I'd like to ask exactly HOW someone ISN'T mentally ill if they decide to shoot up a school??

People claim "there's no evidence for psychological or mental health issues affecting the shootings" but i don't know how rational of a conclusion that claim really is.

I mean, I'd really like to know what the other reasons are for why someone would do this. Excluding the terrorists known commonly as incels ("I'm going to shoot a school full of my classmates because a girl I liked didn't accept my advances"), there have been individuals that have literally shot up classrooms where only kindergarten kids were.

I don't agree that a shooting like the Sandy Hook shooting was on the same level as that of an incel killer. The man was a grown adult and his victims were all 5-6 year old children, and I'm really wondering how exactly someone didn't rule out mental health in that case. Because if you wake up in the morning and decide to shoot up a classroom filled with kindergarten kids, you are mentally unhealthy to some extent.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

It's very rational, you're ignoring personality issues that can go along with shooting up a school. Not all murderers are mentally insane and some people really do kill simply because they want to. Saying they are always mentally unhealthy would create leniency for their crimes, sometimes people just are.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@SatanBurger There's no such thing as "mental insanity." Personality "issues" are mental health disorders at that level. School shootings are not the right example of killing "just because someone wants to." If leniency is offered in lieu of actual therapy on all levels, how would that be a bad thing?

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@Graylight I agree with therapy for sure, I also don't think prisons reduce crime. I don't know why you thought I was saying otherwise, I just argue that not all people who mass kill are mentally ill, I think that's just my simple premise. I don't buy it sorry. I think it's more of a feel good excuse that people want to believe because it makes them feel better. Trying to say things like "this killer was always mentally ill" just doesn't really sound like it has much scientific backing to it to what I've personally studied which is far too much.

I do agree with therapy, I don't believe that all mass shooters are mentally ill though just as much as I believe you can't force people to have empathy where it's missing either.

https://www.michiganpsychologicalassociation.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&year=2021&month=02&day=28&id=72:are-all-mass-shooters-mentally-ill-

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/psychotic-symptoms-in-mass-shootings-v-mass-murders-not-involving-firearms-findings-from-the-columbia-mass-murder-database/50514607ADF1AC2ECEB43369B6153E34

Conclusion:

These results suggest that policies aimed at preventing mass shootings by focusing on serious mental illness, characterized by psychotic symptoms, may have limited impact. Policies such as those targeting firearm access, recreational drug use and alcohol misuse, legal history, and non-psychotic psychopathology might yield more substantial results.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@Graylight

Subsequent research has more or less confirmed the results of the ECA survey, with multiple studies finding that while mental illness does raise the risk of violence, only a small subset of people who are mentally ill are violent and most violence is committed by people who do not have psychiatric conditions.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/the-facts-on-mental-illness-and-mass-shootings/

Graylight · 51-55, F

@SatanBurger this is a tricky area, because right now different agencies are using different definitions and methodologies. There are no real definitive answers or agreement, from what is a mass shooting to the particular brain areas sparked during such an event.

The 1st article is a little questionable, although I understand their findings. They seem to (without any definitions whatsoever contained within the body of the paper) use psychopathy as their example (and sole example) of mental illness. Someone can use recreational drugs and still have a host of mental health issues serious enough to trigger violence. Interestingly, much research suggests that sever mental illness is rarely the underlying cause of violence; rather, it's a cumulative effect of lesser, combined genetic, social and environmental stressors leading to less spotlighted disorders usually below the threshold of true severity until triggered. It's one reason mental health backgrounds are nearly useless.

Psychopathy is a real thing, but exceedingly rare. Your 2nd study compares two classes of mass murder and is relatively on point. Absolutely psychopathy exists, but that's not nearly always the pathology that underlies such an incident. One doesn't have to be a psychopath or normal - there's a chasm in between.

We're saying the same things, I think, with minor differences. Such is the power of debate and communication; closing the gulf and forming cohesive ideas. Thanks for the links.