by Inzomniac » Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:22 pm
uebermann wrote:
I didn't know that of all the mass shootings that occur, only 5% are found to be mentally ill. I have always been under the impression that you pretty much have to be mentally ill on some level to commit such a heinous act in the first place. So that kind of begs the question if they are indeed mentally ill and we aren't giving them that designation because we want to rot in jail (or be put to death) or if people really aren't mentally ill.
I think he makes several good points in regards to not only the fact that this comes up every time there is a mass shooting but also that mental health is an issue that is largely ignored and mistreated.
Overall worth watching imo.
As far as debating something on this, I don't think we can debate that the current state of mental health needs to be addressed but more that the Republicans keep saying that all these mass shooters are mentally ill, despite facts showing that to not be the case. So is it that they aren't mentally ill or that we just want to prosecute them so we look to find any reason for them to not be considered mentally ill? Or I guess are Republicans just using the "mental illness" issue as a shield so as to take the discussion away from gun control?
It's not because they are mentally ill that they are violent, it is because of how messed up society is and then you throw an unstable person into the mix. It's basically taking a decent container of gasoline, lighting a match and throwing it in.
Messed Up Society + Unstable Person = Disturbing Outcomes
(It is a pretty simple equation, actually).