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

[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.

 

[Integral]

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.

When are you going to contribute something meaningful to this conversation?

 

[Mathgician]

When are you going to contribute something meaningful to this conversation?

As meaningful as cops are borderline psychopaths?

 

[chroot]

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.

If your conclusion is that I was a bully, you're wrong. I read computer books on the bus rides back and forth to school, and was beaten up so frequently that I ended up skipping something like 50 days of school in the eigth grade. Throughout the year, I had two teeth knocked out and three fingers broken. I would have had to repeat the grade, except a new school counselor reviewed my file over the summer. I had 99th percentile standardized test scores, yet was a egregious truant and was failing all my classes. She ended up getting me put into a college prep program at another school, and I completely turned my academics around.

Yet... I've never considered shooting anyone, much less an entire building full of innocent children. That's why I tend to dismiss the "bullies caused it" theory. Such a thought process seems asinine to me.

- Warren

 

[Huckleberry]

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.

This perception is a part of the problem. We consider people like Cho to be fools and looney toons because we are shocked and frightened by their violent actions without understanding what caused them. If we understood better Cho's personal difficulties we might grieve for Cho as much as any of the people that he killed. It seems obvious to me that he blamed society for his inability to communicate. How much responsibility does society actually have for Cho's mental illness? We should take a close look at how much we failed him.

 

[radou]

This perception is a part of the problem. We consider people like Cho to be fools and looney toons because we are shocked and frightened by their violent actions without understanding what caused them. If we understood better Cho's personal difficulties we might grieve for Cho as much as any of the people that he killed. It seems obvious to me that he blamed society for his inability to communicate. How much responsibility does society actually have for Cho's mental illness? We should take a close look at how much we failed him.

Good reasoning, but I'm afraid that intelligent/effective solutions, if such exist at all, cost too much money to be "put in buisness".

 

[Astronuc]

a new school counselor reviewed my file over the summer. I had 99th percentile standardized test scores, yet was an egregious truant and was failing all my classes. She ended up getting me put into a college prep program at another school, and I completely turned my academics around.

But what if the new counselor hadn't been there? The outcome might have been very different.

It seems that Cho did not have the benefit of someone who could stand up for or support him. Rather, he became isolated. I grieve for his parents, who have lost a son and who have to live with what he has done, but at the same time, I wonder why they didn't notice something was wrong. They made a statement that they never would have believed that Cho was capable of something so violent. I wonder how many families exist in which there is such a distance between parents and a child.

Huckleberry makes some good points and asks pertinent questions that need to be considered.

We can make a case of self-responsibility, and we expect adults to be more or less self-sufficient and responsible. In reality, some members of society have some difficult or in some cases a lot of difficulty being self-sufficient and responsible. How do we as a society deal with that?

With regard to personal freedom vs public safety - consider that public safety comes down to personal safety. The 32 people killed at VT were 32 individuals, and I am sure they and their families would have never suspected that their lives were in potential danger. Of course not, but how would they? The expectation of most persons is that they are safe out there in the world, i.e. the risk to themselves or loved ones (of injury or death) is small, otherwise why go out?

 

[blogger1]

... I grieve for his parents, who have lost a son and who have to live with what he has done, but at the same time, I wonder why they didn't notice something was wrong. They made a statement that they never would have believed that Cho was capable of something so violent. I wonder how many families exist in which there is such a distance between parents and a child...

I think he just didn't want to mess things up more. They'll be sad.
If they knew in advance something would happen, that wouldn't be called enexpected.
There are people also who never actually pay attention to their relatives, for example

 

[Astronuc]

He was not diagnosed with any mental illness at the time he bought the weapons, nor was he on any kind of medication or treatment program.

Apparently he was found to have mental illness and to be a danger to himself.

U.S. Law Made Killer Ineligible to Buy Gun
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.

A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.

The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”

Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.

Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”

 

[out of whack]

This perception is a part of the problem. We consider people like Cho to be fools and looney toons because we are shocked and frightened by their violent actions without understanding what caused them. If we understood better Cho's personal difficulties we might grieve for Cho as much as any of the people that he killed.

Unfortunately we may be able to understand in hindsight what motivated one mass murderer, or we may be able to make believe that we understand it, again in hindsight, and feel a little bit better about the events. But we still cannot predict the next one because not every bomb is triggered by the same things. The next mass murderer will also act foolishly and go looney (excuse the technical terminology) for his own reasons. After the fact we will also try to analyze this person's motivations in hindsight.

It seems obvious to me that he blamed society for his inability to communicate. How much responsibility does society actually have for Cho's mental illness? We should take a close look at how much we failed him.

This is the same problem as how to determine who can own firearms. We don't have the means to know who needs psychological attention any more than we have the means to know who should be denied a firearm. And we don't have the means to provide the help to all these potential shooters who may or may not be an actual danger.

About bullying, it may be a strong factor, I don't know if there are stats on the number of mass killers among the bullies and the bullied. Regardless, how would you make all mean school kids nice to the nerdy? For centuries our predominantly Christian population has been subjected to sermons about being kind to your fellow man, yet bullies continue to abound. Parents and children know the rule, but putting it into practice seems beyond reach.

 

[Huckleberry]

Unfortunately we may be able to understand in hindsight what motivated one mass murderer, or we may be able to make believe that we understand it, again in hindsight, and feel a little bit better about the events. But we still cannot predict the next one because not every bomb is triggered by the same things. The next mass murderer will also act foolishly and go looney (excuse the technical terminology) for his own reasons. After the fact we will also try to analyze this person's motivations in hindsight.

I do not consider human psychology to be make believe. The causes of mental illness are very real, just difficult to quantify. With more study in this field I see no reason to believe that we can't learn how to disarm these patterns of mental illness before it results in violence. In your scenario that would be similar to disarming the bomb by never creating it. If society stigmatizes those with metal illnesses as foolish and looney then others suffering from them will avoid seeking help, making their problems worse. I consider this to be a type of prejudice on par with any other. The prejudice is what I consider foolish and looney and when it is directed at real people or serious discussion it should be chastised. We certainly can't help these people by shunning them from society more than they already have been, especially in a society based on individual freedoms.

We will never find any means to help if we don't accept responsibility for individuals in our society. Study has shown that many of the environmental factors that contribute to mental illness are exactly because these people aren't able to function properly in society. A child has little control over the environment that they develop in. It seems to me that society pushes some people away as failures rather than accepting them for contributing to the best of their ability. There is a lack of responsibility of society towards the individual that is evident from all the ignorant verbal blasting I've been reading lately. We blame others unjustly when we fear taking responsibility for ourselves. Rather than tearing each other down with hostility such as prejudice we should help others stand up so they can function independently. It shouldn't be any surprise that a person reacts in a physically violent manner when they are acted upon in an equally emotionally violent manner. Their words don't carry the strength of all the words that are used against them. Physical violence is the only way that they can express themselves that will get any attention.

About bullying, it may be a strong factor, I don't know if there are stats on the number of mass killers among the bullies and the bullied. Regardless, how would you make all mean school kids nice to the nerdy? For centuries our predominantly Christian population has been subjected to sermons about being kind to your fellow man, yet bullies continue to abound. Parents and children know the rule, but putting it into practice seems beyond reach.

This is a tough question. I can think of two things that may help.
1. More of an emphasis on communication and social skills in early development involving both cooperative and competitive activities.
2. More social activity in families like vacations, family meal time, reunions, or church. Learning family values are useful for adapting in society.

 

[out of whack]

I do not consider human psychology to be make believe.

It seems that I didn't express myself clearly enough. Even an exact science will fail to reach a correct conclusion if you don't have all the facts. The situation is nearly impossible when dealing with mercurial individuals whose past interactions are impossible to know. Any conclusion we reach is likely to be a guess, but we will want to believe that our guess is the right one. Still, our make believe explanations can at least appease us. It is simply prudent not to take our conclusions as gospel and change everything in society based on guesses. We must be wise enough to know what we don't know.

