so, he/she should not be in uniform because that makes him/her an obvious target for the shooter that the shooter can make his/her first kill, thus eliminating his/her armed opposition. The guard should be inconspicuous in order to have maximum advantage during the situation. Armed concealed carry persons are also quite useful at such an event, because a shooter doesn't know they are there until it is too late for him to react to them. These people are trained in how to handle a weapon as well as good safety procedures, so they are able to save lives while the police are still enroute. We need to take advantage of everything available to us in such a situation.

Have a great day.
An interesting write up. You made a number of reas... (show quote)


I think that the incidence of “mental illness” has been relatively constant over time. What is distinctively different is the destruction of our civil society. Say what you will about values, there used to be a generally agreed upon standard for public behavior which relegated even the outliers of society to levels of behavior that did not include murdering large numbers of their fellow citizens. A generation after the “If it feels good, do it” decade, that standard no longer applies. Trying to invest our mental health in the Administrative State would be the final nail in the coffin of the civil society. You will never pass enough laws to replace what families used to provide, until the feds destroyed them. There is one well known constant in this debate, mass shooters are fundamentally cowards and will not be so willing to murder innocents if they’re protected. If school access is strictly controlled and every open entrance staffed with an armed guard, the vast majority of these killings will stop. This, of course, is only a band aid.......what is really required is a return to moral virtue, and that can only be provided by intact families not subject to political manipulation by their so-called “leaders”.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 08:41:11   #
Nuclearian Loc: I live in a Fascist, Liberal State
 
Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

No. Having an armed presence in place to take the MFer out is the solution. GUN FREE zones, are TARGET zones.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 08:43:52   #
Radiance3
 
Doc110 wrote:
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

Bill Gardner
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/can-mental-health-policy-solve-the-problem-of-mass-shootings/

Some people argue that mass shootings in America result from mental health problem and require mental health policy solutions.

Can this work?

Let’s think through the possible mental health policies for preventing mass shootings.

I see three:

We could reduce the social determinants of mental illness to lower the population prevalence of mental disorders,
2) We could increase the availability of treatments for mental illnesses, and 3) We could attempt to identify the specific individuals likely to kill and get
them into treatment.

1. Reduce the population prevalence of mental illness.

Mental illness is associated with social adversity.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09540261.2014.928270

The causality runs both ways:

Getting ill will hammer your life and, conversely, falling down the social gradient substantially increases your risk of getting ill.

Providing more and better jobs and improving the social safety net would raise the well-being of Americans and, plausibly, reduce the population prevalence of mental and substance abuse disorders.

However, the causal association between mental illness and mass killing is weak.

12/12/2914 Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242


Few mentally ill people ever kill anyone.

A mentally ill person is, at worst, only slightly more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Conversely, it is not clear how many mass shooters were mentally ill.

So even a substantial reduction in the prevalence of mental illness would have only a small effect on the number of mass shootings.

2. Increase the availability of mental health treatments.

Let’s stipulate that if you are mentally ill and you are at risk of carrying out a massacre, mental health treatment might help you avoid this tragedy.

Access to mental health treatment could be increased by training more evidence-based mental health providers, insuring the uninsured,.

And requiring that health insurance cover mental health treatment.

Unfortunately, the effect of increased access on mass shootings would be limited, because

a) It’s likely that many potential shooters are not mentally ill;
b) Even with improved access, not all mentally-ill potential killers will seek
treatment;
c) Mental health treatment doesn’t always work.

Policies 1 and 2 are eminently worth pursuing because they would reduce mental illnesses and the suffering they entail.

However, they would be expensive, and few of the politicians who talk about mental health as a response to mass killing support these policies.

In any event, these strategies would have at best small effects on mass murders.

3. Identify likely mass shooters and deliver mental health care to them.

This policy is a non-starter because of the mathematics of prediction. Murderers are too rare in the population.

Any conceivable prediction model will generate overwhelming numbers of false positives.

There is no Minority Report future world.

In summary: America needs better mental health care.

However, the nation is unlikely to make the required effort, and if it did, it wouldn’t have much effect on mass shootings.

I have updated my graphs of mass shootings to include yesterday’s killings in Parkland, FL, but nothing in the overall pattern has changed.

10/12/2017 Mass shootings, technology, and the future
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/mass-shootings-technology-and-the-future/

17 killed in mass shooting at high school in Parkland, Florida
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101

This graph plots the number of deaths in shootings that killed more than four people.


