(October 7, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Linking serial shooters to mental illness is pointing the arrow of inference the wrong way. Perhaps there is something wrong with serial shooters, but you're identifying them from the act of serial shooting, not from their being mentally ill. From the fact that one is a serial killer, one may infer that something is wrong with serial killers. You can't infer the other way around that if someone is mentally ill that they are more likely to become serial killers. That's not a valid inference.
serial killer ------> mentally ill
mentally ill --//--> serial killer
All you're doing by increasing treatment for mental illness is helping people get well, not preventing spree shootings like in Oregon.
I agree for the most part. Mentally ill does not equal mass shooter. The numbers that I've heard are that only 5% or less of the mentally ill are violent. The violent that may become mass shooters has to be a very small percentage of that.
Go back and look at the mass shooting list from page 7. If you look at the shooters history(s), in the majority of the shooters you will find that the mental illness was documented prior to the shooting/act. So, it is not the act itself that identifies them as mentally ill. It is their behavior prior to the act.
If we are increasing identification and effective treatment of the mentally ill, won't we be potentially helping both? We certainly won't be hurting them if the individual is truly mentally ill. I'm not saying and not sure that this will necessarily have any impact on mass shootings. To me, it does seem like a logical place to start. Better gun control laws appears to be the obvious first choice.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
