Letters to the Editor
-
Now, now
I said that most mentally ill people are not dangerous to anyone but themselves (which is found in multiple abnormal psychology information sources as well as the DSM, hardly a woman's magazine). I don't think I said psychotic people never hurt anyone (but even so, schizophrenia is present in about 1 out of 100 people, which is a lot of people; I too can think of schizophrenics who have been dangerous and violent but statistically they aren't the norm). In his guy's case he was apparently showing multiple danger signs and at least one professor notified the campus policy, student affairs, etc to no avail. It may not have been apparent that the fire he had reportedly set earlier was intentional. Otherwise he didn't meet the criteria the school needed to legally remove him, let alone commit him.
My words about mentally people are intended to dissuade others from becoming paranoid and over-reacting to mentally ill people, most of whom are grappling with a disease the best way they can. It would be a shame if mental illness regained its former degree of stigma.
I don't think there will ever be a time when most people feel that the perfect balance has been reached between the students' and the schools' rights when the student has been demonstrating irrational or seriously dysfunctional behavior, particularly when the student resists outreach.
-
Canada and guns
The gun debate is really a city lifestyle vs. a rural lifestyle. In the cities, people aren't really impressed with guns, they seem to have more of an effect on the general population. In rural areas, your life and your gun has less impact on other people. You want you want space, you got your many acres to live your life the way you want to and have your firearms. Canada is a largely rural country. You have PLENTY of targets to hit in the woods that aren't people. I hate hate hate when these incidents happen because they really ignite a cultural war between two groups of people that speak different languages. This is why people are convinced that Hillary Clinton will personaly go door to door and start taking people's guns away. The same reason that Manhatten and LA should have some gun control (at least a lisence for crying out loud), and the kentucky vally can be left alone. After a while ... who cares and we can't even agree to disagree.
-
Re: "I think he was just a confused kid"
Yup, that's right he was one confused, angry, sick kid WHO HAD EASY ACCESS TO GUNS AND AMMUNITION COURTESY OF A CULTURE THAT ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN AND AGAIN (sorry for the textual equivalent of yelling)!
Although I admit I haven't done the research, I would bet that if you took all of the mass murders that occurred in the United States in the last 100 years or so (forget everyday crime--the numbers there will drive you crazy) and identified the killing device used in these massacres, you will likely discover that guns and ammo predominate as the weapons of death.
Amazingly enough (although it's as plain as can be to me), this doesn't happen in countries where guns are either outlawed or where there are strict laws governing access to such weapons. Appropriately enough, I've already begun to hear how European countries and other nations, places where common sense is used regarding such weapons, are shaking their heads in disgust and amazement at our situation. Although I love my country and am proud to be an American, all I can do is agree with their bewilderment at our continuing love affair with guns.
BTW, I do agree with all of the posters who have pointed out that if someone wants to kill, they will find a method even if guns are unavailable. That's right. But it wouldn't be NEARLY as easy. Give me a break.
Thanks to ivanveen who intelligently pointed out:
" 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
"That is the second amendment. Where does it say that indiviuals have the right to bear arms? It doesn't. It says the People, as in the the people in common or the government that represents them. In fact this has more impact on international arms reduction agreements than it does on individuals. But we continue to willfully misinterpret that ammendment. Why?"
-
Guns
The second amendment is about marketing. Gun manufacturers make a TON of money from selling firearms ... obviously. That's why they defend the second ammendment tooth and nail. I could just as brashly use the second amendment to justify my right to own anti-tank artilary, a cruise missle, or even an atomic bomb as a hand gun ... But why? We lisence people to drive cars and a minority of unlisenced people drive them. We can lisence people to own guns and unlisenced people will inevitably get them. But at least we'll hopefully some check that the majority of people who have firearms can own, be educated and respect them. But using this brash incident as an all out war for gun control! It happens every time, and every other post is literally one person speaking a different language than the next. Agree to disagree, help people with mental illness, and let the damn gun arguement go!
-
Attn: psychprof
Thanks for your comments on my previous comments.
Yes, it is true that statistically people with mental illnesses are not dangerous to others, but of people who are dangerous to others, statistically a large number are mentally ill!
The point I was making is that people whose ideas about mental illness come from popular media may not realize that untreated paranoid schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous and that lay persons can't usually recognize the difference between someone who displays symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia and other syndromes.
I don't like metaphors like "fighting a mental illness", because if you don't think you are sick, you can't be fighting an illness, and while the causes of mental illness may lie in faulty brain chemistry, it is by no means inevitable that the persons who has the disease experiences it as a disease.
I think it is very unlikely that attitudes to the mentally ill will revert back to the way of past centuries. If anything the population at large has a touchingly unrealistic faith in 'counseling' as a cure-all.
Regarding the fire, I would assume that if a fire occurred in a college building it would be investigated and if the person who seemed to be responsible could not give a coherent account of how an accident occurred, then law enforcement and or mental health services might be called on.
We don't really know what happened in this case, but I bet if I had encountered this man in a class I was teaching, I would have wanted him assessed by a psychiatrist.