Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
spartan max2

Study: Unmedicated, untreated mental Illness likely in mass shooters.

80 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

spartan max2

Unmedicated, Untreated Brain Illness Is Likely in Mass Shooters

 

Quote

The first analysis of medical evidence on domestic mass shooters in the U.S. finds that a large majority of perpetrators have psychiatric disorders for which they have received no medication or other treatment, reports a study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.

“Without losing sight of the larger perspective that most who are violent are not mentally ill, and most of the mentally ill are not violent, our message is that mental health providers, lawyers, and the public should be made aware that some unmedicated patients do pose an increased risk of violence,” according to the report by Ira D. Glick, MD, of Stanford University School of Medicine and colleagues.

 

Quote

Based on this data, 32 of the 35 perpetrators had signs and symptoms of brain illness, which fit scientific diagnostic criteria for a clinical psychiatric disorder,” Dr. Glick comments. Eighteen of the shooters had schizophrenia while 10 had other diagnoses including bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, personality disorders, and substance-related disorders. In three cases, there was not enough information to make a diagnosis; in four cases, no psychiatric diagnosis was found.

https://neurosciencenews.com/mass-shooter-mental-health-18598/

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

You don't need to be a genius to figure this out.  I have taken a bit of flak for guessing that the recent tragedy in Ontario was due to some kind of severe mental episode but it seems to me that people with normal brains do not kill large numbers of perfect strangers.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

You don't need to be a genius to figure this out.  I have taken a bit of flak for guessing that the recent tragedy in Ontario was due to some kind of severe mental episode but it seems to me that people with normal brains do not kill large numbers of perfect strangers.

Yeah, it's something most of has have suspected for a while. But it's nice to get some more empirical evidence for it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Well, being a right, even the mentally ill have the right to bear arms.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Well, being a right, even the mentally ill have the right to bear arms.

And most of them will never shoot someone :st

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
Just now, OverSword said:

And most of them will never shoot someone :st

Also statistically true.

Most mass shooters are mentally ill. But most mentally ill people are not violent.

Worth remembering so as to not stigmatize mental illness. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

@Manwon Lender tagging you because you will probably appreciate this study.

It supports what you've said in other threads before 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

you do not need a study to see a pattern, it was always crystal clear they were sickos.  yet gvmnt is punishing healthy law abiding citizens with their bans and  restrictions. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
24 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

 

Worth remembering so as to not stigmatize mental illness. 

Or polticalize it either :tu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey

I'm a little skeptical here RE the "unmedicated" portion. Time and time again, we found the shooters were on SSRIs or other anti-depressants, to the point it became a compulsory question to ask when a new mass shooting occurred. Are they mincing words here or did each of the 35 shooters studied really commit the act completely sober? 

Note the researchers "identified 115 persons" but this study only focused on the surviving 35 who went on to be analyzed by psychologists. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I'm a little skeptical here RE the "unmedicated" portion. Time and time again, we found the shooters were on SSRIs or other anti-depressants, to the point it became a compulsory question to ask when a new mass shooting occurred. Are they mincing words here or did each of the 35 shooters studied really commit the act completely sober? 

Note the researchers "identified 115 persons" but this study only focused on the surviving 35 who went on to be analyzed by psychologists. 

I always thought that SSRI thing was a conspiracy from kids born in the 80s :P haha

 

But it is a worthwhile question you ask. They only looked at mass shooters who survived because there would be more follow up data on them. But the question you pose is reasonable. 

Are mass shooters who survive the event any different than mass shooters who did not? Would it change the results.

 

For what it's worth it looks like the researchers looked at that a little bit 

Quote

They also analyzed 20 mass shooters who died at the crime scene, using available data from the media or significant others. Eight assailants had schizophrenia, seven had other diagnoses, five had unknown diagnoses. Similarly, none were receiving appropriate medications.

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I'm a little skeptical here RE the "unmedicated" portion. Time and time again, we found the shooters were on SSRIs or other anti-depressants, to the point it became a compulsory question to ask when a new mass shooting occurred. Are they mincing words here or did each of the 35 shooters studied really commit the act completely sober? 

Note the researchers "identified 115 persons" but this study only focused on the surviving 35 who went on to be analyzed by psychologists. 

I grasp that but but but to me in the most basic form a rational person doesnt go on a shooting spree there has to be some mess up in the brain ie mental illness.

I also have a related in a way side question to gun owners, how do you feel about the extroverted types who feel the need to carry those assult looking guns to any outside type event,

ive been given answers like they think they look cool or its to intimidate or they are scared or that big gun makes up for their lil gun but really isnt it borderline personality disorder to feel the need to do that?

 

 

Edited by the13bats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
5 minutes ago, the13bats said:

I grasp that but but but to me in the most basic form a rational person doesnt go on a shooting spree there has to be some mess up in the brain ie mental illness.

I also have a related in a way side question to gun owners, how do you feel about the extroverted types who feel the need to carry those assult looking guns to any outside type event,

ive been given answers like they think they look cool, to intimidate or rhey are scared or that big gun makes up for their lil gun but really isnt it borderline personality disorder to feel the need to do that?

