CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If the person is disconnected from reality (hallucinations, paranoia etc) or has shown violent tendencies he should not be allowed to purchase guns and everyone who lives with that person should be warned to remove guns from the household.
You are not supporting the side of the argument you posted this under, which supports the view that "All mentally ill people should be prevented..." Your argument begins with a conditional statement (disconnecting from reality or violent tendencies) which indicates that you think only some (not all) mentally ill persons should be prohibited from firearm ownership. Thus, you are actually supporting the "No" side of this argument.
Eh, maybe. I would rather err on the side of caution. The government should reserve the power to deny the sale of firearms for mental illness. Should they use it every time someone is a little depressed? No.
"Should they use it every time someone is a little depressed? No."
This is exactly my point. The debate topic is whether All mentally ill persons' rights should be restricted.
"I would rather err on the side of caution."
According to the National Institute of Mental Health, more than 25% of people suffers with a diagnosable mental disorder. Restricting the rights one gigantic group as more dangerous than so-called "normal" people based only on stereotypes and fear is the very definition of discrimination and oppression. The mentally ill have been the targets of centuries of misunderstanding, abuse, and rabid fear-mongering, which amounts to a form of ableism (discrimination against the disabled).
Being on the "no" side of this debate seems to suggest the government has no right to stop someone owning a gun due to mental illness. That would be foolish. If there were a third option maybe I would be there, but there are only two and I stand by my choice.
The word "all" means each member of a group without exception. Disagreeing with this statement: "Should all mentally ill people be prevented from owning guns?" is absolutely not the same as saying there should be no restrictions.
What? On the pure basis of your personal prejudice?
Not all men are violent, but violent men are the main perpetrators of firearms violence. Would you also support denying guns to all men?
Bear in mind that this example is actually a clear cut case of causal correlation, which is utterly lacking with respect to linking mental illness to violence against others.
The same rule stands. If the only two options for the government were to either ban all guns for all men or to allow everyone to have guns without exception; I would rather them ban all guns.
Choosing between two absolutes was never the premise of the debate, but at least you are consistent I suppose.
Seems to me, though, that your advocacy from the start then should just have been that we ban guns altogether... I mean, no reason to uniquely target those with mental illness when they are not actually more likely to use guns for violence (source).
Choosing between two absolutes was never the premise of the debate, but at least you are consistent I suppose.
really? "Should all mentally ill people be prevented from owning guns? Yes or No"
Seems to me, though, that your advocacy from the start then should just have been that we ban guns altogether... I mean, no reason to uniquely target those with mental illness when they are not actually more likely to use guns for violence (source).
The article is about trying to stop stereotypes. It is pointing out that being poor, male, and young are stronger factors in determining if you are likely to commit violence, but that doesn't mean being mentally ill has no correlation with violence... in the same article she said, "When they were statistically controlled, the rates often equalized. However, although the main risk factors for violence still remain being young, male, single, or of lower socio-economic status, several more recent studies have reported a modest association between mental illness and violence, even when these elements have been controlled (1-2,7,13-16)." (that is 7 studies).
Trying to use this article to justify giving firearms to the mentally ill is a poor argument, especially since the word "firearm" or "weapon" don't appear in the article, and the word "gun" appears once. In that one instance they were talking about violence against someone who is mentally ill.
If you want to find a source to convince me, find one that says mentally ill people who own firearms are have less or the same odds of using those firearms for violence... good luck.
really? "Should all mentally ill people be prevented from owning guns? Yes or No"
Really. Affirmation is that all mentally ill people should be prevented from owning guns. Negation is that not all mentally ill people should be prevented from owning guns, which allows for either some prevention or no prevention.
The article is about trying to stop stereotypes. It is pointing out that being poor, male, and young are stronger factors in determining if you are likely to commit violence, but that doesn't mean being mentally ill has no correlation with violence... in the same article she said, "When they were statistically controlled, the rates often equalized. However, although the main risk factors for violence still remain being young, male, single, or of lower socio-economic status, several more recent studies have reported a modest association between mental illness and violence, even when these elements have been controlled (1-2,7,13-16)." (that is 7 studies).
