Sociopathy, bullies, guns, media, ignorance - Not mental illness

[Mathgician]

I see no empirical reason to believe that a psych exam would be reliable enough to stop a person like him from getting a gun legally. I would need to hear from a trained psychologist before I even accept this as a legitimate concept, much less a solution. Why are you so quick to accept something you don't even know will work?

The Ukraine does not exactly have a stunning reputation of peace, either, you know.

- Warren

Your last statement is something called a generalization.

 

[Mathgician]

What's common sense, Mathgician? Employing a hundred million people to snoop on everyone who's ever been mentally ill? Determining someone's privilege to buy a gun with a fifteen minute psychological screening?

And... no. I'm an electrical engineer with a graduate degree from one of the most prestigious universities on the planet.

- Warren

And your last statement says what? I go to a community college and I can't have a good opinion or commonsense?

 

[chroot]

Your last statement is something called a generalization.

So you have no rebuttal?

- Warren

 

[chroot]

And your last statement says what? I go to a community college an I can't have a good opinion?

Hey, you're the one that brought up education, kiddo.

- Warren

 

[Mathgician]

What's common sense, Mathgician? Employing a hundred million people to snoop on everyone who's ever been mentally ill? Determining someone's privilege to buy a gun with a fifteen minute psychological screening?

And... no. I'm an electrical engineer with a graduate degree from one of the most prestigious universities on the planet.

- Warren

So far, you have been saying things I have not expressed as part of my reasoning, you are assuming that is part of my reasoning.

 

[chroot]

So far, you have been sayings thing I have not expressed as part of my reasoning, but you are asuming that I think that.

Your reasoning was this: Well, there is not a single place to blame everything, but if there is a mentally not sound individuals easily having access to weapons, there is something wrong. There are many people in this world that should be under supervision and should be under restriction for the safety of society.

In other words, you propose that we supervise all of the world's mentally unsound people to make sure they don't have or get weapons. Millions and millions and millions of them...

- Warren

 

[Mathgician]

Your reasoning was this: Well, there is not a single place to blame everything, but if there is a mentally not sound individuals easily having access to weapons, there is something wrong. There are many people in this world that should be under supervision and should be under restriction for the safety of society.

In other words, you propose that we supervise all of the world's mentally unsound people to make sure they don't have or get weapons. Millions and millions and millions of them...

- Warren

again, assuming. And more generalizations

 

[chroot]

again, assuming. Maybe they should then?

What am I assuming? I'm reading your statements, and responding to them directly. Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

1) There are tens of millions of 'mentally unsound' people in the world.

2) Your statement did not make any distinction among various categories of mentally unsound people.

3) Your statement did not provide any criteria upon which one could make such a distinction.

4) Your statement therefore implied that all mentally unsound people should be supervised and not be permitted to have weapons.

5) The economic consequences of employing a labor force large enough to adequately supervise tens of millions of mentally unsound people would be disastrous.

6) There is no historical precedent that indicates it would even work.

- Warren

 

[Mathgician]

What am I assuming? I'm reading your statements, and responding to them directly. Which of the following statements do you disagree with?

1) There are tens of millions of 'mentally unsound' people in the world.

2) Your statement did not make any distinction among various categories of mentally unsound people.

3) Your statement did not provide any criteria upon which one could make such a distinction.

4) Your statement therefore implied that all mentally unsound people should be supervised and not be permitted to have weapons.

5) The economic consequences of employing a labor force large enough to adequately supervise tens of millions of mentally unsound people would be disastrous.

- Warren

I said Cho got a gun. Nuff said.

 

[Integral]

Mathgician;

Where are you coming from with this? Where are your going? Could you please be a bit more specific in what Chroot said that is so illogical?

I understand exactly what he is saying and believe that the lack of community responsibility is indeed the root of a lot of our problems. Many of us are more familiar with the thoughts and ideas of total strangers who may live anywhere else in the world then we are with our next door neighbor. This seems wrong.

 

[chroot]

I said Cho got a gun. Nuff said.

That's not at all what you said. If you're going to continue in this discussion, please find the intellectual integrity to admit when someone else has made a valid point against you.

- Warren

 

[Mathgician]

Mathgician;

Where are you coming from with this? Where are your going? Could you please be a bit more specific in what Chroot said that is so illogical?

I understand exactly what he is saying and believe that the lack of community responsibility is indeed the root of a lot of our problems. Many of us are more familiar with the thoughts and ideas of total strangers who may live anywhere else in the world then we are with our next door neighbor. This seems wrong.

Do you believe after reading all this, this is a matter of logic?

 

[Mathgician]

That's not at all what you said. If you're going to continue in this discussion, please find the intellectual integrity to admit when someone else has made a valid point against you.

- Warren

And your valid points are saying things that I have not said? And your points are valid to everyone including me or just to you?

