Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

SC, I've been seeing a lot of postings on social networks quoting the father of Alison Parker on how he plans to become an activist for new gun control legislation. I commend him for that. However, it's only a matter of time before he, too, is attacked for his activism in this area.

That being said, he also said something in his grief ridden statement that resonated with me because of the ongoing discussion here:

We've got to do something about crazy people getting guns.

I've responded several times on several different sites with this:

I realize this father is very emotional at this point in his very long journey in healing, but the use of the word "crazy" also helps perpetuate a stigma associated with mental illness that some of us are trying very hard to help clarify. My thoughts and condolences go out to him and family. No one should have to be required to endure what they are now being forced to endure. My hope is that he will, at some point, see things a bit more clearly than he is right now, and that he will perhaps take a moment to clarify his thoughts on this issue.

It really breaks my heart this man and his family must go through this, but the truth still remains that his comments about "crazies" simply reinforces what I'm trying to say here about mental illness and the stigma attached so strongly to it.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: I think we throw the term "mental illness" around far to easily and frequently. Were the 9/11 terrorists all mentally ill, or were they just really really bad people with no regard for human life? I believe this country has been creating bad people through media images that a certain percentage of people become desensitized to... then add the devolving family structure and we get a group of people who feel justified and have nothing to lose. Yes, there are people who have biological problems in their brains, but for the most part, I just see a society that breeds a lack of respect for human life and now those "chickens are coming home to roost" (to quote another bad guy who happens to be a racist).

Are you including veterans and first responders suffering from PTSD in that group of people having "biological problems in their brains"?

Of course not, where did you get that from my post? Yes, there are also people who have been through severe mental stress, like soldiers and victims of rape etc.. .. that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who feel like victims to the point of needing revenge OR people who feel superior with little regard for human life. I believe that both type of people were raised in environments and/or by parents who may have the same issues. I don't call that mental illness, I think it's a product of a growing narcissistic and nihilistic society.

We could always ban guns. We banned alcohol during Prohibition but maybe this time it will work better. We could use Mexico as an example, they have the most stringent gun laws in the Western Hemisphere. That hasn't seemed to reduce crime, in fact, the cartels buy guns from the army and police. US shouldn't have the corruption problem Mexico does, but state and local governments were very corrupted by alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. One of my relatives owned a New Jersey speakeasy and he bought IRS agents and local police and judges.

Rick wrote: Of course not, where did you get that from my post? Yes, there are also people who have been through severe mental stress, like soldiers and victims of rape etc.. .. that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who feel like victims to the point of needing revenge OR people who feel superior with little regard for human life. I believe that both type of people were raised in environments and/or by parents who may have the same issues. I don't call that mental illness, I think it's a product of a growing narcissistic and nihilistic society.

Rick, I think you might want to revisit your post.

Rick wrote: I think we throw the term "mental illness" around far to easily and frequently. Were the 9/11 terrorists all mentally ill, or were they just really really bad people with no regard for human life? I believe this country has been creating bad people through media images that a certain percentage of people become desensitized to... then add the devolving family structure and we get a group of people who feel justified and have nothing to lose. Yes, there are people who have biological problems in their brains, but for the most part, I just see a society that breeds a lack of respect for human life and now those "chickens are coming home to roost" (to quote another bad guy who happens to be a racist).

Where, in that post, did you make a clarification defining what you meant by mental illness. All you did was ask about some obvious religious zealots. You also mentioned "biological problems". That, to me, left little to no room for including PTSD in your analysis. That's just one of the many reasons why I say this is a more complex issue than meets the eye.

The Mayo Clinic also defines narcissism as a mental disorder:

Narcissistic personality disorder

Nihilism, on the other hand, isn't quite so easy to define from what I've researched. Truth is, nihilism, if it isn't "technically" considered a mental illness, can often times either be related to, or can become a definable mental illness even associated with nihilistic delusions .

My point is that nothing....not anything....in life is ever as simple as we'd perhaps like it to be. Our own perceptions of things dictate how we react to those things. In my first wife's case, I could have left her. I could have divorced her. Or, she could have done either of those to me. It would certainly have been easier on all of us rather than putting us through the Hell of having to deal with her taking her own life, especially in the manner in which she did it. Neither of us chose either of those paths, not because they weren't an option, but, rather, because our relationship with each other was rooted in love and commitment to each other.