This plot only labels shootings that killed 20 or more, so Parkland with only 17 doesn’t get a label.

It is, oxymoronically, a routine massacre.

As someone noted on Twitter yesterday, it’s a bitter irony that the 1929 Valentine’s Day Massacre involved only seven murders.

The next graph plots the logarithm of the number of days between successive mass shootings against time and adds a smoothed curve.
The declining curve starting in about 2007 indicates that mass shootings are happening increasingly frequently.
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the prob... (show quote)

=======================
One of the solutions is driving away illegal alien drug dealers from our country. Democrats protect them for these are the people committing voters fraud for them. Drug dealers hide in Sanctuary cities protected by democrats.

Another solution is preventing democrat governors for allowing the raising of Marijuana plants to raise money for their states. These marijuana are drugs. Kids take them become ADDICTS and then become social problems. Drug addicts brains are so screwed up, violent, and ultimately all SOCIAL PROBLEMS costing us taxpayers billions of dollars.

One of the causes of OPIOID addictions is the evil drugs that poison them, which ultimately make them sick in pain if they don't take the drugs. Democrats are the proponents of allowing illegal aliens, and raising marijuana plants that drug our kids, making them addicts and then violent. We taxpayers just pay $6 billion to fix this opioid crisis caused by democrats.

Therefore ladies and gentlemen, democrats are the problems of our violent kids. Very low morals, or no morals at all! Democrats also hate Christianity because Christian doctrines are contrary to the democrats' evil system of living commanded by Lucifer!

One of the solutions here is getting rid of them like Pelosi and Schumer starting Nov. 2018 election.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 08:52:11   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Doc110 wrote:
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

Bill Gardner
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/can-mental-health-policy-solve-the-problem-of-mass-shootings/

Some people argue that mass shootings in America result from mental health problem and require mental health policy solutions.

Can this work?

Let’s think through the possible mental health policies for preventing mass shootings.

I see three:

We could reduce the social determinants of mental illness to lower the population prevalence of mental disorders,
2) We could increase the availability of treatments for mental illnesses, and 3) We could attempt to identify the specific individuals likely to kill and get
them into treatment.

1. Reduce the population prevalence of mental illness.

Mental illness is associated with social adversity.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09540261.2014.928270

The causality runs both ways:

Getting ill will hammer your life and, conversely, falling down the social gradient substantially increases your risk of getting ill.

Providing more and better jobs and improving the social safety net would raise the well-being of Americans and, plausibly, reduce the population prevalence of mental and substance abuse disorders.

However, the causal association between mental illness and mass killing is weak.

12/12/2914 Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242


Few mentally ill people ever kill anyone.

A mentally ill person is, at worst, only slightly more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Conversely, it is not clear how many mass shooters were mentally ill.

So even a substantial reduction in the prevalence of mental illness would have only a small effect on the number of mass shootings.

2. Increase the availability of mental health treatments.

Let’s stipulate that if you are mentally ill and you are at risk of carrying out a massacre, mental health treatment might help you avoid this tragedy.

Access to mental health treatment could be increased by training more evidence-based mental health providers, insuring the uninsured,.

And requiring that health insurance cover mental health treatment.

Unfortunately, the effect of increased access on mass shootings would be limited, because

a) It’s likely that many potential shooters are not mentally ill;
b) Even with improved access, not all mentally-ill potential killers will seek
treatment;
c) Mental health treatment doesn’t always work.

Policies 1 and 2 are eminently worth pursuing because they would reduce mental illnesses and the suffering they entail.

However, they would be expensive, and few of the politicians who talk about mental health as a response to mass killing support these policies.

In any event, these strategies would have at best small effects on mass murders.

3. Identify likely mass shooters and deliver mental health care to them.

This policy is a non-starter because of the mathematics of prediction. Murderers are too rare in the population.

Any conceivable prediction model will generate overwhelming numbers of false positives.

There is no Minority Report future world.

In summary: America needs better mental health care.

However, the nation is unlikely to make the required effort, and if it did, it wouldn’t have much effect on mass shootings.

I have updated my graphs of mass shootings to include yesterday’s killings in Parkland, FL, but nothing in the overall pattern has changed.

10/12/2017 Mass shootings, technology, and the future
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/mass-shootings-technology-and-the-future/

17 killed in mass shooting at high school in Parkland, Florida
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101

This graph plots the number of deaths in shootings that killed more than four people.


This plot only labels shootings that killed 20 or more, so Parkland with only 17 doesn’t get a label.