 

[chroot]

Many of us are more familiar with the thoughts and ideas of total strangers who may live anywhere else in the world then we are with our next door neighbor. This seems wrong.

To be fair, I would so much prefer it if PF were pub down the street rather than simply a website!

- Warren

 

[chroot]

And your valid points are saying things that I have not said? And your points are valid to everyone including me or just to you?

I broke your argument and my response to it down to six specific points, and asked you which you disagreed with. Your response was unrelated. You seem to have some kind of attitude towards me, but I'm only trying to coax you into some kind of meaningful debate.

- Warren

 

[Mathgician]

I broke your argument and my response to it down to six specific points, and asked you which you disagreed with. Your response was unrelated. You seem to have some kind of attitude towards me, but I'm only trying to coax you into some kind of meaningful debate.

- Warren

No attitude, just a very stubborn personality and I don't agree with what you have said so far. I like my beliefs, don't you? I also wish there was a PF pub, I think our discussion would be more realistic than posting stuff here like maniacs PS. I didn't ask you to break my argument down, but that is fine. You make it seem like its a big argument, all I can say is, its a simple opinion from a person don't know much, I am an electrical engineer myself, I don't go to a prestigious school(too expensive). I think you are making it serious than it is by "breaking it down".

 

[Mathgician]

What school do you go to Chroot? And what makes it so prestigious of this planet? Is it the 200 years old archetecture or the types of people that pays many times as much more money than students that go to a community college?

 

[chroot]

I think you are making it serious than it is by "breaking it down".

Perhaps... I just wish there were some kind of clear, obvious, easy-to-implement solution to the school-shooting problem. Unfortunately, I don't think such a solution exists, so I end up railing against any suggestions that seem to be poorly-analyzed panacea. I believe the suggestion to 'supervise them all' is such a poorly-analyzed panacea.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

What school do you go to Chroot? And what makes it so prestigious?

Stanford. The faculty. :tongue: (but let's try to stay on-topic)

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Is it the 200 years old archetecture or the types of people that pays many times as much more money than students that go to a community college?

False dichotomy. If you really think Stanford and a community college only differ in architecture and price, I fear for your sanity. Perhaps that question should be on the psych exam to see if people should be permitted to buy a gun.

- Warren

 

[Huckleberry]

Cho got the guns legally, that tells you that either the process of getting a gun is not regulated or someone did something illegal. Then the consequences are the loss of 32 students that didn't deserve what they got. Well, there is not a single place to blame everything, but if there is a mentally not sound individuals easily having access to weapons, there is something wrong. There are many people in this world that should be under supervision and should be under restriction for the safety of society.

The OP of this thread is not about Cho, nor is it about guns. It is not even certain from this thread that Cho's illness is a result of his childhood environment, though I believe that may be the case. His example is just one outcome of many forms of violence and self destructive behavior that can develop from experiences in childhood.

I do not believe that waiting for people to develop a mental illness and then proposing invading their rights for the safety of society is the ideal solution. If something can be done to prevent the mental illness, or at least catch it early and prevent it from progressing, this would be a better solution.

 

[Mathgician]

Stanford. The faculty. :tongue: (but let's try to stay on-topic)

- Warren

Wow, I'm arguing against a Standford kid, I wonder if I'm getting any smarter?

 

[chroot]

I do not believe that waiting for people to develop a mental illness and then proposing the invading their rights for the safety of society is the ideal solution. If something can be done to prevent the mental illness, or at least catch it early and prevent it from progressing, this would be a better solution.

Excellent point, well-stated.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Wow, I'm arguing against a Standford kid, I wonder if I'm getting any smarter?

No more of this off-topic pissing contest stuff in this thread, okay? I didn't start it, nor will I participate in it. If you'd like to discuss it, PM me.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

I just want to say one thing. Pilots are required to get a medical every year.

Why is it that someone can buy a gun, and not have any evaluation later on. Sure, the guy might be normal today, but in ten years he might go crazy and be heavily armed.

I don't think that its unreasonable to have some form of a check system done by a medical doctor at least once a year that shows the guy is sane.

Im not going to pretend that this would stop guys like Cho, BUTT it might stop a few people who show obvious signs of nuttyness, which is better than stopping none.

They way it is right now, I see there being far too few prevention methods on obtaining weapons. I don't blame weapons and I think there perfectly safe for society, but the fact that you can walk into a store and walk out the same day with a weapon is much too simple a procedure.

Unless you want to go on a shooting rampage, there's no reason why you can't wait a week, a month or two and then get your weapon of choice.

 

[chroot]

Why is it that someone can buy a gun, and not have any evaluation later on. Sure, the guy might be normal today, but in ten years he might go crazy and be heavily armed.