So, I choose to try and look at root causes in an effort to try and find out a little more about why people do the things they do. I also look at statements like those you are making here, and I draw a conclusion (right or wrong) that you are kind of "sitting in judgment" of people you know little about --- what their life experiences are, what they are currently experiencing, what their medical history might be, and so on. From my perspective, those are blanket judgments that do a disservice to those individuals struggling on a day to day basis with mental conditions they'd just as soon not have, but also have very little control over.

When you say

I believe that both type of people were raised in environments and/or by parents who may have the same issues. I don't call that mental illness, I think it's a product of a growing narcissistic and nihilistic society

you may be right. They say people are a product of their environment, after all. However, if a parent has mental health issues, isn't it also more likely their children can have mental health issues passed down to them via heredity? Seems logical to me.

FredHayek wrote: We could always ban guns. We banned alcohol during Prohibition but maybe this time it will work better. We could use Mexico as an example, they have the most stringent gun laws in the Western Hemisphere. That hasn't seemed to reduce crime, in fact, the cartels buy guns from the army and police. US shouldn't have the corruption problem Mexico does, but state and local governments were very corrupted by alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. One of my relatives owned a New Jersey speakeasy and he bought IRS agents and local police and judges.

Who, specifically, is calling for a ban on guns? That's a very tired argument, Fred. It also goes to the automotive comparison between cars and guns.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Of course not, where did you get that from my post? Yes, there are also people who have been through severe mental stress, like soldiers and victims of rape etc.. .. that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who feel like victims to the point of needing revenge OR people who feel superior with little regard for human life. I believe that both type of people were raised in environments and/or by parents who may have the same issues. I don't call that mental illness, I think it's a product of a growing narcissistic and nihilistic society.

Rick, I think you might want to revisit your post.

Rick wrote: I think we throw the term "mental illness" around far to easily and frequently. Were the 9/11 terrorists all mentally ill, or were they just really really bad people with no regard for human life? I believe this country has been creating bad people through media images that a certain percentage of people become desensitized to... then add the devolving family structure and we get a group of people who feel justified and have nothing to lose. Yes, there are people who have biological problems in their brains, but for the most part, I just see a society that breeds a lack of respect for human life and now those "chickens are coming home to roost" (to quote another bad guy who happens to be a racist).

Where, in that post, did you make a clarification defining what you meant by mental illness. All you did was ask about some obvious religious zealots. You also mentioned "biological problems". That, to me, left little to no room for including PTSD in your analysis. That's just one of the many reasons why I say this is a more complex issue than meets the eye.

The Mayo Clinic also defines narcissism as a mental disorder:

Narcissistic personality disorder

Nihilism, on the other hand, isn't quite so easy to define from what I've researched. Truth is, nihilism, if it isn't "technically" considered a mental illness, can often times either be related to, or can become a definable mental illness even associated with nihilistic delusions .

My point is that nothing....not anything....in life is ever as simple as we'd perhaps like it to be. Our own perceptions of things dictate how we react to those things. In my first wife's case, I could have left her. I could have divorced her. Or, she could have done either of those to me. It would certainly have been easier on all of us rather than putting us through the Hell of having to deal with her taking her own life, especially in the manner in which she did it. Neither of us chose either of those paths, not because they weren't an option, but, rather, because our relationship with each other was rooted in love and commitment to each other.

So, I choose to try and look at root causes in an effort to try and find out a little more about why people do the things they do. I also look at statements like those you are making here, and I draw a conclusion (right or wrong) that you are kind of "sitting in judgment" of people you know little about --- what their life experiences are, what they are currently experiencing, what their medical history might be, and so on. From my perspective, those are blanket judgments that do a disservice to those individuals struggling on a day to day basis with mental conditions they'd just as soon not have, but also have very little control over.

When you say

I believe that both type of people were raised in environments and/or by parents who may have the same issues. I don't call that mental illness, I think it's a product of a growing narcissistic and nihilistic society

you may be right. They say people are a product of their environment, after all. However, if a parent has mental health issues, isn't it also more likely their children can have mental health issues passed down to them via heredity? Seems logical to me.