It is, oxymoronically, a routine massacre.

As someone noted on Twitter yesterday, it’s a bitter irony that the 1929 Valentine’s Day Massacre involved only seven murders.

The next graph plots the logarithm of the number of days between successive mass shootings against time and adds a smoothed curve.
The declining curve starting in about 2007 indicates that mass shootings are happening increasingly frequently.
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the prob... (show quote)


What if the "mental Health Policy" has caused the mass shootings?
Drugs prescribed, then coming off of those drugs.
Any one have a list of the drugs prescribed?

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2018 08:56:10   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
rebob14 wrote:
I think that the incidence of “mental illness” has been relatively constant over time. What is distinctively different is the destruction of our civil society. Say what you will about values, there used to be a generally agreed upon standard for public behavior which relegated even the outliers of society to levels of behavior that did not include murdering large numbers of their fellow citizens. A generation after the “If it feels good, do it” decade, that standard no longer applies. Trying to invest our mental health in the Administrative State would be the final nail in the coffin of the civil society. You will never pass enough laws to replace what families used to provide, until the feds destroyed them. There is one well known constant in this debate, mass shooters are fundamentally cowards and will not be so willing to murder innocents if they’re protected. If school access is strictly controlled and every open entrance staffed with an armed guard, the vast majority of these killings will stop. This, of course, is only a band aid.......what is really required is a return to moral virtue, and that can only be provided by intact families not subject to political manipulation by their so-called “leaders”.
I think that the incidence of “mental illness” has... (show quote)


"what is really required is a return to moral virtue, and that can only be provided by intact families not subject to political manipulation by their so-called “leaders”."- rebob

The Boob Toob and Holliwierd promotes degeneracy, and moral decay.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 11:07:18   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Doc110 wrote:
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the problem of mass shootings?

Bill Gardner
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/can-mental-health-policy-solve-the-problem-of-mass-shootings/

Some people argue that mass shootings in America result from mental health problem and require mental health policy solutions.

Can this work?

Let’s think through the possible mental health policies for preventing mass shootings.

I see three:

We could reduce the social determinants of mental illness to lower the population prevalence of mental disorders,
2) We could increase the availability of treatments for mental illnesses, and 3) We could attempt to identify the specific individuals likely to kill and get
them into treatment.

1. Reduce the population prevalence of mental illness.

Mental illness is associated with social adversity.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09540261.2014.928270

The causality runs both ways:

Getting ill will hammer your life and, conversely, falling down the social gradient substantially increases your risk of getting ill.

Providing more and better jobs and improving the social safety net would raise the well-being of Americans and, plausibly, reduce the population prevalence of mental and substance abuse disorders.

However, the causal association between mental illness and mass killing is weak.

12/12/2914 Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302242


Few mentally ill people ever kill anyone.

A mentally ill person is, at worst, only slightly more likely to be violent than anyone else.

Conversely, it is not clear how many mass shooters were mentally ill.

So even a substantial reduction in the prevalence of mental illness would have only a small effect on the number of mass shootings.

2. Increase the availability of mental health treatments.

Let’s stipulate that if you are mentally ill and you are at risk of carrying out a massacre, mental health treatment might help you avoid this tragedy.

Access to mental health treatment could be increased by training more evidence-based mental health providers, insuring the uninsured,.

And requiring that health insurance cover mental health treatment.

Unfortunately, the effect of increased access on mass shootings would be limited, because

a) It’s likely that many potential shooters are not mentally ill;
b) Even with improved access, not all mentally-ill potential killers will seek
treatment;
c) Mental health treatment doesn’t always work.

Policies 1 and 2 are eminently worth pursuing because they would reduce mental illnesses and the suffering they entail.

However, they would be expensive, and few of the politicians who talk about mental health as a response to mass killing support these policies.

In any event, these strategies would have at best small effects on mass murders.

3. Identify likely mass shooters and deliver mental health care to them.

This policy is a non-starter because of the mathematics of prediction. Murderers are too rare in the population.

Any conceivable prediction model will generate overwhelming numbers of false positives.

There is no Minority Report future world.

In summary: America needs better mental health care.

However, the nation is unlikely to make the required effort, and if it did, it wouldn’t have much effect on mass shootings.

I have updated my graphs of mass shootings to include yesterday’s killings in Parkland, FL, but nothing in the overall pattern has changed.