The prejudice is what I consider foolish and looney and when it is directed at real people or serious discussion it should be chastised.

I hope you can see that I was insulting the mass murderer and not the social recluse. I did mean and intend to insult the donkey hole who indiscriminantly killed innocent people he didn't even know. There is no excuse for that. We can come up with explanations and sequences of causes and effects, fine. The murderer is still beneath contempt in my book.

 

[proton]

Regardless, how would you make all mean school kids nice to the nerdy? For centuries our predominantly Christian population has been subjected to sermons about being kind to your fellow man, yet bullies continue to abound. Parents and children know the rule, but putting it into practice seems beyond reach.

Bullies bully because they think the nerds are treated too kindly while the bullies aren't getting enough respect from those they look up to (the popular kids). Bullies also see a part of themselves in nerds they resent (loners, etc)

 

[Huckleberry]

It is simply prudent not to take our conclusions as gospel and change everything in society based on guesses. We must be wise enough to know what we don't know.

It seems to me that your logic leads to the conclusion that we will never be able to understand completely, so we should never accept responibility for our mistakes. There's no formula to determine the effect of prejudice on society, but I'm pretty sure society can do without it. Society is a living system that is continually changing. We should take the responsibility as intelligent beings to change it in a direction that is suited to improving our commonwealth. Imo, the very worst thing we could do is to do nothing.

I hope you can see that I was insulting the mass murderer and not the social recluse.

Are we different people from one hour to the next? It only took Cho a few hours to perform the act of mass murder, but was this not a process that was years in the making? In one sentence you say that we shouldn't change everything based on guesses and in another you say you intended to insult Cho. Insulting someone is a social action against that person and people like them. I wonder how many donkey holes, out of ignorance, slung insults at Cho in his lifetime. What I suggest is that, rather than contempt for people we don't understand, we should feel compassion. The murderer is to blame for his actions, but who is to blame for creating the murderer? Does society have no responsibility toward that end?

 

[out of whack]

It seems to me that your logic leads to the conclusion that we will never be able to understand completely, so we should never accept responibility for our mistakes.

That does not follow at all. There are plenty of things we don't understand and we continue to make best-guess efforts. But prudence is needed. What I am warning against is jumping to conclusions such as "guns are to blame" or "bullying is to blame" or "prejudice is to blame" or whatever other single factor people tend to jump to.

There's no formula to determine the effect of prejudice on society, but I'm pretty sure society can do without it.

That's not in dispute.

We should take the responsibility as intelligent beings to change it in a direction that is suited to improving our commonwealth.

That's not in dispute either.

Imo, the very worst thing we could do is to do nothing.

We could actually do worse. We could start to supervise the mentally deficient and exacerbate the problem. We could start to police school yards and make different individuals feel persecuted, with worse results. I can think of various well-intentioned actions that could be worse if we act imprudently or without proper analysis.

Are we different people from one hour to the next?

We certainly act differently from one hour to the next as we have just seen.

Insulting someone is a social action against that person and people like them.

I have no problem insulting one mass murderer along with all other mass murderers of their kind.

I wonder how many donkey holes, out of ignorance, slung insults at Cho in his lifetime.

They should not have done that. Not until last week.

What I suggest is that, rather than contempt for people we don't understand, we should feel compassion. The murderer is to blame for his actions, but who is to blame for creating the murderer? Does society have no responsibility toward that end?

The responsibility for murder remains with the murderer. You can spin it any way you like, it will not turn these events into justifiable homicide. Having said that, we obviously can improve our society through compassion and understanding. I do try to be kind to everyone I know regardless of their job, gender, age, race... But if you shoot at me I will indeed call you a name. Accept that.