Sorry, but the fact that I didn't think about PTSD when I made that post doesn't really mean anything other than I forgot about that specific condition until you brought it up.

I really don't have time to go into this circular argument, but will just summarize and repeat what I already stated... I believe there are bad people created by a devolving society who are NOT mentally ill, just bad, or just don't have very much respect for human life in general. I also don't believe that every suicide is due to a mental illness... some people just can't cope with what is happening in their lives and tap out. I'm not sure how else to put it, but feel free to continue without me, I'm tapping out on this topic because it is becoming a waste of my time.

Rick wrote: Sorry, but the fact that I didn't think about PTSD when I made that post doesn't really mean anything other than I forgot about that specific condition until you brought it up.

I really don't have time to go into this circular argument, but will just summarize and repeat what I already stated... I believe there are bad people created by a devolving society who are NOT mentally ill, just bad, or just don't have very much respect for human life in general. I also don't believe that every suicide is due to a mental illness... some people just can't cope with what is happening in their lives and tap out. I'm not sure how else to put it, but feel free to continue without me, I'm tapping out on this topic because it is becoming a waste of my time.

Being clear in a discussion is something you've demanded of me in the past. I'm simply asking you to do the same. Your clarification here is accepted. That being said, your "bowing out" of the discussion because it is a "waste" of your time is pretty typical of those who have no definitive answers even to those questions they themselves pose. Whether that is circular or not doesn't matter. What matters is that mental illness is, in fact, much more complex than you would apparently have us believe.

Easy. Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege. That bill has one goal. Make it so only the very wealthy can have a gun. Her goal is to make it so only bad guys carry guns, since they won't care about insurance.

ScienceChic wrote: I agree. There is genuine mental illness, and then there are people who try to use that as an excuse to avoid accountability. As for suicides, I've written elsewhere though I'm not sure if it included here, that suicides are not always due to depression or mental illness. Sometimes it is the final effort in which to punish and inflict as much harm as possible to those who loved them and whom they feel betrayed them or let them down.

The "genuine" part of your statement is what psychiatrists and psychologists struggle with on a daily basis with many of their patients. While I agree there are some who do, in fact, try to game the system so to speak, I'd be interested in seeing some verifiable stats on just how many actually get away with doing so. As with the No Notoriety issue, these types of cases aren't cast in stone. Same with Stand Your Ground. Same with open and/or concealed carry. Same with welfare. Same with abortion. Same with virtually any other problem we face as a society in the here and now. Nothing is cast is stone. Nothing is cut and dry.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I believe our society, in general, is hell bent on finding the easiest "solution" possible to every problem it faces without viably taking into consideration all the complexities involved not only in the problem, itself, but also in some of the proposed solutions to those problems. That's just one of the reasons why we make blanket statements that tend to vilify an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. And THAT is an age old conundrum people have been facing for ages on end. Is it easier or harder to blame the entire class, for example, for the actions of one single troublemaker? Is it easier to blame the entire company of military personnel, as another example, for the actions of one screw up? I'd wager most of the time the answer is it is easier to punish everyone for the actions of the few. I also believe that might be at the heart of the issue for pro-gun advocates and groups. After all, it's the "why punish law abiding citizens" mantra they seem to put forward most often when in discussions revolving around how to address the issue of gun violence. The result is invariably a back and forth debate on the merits of doing anything at all to address the core issue.

It's been said by pro-gun advocates they want to be prepared in the event something happens where they'll need their gun to protect themselves. I don't begrudge them this perspective. That's preparedness which is one of the four phases of emergency management. Nothing wrong with that.

All I ask is that they also consider taking a look at mitigation (also a phase of emergency management), as well.

I used a couple of cartoons to help illustrate these two phases in my training seminars from the comic "Hermann" by Jim Unger.

MITIGATION:

Doing something....anything at all....that might physically help address the issue to reduce its probability of occurrence or its actual occurrence. That's mitigation.

PREPAREDENSS:

Doing something....anything at all....when you know something will happen and you cannot prevent it from happening no matter what actions you might actually take. That's preparedness.

Both these phases require analyses to help each and every one of us determine what the best approach might be to alleviate our concerns. That's where we, as a society, fail ourselves and others by not taking everything into account.

My rant for the day.