10/12/2017 Mass shootings, technology, and the future
https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/mass-shootings-technology-and-the-future/

17 killed in mass shooting at high school in Parkland, Florida
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-respond-shooting-parkland-florida-high-school-n848101

This graph plots the number of deaths in shootings that killed more than four people.


This plot only labels shootings that killed 20 or more, so Parkland with only 17 doesn’t get a label.

It is, oxymoronically, a routine massacre.

As someone noted on Twitter yesterday, it’s a bitter irony that the 1929 Valentine’s Day Massacre involved only seven murders.

The next graph plots the logarithm of the number of days between successive mass shootings against time and adds a smoothed curve.
The declining curve starting in about 2007 indicates that mass shootings are happening increasingly frequently.
02/15/2018 Can mental health policy solve the prob... (show quote)


HERE IS A THOUGHT!!!
In the good old days; few of our kids (if any) were put on Big Pharma/prescription drugs.
Something wrong here?
Anyone want to use logic?

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 11:23:24   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
eagleye13,

Unfortunately the good old days are long gone,

Doesn't work, wishful thinking.

The genie is out of the bottle . . .

Logically thinking,

eagleye13 wrote:
HERE IS A THOUGHT!!!
In the good old days; few of our kids (if any) were put on Big Pharma/prescription drugs.
Something wrong here?
Anyone want to use logic?

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 11:24:25   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
eagleye13,

Unfortunately the good old days are long gone,

Doesn't work, wishful thinking.

The genie is out of the bottle . . .

Logically thinking . . .

eagleye13 wrote:
HERE IS A THOUGHT!!!
In the good old days; few of our kids (if any) were put on Big Pharma/prescription drugs.
Something wrong here?
Anyone want to use logic?

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2018 11:47:59   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
Doc110 wrote:
eagleye13,

Unfortunately the good old days are long gone,

Doesn't work, wishful thinking.

The genie is out of the bottle . . .

Logically thinking . . .


The point is; we have the results of what medicating our kids has accomplished.
Mass murderers being one of them.

Reply
Feb 17, 2018 17:53:57   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
eagleye13,

And logic says what ? eagleye13, ! ! !

Sorry but, I'm going to be putting you on the spot here. . . and right now . . . It's not personal.

And this is directed at the 99 % of readers on the OPP Forum and this OPP Thread.


I speak now as a American Catholic Christian.

Who obey's God's commandment's, values and belief's of His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that guides all our troubled Soul's.

"Thou shall Not Kill," and God never said, . . . do not protect yourself or, . . . do not defend yourself.

Even in Jesus's day the world was a dangerous place . . .

With modern technology weapon's, killing is much easer, and not as personal. Imagine killing a spear, knife, shield, an arrow . . . or rock.


eagleye13, But something has to stop, with all these senseless, American "M U R D E R' S." . . . (See Below Graphs below)

Just a small "Hint," try and . . . Connect All The Dot's. . . . What do they the dot's all have in common ? . . . Think about it ?

These are all random senseless mass shootings that involves. e.g. Murders, Deaths, Injuries, Grief, Terror, and Fear. . .

For all the love-ones of families, friends, church members, communities, teachers, police and parents. etc.

These people lives will never return, their lives are gone, they've vanished, their wiped off the planet and are senselessly wasted.


eagleye13, just wait till it happens to you're immediate family friends and local communities. You may think differently . . . and grieve differently.

Everyone is involved and all American's are all saying, . . . "COULD" I Have Done Something More. . . .

Something different to stop the shooting and killing of innocent lives and deaths. . . . of their loved ones ?


I can defiantly say "YES," All of "AMERICA" COULD have done SOMETHING MORE.

This was no pure accident, this was premeditated and calculated, . . . M U R D E R ! ! !

Yes, the individual could have been "out of his mind," with mental illness, drugs, alcohol, medication.

But he had premeditated "M U R D E R" on his crazed thinking mind. To take out as many people as he could and invariably take his own life . . .


Where where were all the safety mechanism's to stop and prevent these killings ?

You just have to ask why ? And why did't he just commit suicide ? That begs to ask the next question ?

It's probably the "KILLERS," and his 10 seconds of worldly "F A M E" and "Copy Cat" "LOGIC," by saying I fix and stop all these bastard people, with his evil and demented warped irrational thinking . . . mind. I'LL SHOW THEM . . .


Could we American's have prevented this mass Shooting and Murder's, or just maybe perhap's the next mass shooting, . . . By getting involved and do the right thing. . . . And not put our heads in the sand, and ignoring the obvious . . . American Denial of this growing crisis . . . and youth epidemic . . .


eagleye13, Or we could just "Do Nothing" ? . . . And only say, I wish and pray for the "Day's of Yesteryear." e.g. The Good Old days. . . .