Not a bad idea at all. But there's a fundamental difference: a pilot's license is non-transferrable, yet anyone can sell a gun to anyone else (in the same state, at least).

By the way, US law already includes clauses that prevent "those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution" from obtaining guns. It just happens that this law is incredibly difficult to actually enforce, and not everyone who goes on a killing spree has actually been adjudicated mentally defective.

Im not going to pretend that this would stop guys like Cho, BUTT it might stop a few people who show obvious signs of nuttyness, which is better than stopping none.

But what about knives? Bows and arrows? Glass bottles full of gasoline? Diesel fuel and fertilizer? Pipe bombs? Rat poison? There are so many ways to kill people that they might just chose a more easily obtainable weapon.

I don't really believe that access to weaponry is the problem. I believe it's the intent to kill people that needs to be addressed.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

I agree, BUT then the media won't give responsible gun owners unfair crap all the time. Then if people want to scape goat something, they can scapegoat that the gasoline did it, or it was the kinves ban all knives, or ban rat poison!

I agree with you on intent as well, everyone is RESPONSBILE for his/her actions.

 

[chroot]

I agree, BUT then the media won't give responsible gun owners unfair crap all the time. Then if people want to scape goat something, they can scapegoat that the gasoline did it, or it was the kinves ban all knives, or ban rat poison!

I agree that scapegoating is indeed a big waste of everyone's time. Canadians have more guns per capita than the US, IIRC, yet no one thinks Canada's got a "gun problem."

- Warren

 

[Mathgician]

I agree that scapegoating is indeed a big waste of everyone's time. Canadians have more guns per capita than the US, IIRC, yet no one thinks Canada's got a "gun problem."

- Warren

another generalization... I'll stop now.

 

[Huckleberry]

Although criticized as unscientific and relevant primarily to the era and culture in which they were conceived, these theories introduced the importance of thinking developmentally, that is, of considering the ever-changing physical and psychological capacities and tasks faced by people as they age. They emphasized the concept of“maturation” and moving through the stages of life, adapting to changing physical capacities and new psychological and social challenges. And they described mental health problems associated with failure to achieve milestones and objectives in their developmental schemes.

In contrast(to mentally healthy children), children who lack such skills tend to be rejected by other children. Commonly, they are withdrawn, do not listen well, and offer few if any reasons for their wishes; they rarely praise others and find it difficult to join in cooperative activities (Dodge, 1983). They often exhibit features of oppositional defiant or conduct disorder, such as regular fighting, dominating and pushing others around, or being spiteful (Dodge et al., 1990). Social skills improve with opportunities to mix with others (Bridgeman, 1981). In recent years, knowledge of the importance of children’s acquisition of social skills has led to the development and integration of social skills training components into a number of successful therapeutic interventions.

Recent research has established that successful use of language and communication is a cornerstone of childhood mental health.

This site has interesting information about what seems to be a new area of study, mental illness developed in childhood. It has very little empirical data.http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec3.html#treatment

I know I would find it extremely frustrating if I was beaten and robbed and had to sit next to guy who did it at lunch while he and his friends teased me. This sort of behavior does happen to young children at schools. Children have a less formed sense of what is 'normal' and if this type of behavior is not stopped the child could percievably accept this as a normal aspect of life.

Having said that, I believe that the family relationship is a far more important environmental influence on a childs health. If a child has a stable home with caring parents then, under normal circumstances, they should have developed the social skills they need to deal with a bully. A child who does not learn the social skills from home will have a much tougher time dealing with their problems outside the home.

Perhaps the change in family structure over the last 30 or 40 years has led to many of the cases of mental illness that are developed in childhood and that number is compounded generation after generation?

 

[out of whack]

Canadians have more guns per capita than the US, IIRC

Not at all. American households are roughly twice as likely to have firearms as Canadian households. Also, Canadian firearms are predominantly long guns purchased mainly for hunting and target shooting, not so much for self defense. Handguns are controlled and therefore uncommon. You can see a much closer relationship between handgun figures and homicide rates than overall firearms figures when you compare both countries. Here are a couple of reports (a bit old, but trends have not changed much).

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1997/selfdef_rpt_e.asp#2.0%20FIREARM%20OWNERSHIP

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1997/crime-rpt_e.asp

 

[Integral]

What a great thread, welcome to the conflicting issues I deal with.

Rank the following 10 priorities:

1) I don't get sued
2) The duty to warn, if someone expresses violent thoughts toward another I have the duty to find this person and warn him/her
3) The duty to protect the person seeking my services from self harm
4) The absolute sacred obligation to maintain confidentiality which if breached can have small or devastating negative consequences, but also can be life saving.
5) to be an advocate for those who have a stigmatic but biological illness
6) to be ever vigilant re ulterior motives in seeking help, sometimes for legal reasons, for others to maintain an addiction, or just to get probation officer, spouse, parent off his/her case and has no genuine interest in treatment
7) To differentiate the occasional case of someones coping skills being temporarily overloaded, vs more serious longshanding issue
8) To sift through what the patient tells you and what is real, and often not black and white. Sometimes little insight, sometimes denial, confabulation, you name it.
9) Along the lines of 8, to differentiate situations where patient has illness and chooses not to take meds, vs medication failure, vs feigned illness.
10) To forecast disability, danger, etc to a courts satisfaction
Etc, etc.

