On the other hand, I would posit that anyone who would perform a mass shooting is, by definition, mentally unwell, and the loss of mental health resources can only make things worse.
When you say “mentally unwell” though, how do you even define that? Psych hospitals are there to treat psychiatric conditions, eg schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, catatonia, borderline personality disorder, etc. Psych hospitals are not pre-crime units where you send someone who is going to commit a shooting.
By saying the mass shooting problem could be fixed by having more psych hospital beds or bringing back institutionalization means you think either of these would have stopped someone. There is an easy test here…how many mass shooters were sent to a psych hospital before they killed people, were treated for homicidal thoughts, and we’re released due to deinstitutionalization? For how many mass shooters were their homicidal thoughts or plans known, but they didn’t get help at all due to a lack of psych hospitals?
It really easy to dismiss people who commit crimes as automatically mentally ill, but the reality is almost none of them meet criteria for a mental illness. Instead they murdered people because they chose to, and they meet every definition of competent to stand trial after they do it.
This sort of narrative perpetuates the popular thinking that people with a mental illness are scary and dangerous when they actually commit violent crimes at a lower rate than the general population
Why do they have to go to hospitals? Wouldn’t more affordable mental healthcare and better access to good metal health professionals also help? No one in this thread said lock them up.
Oh 100%, but I’m responding to someone who cited “the closure of public mental health institutions” as a reason for increased mass shootings, which I vehemently disagree with
On the other hand, I would posit that anyone who would perform a mass shooting is, by definition, mentally unwell, and the loss of mental health resources can only make things worse.
When you say “mentally unwell” though, how do you even define that? Psych hospitals are there to treat psychiatric conditions, eg schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, catatonia, borderline personality disorder, etc. Psych hospitals are not pre-crime units where you send someone who is going to commit a shooting.
By saying the mass shooting problem could be fixed by having more psych hospital beds or bringing back institutionalization means you think either of these would have stopped someone. There is an easy test here…how many mass shooters were sent to a psych hospital before they killed people, were treated for homicidal thoughts, and we’re released due to deinstitutionalization? For how many mass shooters were their homicidal thoughts or plans known, but they didn’t get help at all due to a lack of psych hospitals?
It really easy to dismiss people who commit crimes as automatically mentally ill, but the reality is almost none of them meet criteria for a mental illness. Instead they murdered people because they chose to, and they meet every definition of competent to stand trial after they do it.
This sort of narrative perpetuates the popular thinking that people with a mental illness are scary and dangerous when they actually commit violent crimes at a lower rate than the general population
Why do they have to go to hospitals? Wouldn’t more affordable mental healthcare and better access to good metal health professionals also help? No one in this thread said lock them up.
Oh 100%, but I’m responding to someone who cited “the closure of public mental health institutions” as a reason for increased mass shootings, which I vehemently disagree with
I mean, there’s other kinds of public mental health institutions than full inpatient.
Why not have, say, a location with publicly-reimbursed psychiatrists and psychologists, where a person goes for an appointment?
That exists already here in Texas in our Mental Health Authority system, and if it exists in Texas I imagine it exists in other states