 

[Huckleberry]

That does not follow at all. There are plenty of things we don't understand and we continue to make best-guess efforts. But prudence is needed. What I am warning against is jumping to conclusions such as "guns are to blame" or "bullying is to blame" or "prejudice is to blame" or whatever other single factor people tend to jump to.

You are right. There is no one source, but all of those things can contribute to the problem. Prudence is needed.

We could actually do worse. We could start to supervise the mentally deficient and exacerbate the problem. We could start to police school yards and make different individuals feel persecuted, with worse results. I can think of various well-intentioned actions that could be worse if we act imprudently or without proper analysis.

If I understand this correctly then I agree completely. We shouldn't do those things any more. Infringing on the rights of individuals is not an acceptable method of prevention.

I have no problem insulting one mass murderer along with all other mass murderers of their kind.

I think this is the main point that we disagree on. I'm not in any way justifying violent action. I'm just saying there is a cause for that action that may lie in the environment of the murderer. We must each take responsibility for our individual actions, but this is only half the responsibility. There is an equal and opposite force that drove Cho to make the poor decisions he did. By using meaningless insults against him we not only justify his reaction, we deny our own responsibility to society.

 

[Mk]

I think any of us could be called "bullied as a kid." (or maybe it was just me) But what is the difference? How we took it? I don't think the severity necessarily has to do with it. It's not being bullied as a kid that creates psychopaths or anything.

 

[Art]

I think any of us could be called "bullied as a kid." (or maybe it was just me) But what is the difference? How we took it? I don't think the severity necessarily has to do with it. It's not being bullied as a kid that creates psychopaths or anything.

I agree. Everybody in life has some cross to bear but most of us don't go out and commit mass murders. Some people are just born sick and twisted and you can pamper them and sympathise with them all you like and they'll still be sick and twisted as their brains aren't wired like normal people.

For people like this I'd opt for a frontal lobotomy, that should curb any murderous urges.

 

[mathPimpDaddy]

I agree. Everybody in life has some cross to bear but most of us don't go out and commit mass murders. Some people are just born sick and twisted and you can pamper them and sympathise with them all you like and they'll still be sick and twisted as their brains aren't wired like normal people.

For people like this I'd opt for a frontal lobotomy, that should curb any murderous urges.

So much commonsense art. We can philosophize and analyze and blame all we want, but all it comes down to is making wise decisions based on facts.

 

[BillJx]

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

I'm glad I don't live where you live. My daughter was subjected to a long and intensive pre-screening process before being accepted. It only reinforced the high opinion I already have of her.

 

[Huckleberry]

Good reasoning, but I'm afraid that intelligent/effective solutions, if such exist at all, cost too much money to be "put in buisness".

Maybe, but maybe not. There could be simple solutions such as teaching adolescents conflict resolution skills that could benefit all of them later in life. Since the effectiveness of any program will be difficult to determine, it is the more economical proposals that should be attempted first.

Here is an interesting article. A psychological profile has been made of 28 adolescent murderers. Here are some of the common characteristics.

1. Male Caucasian;
2. Lonely and feel rejected by others;
3. Angry toward someone or something;
4. Lack positive relationships and communication in school and family;
5. Obsessions with violent acts;
6. Obsessions with guns and other weapons;
7. Substance abuse;
8. Bullied and demeaned by other students;
9. Family pathology (violent home life, parental neglect, insecurity, etc.);
10. Depression;
11. May show delusion of grandeur or other mental illness;

http://counselingoutfitters.com/Chandras2.htm

How many children that exhibit these symptoms are actually examined? Maybe a psyche exam looking for these characteristics for students entering a new school would be a good idea. That way each student would have several tests under in the course of their education.

Bullying alone isn't the cause of these things but bullying accompanied by poor communication skills and a poor home life can lead to a person with no 'out', no way to resolve their dilemma. They begin the internal thought processes that lead to mental illness. In adolescents this is especially dangerous because their brains are still forming the neural pathways. They only know how to react defensively to any situation regardless of intention. Their anger results in violence because they have no method to resolve conflict.