You struck a moral nerve, with your helpless, statement and comment.

Again eagleye13, I'm not picking on you, but your are the impetus to why I am responding with my soul on this very issue, and has sparked a deep feeling or soul searching remorse, as with all the senseless little children that were killed at Newtown Connecticut.

This is the same situation and circumstances.


eagleye13, you said "Here is an after thought !!!

In the good old days; few of our kids (if any) were put on Big Pharma/prescription drugs. . . . Something wrong here?

Anyone want to use logic?


How can we say and use logic?

Everything about this Mass Shooting and Killing was "Illogical," and every Past, Present Day and Future Mass Shooting Killing is Illogical.


One, need to only look at the past history.

As to see how America has gotten this place in our society. e.g. With this Continued Senseless Innocent Mass Killings, Murders and Human suffering.


It is none other than Satan's and our demon's the plague our American society ills.

This name is just putting a [b]"Metaphor" "Satan - Demon," for the actual root causes and reason for why we have Mass Shootings and Killings in America and around the world.

Do we American, e.g. All have "Satan's" - "Demon's", with-in us ? Look into your depth's of your hearts, do some, soul searching ?

The religious explanation is:

"Original Sin," From Adam and Eve days, "eating of the forbidden fruit ?" "The killing of Able by Cain because of envy, jealously the lack of kindness, compassion and love in our hearts, our minds and our very soul's."

This begs to ask another question ? . . . Am I my Brother's, Sister's, Child's Keeper ?

You may not like the Question's. And you may not like the Answer's, But we Americans can't still be avoiding the present day Reality !

The evil with-in all of us, and potential in every "Man, Woman and Child, to Murder ?


History tells us, the end of a way of life of the Native American Indian was the "Ghost Dancing," Their praying and hope for the "Spirit World" and their Ancestor's to restore balance, in an ever changing society and changing way of life their moral compass.

This is America's "Ghost Dance". America's historical age of medicated pill popping, drug society and our wild liberated weapon's and gun toting crazed youth.

That has fallen and enamored alcohol, drugs, rap, rock'n roll and sex culture. America is now at this same cliff the same precipice, as was Native American Indian society not only 100 years ago.


a. The left-wing Democrats, want to go after spur the 2nd amendment rights of weapons ownership. A typical knee jerk reaction.
b. The right-wing, Libertarians-Independants, want to arm everyone. Not a bad idea, but I'd hate to see wacko left wing types have a weapon.
c. The center, Conservatives, Just want the status Quo, and continue with the same bandaid narrative as the killing body count continues.
d. It all begins with the family. Fed-up Grandma Thwarts Another Deadly School Shooting
https://conservativetribune.com/grandma-thwarts-school-shooting/

e. Then it is going to be couple of community involvement issue's.

1. Church and social organizations, social media to inform parents, teachers and leaders.

2. This may be controversial. Obviously these kids and young adults have fallen through the social-norm cracks, with doctors, psychiatrists,
clinical therapist's councilors, family and friends.

3. There's is no local think-group, half-way detention center or living community center facility to reeducate their brains. Or like a Military boot
camp. They either succeed of they go into a mental holding facility like back in the 60's before they let out the crazy's, on self medications.
And that's what we are seeing on the America's streets today.

a. Adults, Young Adults and Kids, on alcohol, street drugs, Pot that is 10x stronger than in the 60's, Crack, Speed, LSD, Mushrooms etc.

b. Adults, Young Adults and Kids, on 185 different psychotropic and mining with street drugs and alcohol.

c. A mandatory letter to law enforcement informing these individuals, e.g. like a sex registered offender. The community would be safer.

d. For the habitual and non compliant individuals, Well it's incaorssion jail time, or a Mental health facility.

So eagleye13,

The logical question begs to be answered . . . COULD I OR YOU, HAVE DONE SOMETHING MORE ?

As an American, as an Catholic Christian, Am I my Brother's, Sister's, Child's Keeper ?

Again please do not take this personally, you were the just the causation to address another Mass Shooting murder . . .

Am I my Brother's, Sister's, Child's Keeper ? How can we say we Americans are using logic ?


Where is the American Moral Compass ?

What do they the dot's all have in common ? . . . Think about it ?


eagleye13 wrote:


The point is; we have the results of what medicating our kids has accomplished.

