that’s so old school. character flaws. That’s how they would describe their supposed mentally ill shooter.
I’ve found that most journalists are biased in some ways. One study will say one thing while the other says another!
Manifestos written by the killer are mostly freshman AP class
face it, they’re failures, they’re outcasts, they’re driven by getting even.
I don’t even want to read their diatribe. Scorn on all of humanity.
Not something I am, and never will be.
Very true, it’s all in how the cookie crumbles.
It definitely gives more credence to the arguement at hand if it transcends media bias. Still not sold on mental illness being a key factor in these attacks though.
We need better mental health services and less guns as a nation-- just a biased person’s two cents.
thanks for the reply to me. not.
Guys, there is tons of research on this, and there’s no reason to base your opinions on biased journalists who get paid to paint a particular story.
Mental illness, excluding drug use, is minimally related to violence (including homicide). That means there is in fact a “clear link”, just like there is a clear link between walking at least 10 meters a day and being a pro athlete. It’s just that that link is pretty small. And there is a clear and much larger link between drug use and violence.
No way, drug use is indicative of cutting off your own hand,
it doesn’t mean against humanity.
It is related to violence and homicide, and quite strongly, but it varies significantly based on what substances are used and how much. You can Google it if you want to.
it’s evident that the greatest threat to anyone is the user,
either bodily damage, or eventual death by overdose.
I’m not googling jack sh-it.
Hey @Daze, I hear you-- not interested in reading their words either. There’s little to be said when it comes to attempts in rationalizing the horrific actions of a select few
thank you, I appreciate your response. yeah, just some kind of their own sick justification. terrible.
That’s my point! They are biased opinions and it just seems studies are pointless if they all contradict each other
The point is that they don’t contradict each other. Seemingly contradictory studies usually have different results because of methodological reasons, and meta-analyses show that they don’t really contradict each other when you factor in comorbid drug use and other factors like socioeconomic status. The studies point in the same direction - mental illness generally does not cause much violence. But when you trust journalists to inform you about science, it will seem like we know nothing and no one agrees. That is a lie that is propagated for political reasons.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I like to remind people that 1/4 people have a mental problem each year. In the UK 1% has Sz and that equates to 650,000 people… If we were all susceptible to mass killings, it would be much more common.
Problem is that these people are trying to explain extreme behaviour, and they cannot concive with their christian values that someone without a mental illness could do something so bad. They assume they must be defective, when actually, they’re just bad people.
I’m not getting into a political conversation
Unstable is mild compared to what this is. And those reports are not gospel either.
Good, because there’s no reason this should be one.