I'm thinking rocket science is easier. At least they have equations!

The question is, Is psychology really a science yet. Hard data in very difficult to get, analysis of the data is even more difficult. A good psychologist is more of an artist then a scientist. The art would be the art of understanding people, there is no way that this stuff can be taught. You must learn it by doing it and not all people are suited to the job.

Much has been learned, but there is still a lot of mysteries about the human intelligence. It is not clear to me that psychology can ever be a hard science. Before we can judge who is suitable to carry a weapon, psychology will have to become a hard science. Currently we can only absolutely say a person is unsuitable only AFTER they have killed.

Our current laws use a sort of blindfolded shotgun approach. If some doctor somewhere has officially treated someone for certain sorts of disorders they are not supposed to be able to buy a gun... From a store front dealer. If they have a criminal record they are not supposed to be able to buy a gun... From a store front dealer.

Note the anyone who really wants to can get a black market gun.

It again comes back to the idea of the freedom to own a weapon vs the public safety. Many posting here seem to believe that public safety is more important then personal freedoms. I happen to feel otherwise. I am willing to take some risks to maintain personal freedoms. I am more at risk every time I get in car then I ever am from a psychopath with a gun. It is not uncommon for us to accept risks in our daily lives so what is the big deal about this minor risk?

It is my belief that most cops are borderline psychopath so you want ME to TRUST them with the only guns? No way!

 

[Mathgician]

The question is, Is psychology really a science yet. Hard data in very difficult to get, analysis of the data is even more difficult. A good psychologist is more of an artist then a scientist. The art would be the art of understanding people, there is no way that this stuff can be taught. You must learn it by doing it and not all people are suited to the job.

Much has been learned, but there is still a lot of mysteries about the human intelligence. It is not clear to me that psychology can ever be a hard science. Before we can judge who is suitable to carry a weapon, psychology will have to become a hard science. Currently we can only absolutely say a person is unsuitable only AFTER they have killed.

Our current laws use a sort of blindfolded shotgun approach. If some doctor somewhere has officially treated someone for certain sorts of disorders they are not supposed to be able to buy a gun... From a store front dealer. If they have a criminal record they are not supposed to be able to buy a gun... From a store front dealer.

Note the anyone who really wants to can get a black market gun.

It again comes back to the idea of the freedom to own a weapon vs the public safety. Many posting here seem to believe that public safety is more important then personal freedoms. I happen to feel otherwise. I am willing to take some risks to maintain personal freedoms. I am more at risk every time I get in car then I ever am from a psychopath with a gun. It is not uncommon for us to accept risks in our daily lives so what is the big deal about this minor risk?

It is my belief that most cops are borderline psychopath so you want ME to TRUST them with the only guns? No way!

Oh my god, cops are psychopaths And they carry guns around... run... they're going to kill 32 people as a retaliation of being bullied as a kid.

 

[out of whack]

We know that we cannot create a foolproof system. No matter how well you design it, nature compensates by creating greater fools. It must be like that with mass murderers, serial killers and other looney tunes. Millions of people who co-exist and interact all the time will produce individually unpredictable outcomes. But you can predict through educated guesses that on rare occasions, extreme behavior will happen. Shootouts and other insanities happened before so they will happen again. To eliminate them you would have to eliminate people.

 

[Integral]

As to schoolyard bullies, I am a bit appalled at both Russ's and Waren's dismissal of this rite of childhood torture. It leads me to a conclusion which I will not state.

As for myself, I was on the receiving end, so am a bit more sensitive to its effects. Cho was most likely a withdrawn kid (did I hear of some indicators of abuse in his writing?) in Korea even before he was dropped alone (on the school yard at least) into the middle of foreign culture. He looked different, he couldn't speak english... he was picked on.

Now, I was picked on, lots of kids are picked we gritted our teeth and endured another day and have never went postal.

My ex wife immigrated to the US when she was 10yrs old. So have some knowledge of the difficulties child emigrants face. Official study of their native language pretty much ends when they arrive in the US, so they are never taught the full depth of their language, they sort of stagnate at the child level of communication being denied a formal education in the language they think in. Then they must pick up and become proficient in a new language, but due to the language barrier as they are learning they often get poor fundamentals of English. This is a form of communication barrier which must be overcome.

Clearly Cho was unable to deal with these issues.