Mass murderers being one of them.











Reply
Feb 18, 2018 06:28:10   #
Dr. Evil Loc: In Your Face
 
As far as I'm concerned, the liberal/progressive ideology is a driving force behind many social problems that exist. People who believe in God generally have a fear of the consequences of their actions, and regardless of their thoughts, predominantly don't cross the line. Sadly there is no line anymore.

Reply
Feb 18, 2018 08:53:15   #
SilentGeneration Loc: Michigan
 
Abel wrote:
An interesting write up. You made a number of reasonable statements and the charts bear you out somewhat. Good job.

I have my own opinions concerning mass shootings and trying to control them. First of all, I believe that anyone wanting to kill someone is usually caused by one person pissing off another, for whatever reason. Some people are a little more prone to violence than others, and this could be a mental problem, but a lot of people fit this profile and most learn to control their urges, depending a lot on how they were raised. If enough persons piss off some particular person to the point of a mass shooting, it was a probably a festering problem that just built up until the person finally got fed up and took the frustration out on a group. The bigger group shootings are probably done by copycat show-boaters trying to make a headline or two. Some may even be the result of terrorism induced by a gang of hoods or a fanatical religious group, which could have been from a lack of good parenting or getting a proper education. Stopping this kind of thing is nearly impossible in a free country.

Mental illness is a matter of not conforming to a norm, whatever that norm is, and it varies according to who you ask. I have a problem with the question of just whom is determining what the norm is. People who kill people do have some degree of mental illness, but to what degree? Some people have the urge to kill but learned to control it, up until something happens to trigger it, which may never occur during the persons lifetime. Of course, drugs could also be an issue, which would probably trace back to lack of good parenting and/or education at an early age.

Now, this is just my opinion, and lots of people obviously will disagree with me. The more liberal the disagreeing person is, the stronger will be the disagreement. However, IMHO, the best method to control mass killings, not necessarily just shootings, starts at home. Educating children about getting along with others. When it comes to shootings in particular, children should be educated in the use of guns and the safety precautions and attitudes involved at at early age. Guns are nothing more than a tool, like a hammer, or an axe, or a screwdriver, or whatever. Anything can be used as a weapon, not just a gun, and some training is needed when it comes to using any tool. A good mom and dad will teach their children about life, maybe even to fish and hunt, depending upon their family environment, but even urban dwellers can find a way if they try, or care enough. Many of these things are not taught in school, but are necessities of life and survival. I've known urban people who think milk and beef come from a supermarket, and weren't aware that a cow existed until I made them aware of it! I've even worked around and with mentally challenged people who were smarter in some ways than some people who had college degrees. The mental field is very large, and quite challenging to decipher in some people.

If the people, the government, or business people seriously wanted to protect people from mass shootings, they would not set up gun-free zones to attract those perpetrators who have the urge to shoot people. In other words, don't advertise your weakness, or lack of readiness, to the enemy!

In a gun-free zone, a perpetrator knows, with a pretty high degree of certainty, that he/she will have no armed opposition, and since he/she has the gun, he/she will be in control of the event, at least until the law enforcement arrives. The law enforcement usually arrives in time to help mop up the mess and fill out the reports, but seldom in time to prevent the action. The longer the delay of police assistance, the longer the shooter has to continue killing people.

If the area involved has no gun-free signage to inform the perpetrator, the perpetrator is less likely to choose the area for his/her attack, because someone that has been trained may be carrying a weapon to counter his/her attack, which affects the shooters overall confidence. A person with training in weapons handling has a distinct advantage over most mass shooters, who probably have little or no training.

The only sound way to prevent, or at least minimize the event, is to have someone already at the scene who is armed, trained, and ready to take out the perpetrator before he/she has time to get started with the shooting spree. This person could be a law enforcement officer, on or off duty, but if so, he/she should not be in uniform because that makes him/her an obvious target for the shooter that the shooter can make his/her first kill, thus eliminating his/her armed opposition. The guard should be inconspicuous in order to have maximum advantage during the situation. Armed concealed carry persons are also quite useful at such an event, because a shooter doesn't know they are there until it is too late for him to react to them. These people are trained in how to handle a weapon as well as good safety procedures, so they are able to save lives while the police are still enroute. We need to take advantage of everything available to us in such a situation.

Have a great day.
An interesting write up. You made a number of reas... (show quote)


I totally agree with you. I'd add armed people outside the schools during drop off and pick up times and signage indicating schools are not gun free zones.

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.