I think they are displaying their support for the second amendment.  In other words they do it because they can.  They are demonstrating publicly that the second amendment is a natural right that they agree with and value very much.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Gun control is perfectly on topic for the thread.

I figured a study like this would inevitably lead to people wanting to talk about gun control policy.

So you all feel free.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think they are displaying their support for the second amendment.  In other words they do it because they can.  They are demonstrating publicly that the second amendment is a natural right that they agree with and value very much.

That might be it for some, sadly it does far more harm than good in the eyes of the average person.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Gun control is perfectly on topic for the thread.

I figured a study like this would inevitably lead to people wanting to talk about gun control policy.

So you all feel free.

i use both hands to control a gun

Edited by aztek
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
14 minutes ago, the13bats said:

I grasp that but but but to me in the most basic form a rational person doesnt go on a shooting spree there has to be some mess up in the brain ie mental illness.

Oh I don't doubt they all had some type of mental illness, I suppose I'm looking for a little clarification on the term "unmedicated' as it relates to the OP

Quote

I also have a related in a way side question to gun owners, how do you feel about the extroverted types who feel the need to carry those assult looking guns to any outside type event,

ive been given answers like they think they look cool or its to intimidate or they are scared or that big gun makes up for their lil gun but really isnt it borderline personality disorder to feel the need to do that?

Probably a mix of all of the above. It's a show of force, a show of support for the 2A, personal protection, compensation for "something"...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
27 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Gun control is perfectly on topic for the thread.

I figured a study like this would inevitably lead to people wanting to talk about gun control policy.

So you all feel free.

To be clear i am not about gun "control" at this point even if you could outlaw all guns it wont work bad guys would get them or find other ways to do mischief.

Im in favor of a license to own guns like a DL and a bit of screening for mental issues or other flags that to not sugar coat it prove a person might be a nutball,

Of course some gun owners scream thats unfair, yeah, cry me a river its unfair i have to wonder if its safe to go in the piggy wiggly,   because some fellow decides to throw bullets at people because his cable channel cancelled 3s company or his politician lost and it placed undue stress on a structure never up to code to start with.

With great power ( gun ownership ) comes great responsibilities, deal with it.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
10 minutes ago, the13bats said:

To be clear i am not about gun "control" at this point even if you could outlaw all guns it wont work bad guys would get them or find other ways to do mischief.

Im in favor of a license to own guns like a DL and a bit of screening for mental issues or other flags that to not sugar coat it prove a person might be a nutball,

Of course some gun owners scream thats unfair, yeah, cry me a river its unfair i have to wonder if its safe to go in the piggy wiggly,   because some fellow decides to throw bullets at people because his cable channel cancelled 3s company or his politician lost and it placed undue stress on a structure never up to code to start with.

With great power ( gun ownership ) comes great responsibilities, deal with it.

I would support red flag laws. Similar to how we commit people to psych wards if deemed a danger to themselves or others.

I think the police should be able to seize someones weapons for a temporary amount of time (say like 30 or 60 days), during that time they go to court to have a judge rule on if taking the weapons are justified. If not than the person gets them back. 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Im in favor of a license to own guns like a DL and a bit of screening for mental issues or other flags that to not sugar coat it prove a person might be a nutball,

The danger of that is who gets to decide what constitutes a nutball?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
8 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I would support red flag laws. Similar to how we commit people to psych wards if deemed a danger to themselves or others.

I think the police should be able to seize someones weapons for a temporary amount of time (say like 30 or 60 days), during that time they go to court to have a judge rule on if taking the weapons are justified. If not than the person gets them back. 

Yeah, thanks you worded it better than i can.

I will add just because a person can do something doesnt mean they should common sense should prevail, with some gun owners it sadly doesnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The danger of that is who gets to decide what constitutes a nutball?  

I have heard that from scared gun owners, but it wouldnt be just one person who desides who is a nut i would see it like perhaps a parole board.

And yeah, a lot of gun owners do fear this as they fear they would fail or not be treated fairly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I would support red flag laws. Similar to how we commit people to psych wards if deemed a danger to themselves or others.

I think the police should be able to seize someones weapons for a temporary amount of time (say like 30 or 60 days), during that time they go to court to have a judge rule on if taking the weapons are justified. If not than the person gets them back. 

In the U.S. it is very, very hard to get someone commited based on danger to themselves or others.  That is one reason we have mass shootings.  People around the shooters knew there was a bad day coming but there was no legal way they could stop it.

And police should not be given any extra power concerning seizing someone's weapons.  If they have a judge decide and they are following a court order, ok, but no seizing without a crime otherwise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

In a bad call, If a cop deems a person unfut to have a gun, and cant take it and that unfit gun owners takes out your family i guess its okay since that unfit gun owner has rights too.

See how that sounds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

I have heard that from scared gun owners, but it wouldnt be just one person who desides who is a nut i would see it like perhaps a parole board.

And yeah, a lot of gun owners do fear this as they fear they would fail or not be treated fairly.

Who is on the board?  Who determines what the criteria is for the board members?  Is it AOC?  Ted Nugent?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.