This article is a summation of the full body of research on the subject of mental illness and disposition towards violence. While I do appreciate that you actually read the source (you are, I believe, the first), I think you are misrepresenting the full findings therein. While the article does reference the seven studies and their findings of a moderate association, it immediately thereafter analyzes the flaws within that research and discussions subsequent research which corrected for those flaws and found that: "the prevalence of violence among those with a major mental disorder who did not abuse substances was indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighbourhood controls."
Trying to use this article to justify giving firearms to the mentally ill is a poor argument, especially since the word "firearm" or "weapon" don't appear in the article, and the word "gun" appears once. In that one instance they were talking about violence against someone who is mentally ill.
That this article encompasses multiple points and speaks to the association of mental illness to violence generally rather than specifically to firearms violence does not discredit it. It is a fairly reasonable conclusion that if the mentally ill are not more inclined towards violence generally, then they will not be more inclined towards firearms violence specifically (at least not anymore than the general population).
More importantly, it should not be the burden of any population to prove that it should have equal rights but of those attempting to restrict their rights to prove they have a legitimate basis for doing so. Which demands the question: where is your evidence?
If you want to find a source to convince me, find one that says mentally ill people who own firearms are have less or the same odds of using those firearms for violence... good luck.
As indicated above, the burden of proof is actually upon you since you are asserting a thus-far utterly unsubstantiated claim as the basis for denying equal rights to a group of people.
Every time I check my conversation above I see the beginning of yours and get red in the face, start cracking my fingers to give you the most brutal dispute ever, and then you talk about lightsabers.
how do you measure ineffectiveness...........................................................................................................................?
No need for the dispute. I don't measure ineffectiveness, I just note that it's ineffective. The current waiting periods and limitations are a hindrance at best, and in practice impedes law abiding citizens far more than it does criminals. I call that ineffective. I don't really have a plan to improve anything, but I think focusing on black market weapons, making it riskier and less lucrative, would be more effective than disarming civilians. It's not usually a 'legal' firearm used in a crime anyway.
I would measure success of the current gun laws and gun ownership by the fact that, like you said, a very small percentage of legally purchased firearms are used illegally.
There is no reason to even presume that those living with a mental illness will be choosing who dies to begin with; there is no research supporting the link between mental illness and increased risk of violence relative to control populations.
No, it is not a joke. He is not trying to say give people with mental illness guns, he is just saying it is misguided to target them. They are more likely to be victims than to be perpetrators. There are probably not even a lot of people with mental illness that have guns. No one even talks about that statistic. Most gun violence is considered "normal" and doesn't get publicized. The mental illness shootings garners far more attention than it represents.
Mass shootings are all done by ill people. Regular person is not capable of such things.. This is why there are mental institution with patients that cannot leave... it is because they are too dangerous or them self an others... same is it with people with chronic depressions, manic people do not see killing as a bad thing, Psychopaths, socio paths people with anger issues, unstable people... all of these can kill you for wearing jeans... Paranoid schizophrenics hearing voices telling them to kill you because you are following them...
US is the only place on whole planet where lunatics can own assault weapons...
Mass shootings are all done by ill people. Regular person is not capable of such things..
Now you are setting a dangerous precedent where only crazy people commit crimes. How many of these "proven" ill people were diagnosed then. Mass shootings account for a very small portion of deaths, but a very large portion of media coverage.
This is why there are mental institution with patients that cannot leave... it is because they are too dangerous or them self an others...
If we are locking up the crazies, we don't need to ban their guns.
same is it with people with chronic depressions, manic people do not see killing as a bad thing, Psychopaths, socio paths people with anger issues, unstable people... all of these can kill you for wearing jeans... Paranoid schizophrenics hearing voices telling them to kill you because you are following them...
But, are less likely to act on it than you imply.
US is the only place on whole planet where lunatics can own assault weapons...
Too bad US isn't the only place in the world where you are allowed to discuss guns and not know the first fucking thing about them.
Decidedly not. Maybe you should do some research before forming your opinions. Start here & here & here.
It appears the sole basis for your claims is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions that all mass shooters are persons with mental illness. Prove it. (Note, just asserting that "you must be ill to do it" is not proof of anything but your ignorance and prejudice; I am requesting actual research, not your opinion.)
Further, mass shooters are almost exclusively men and almost always white. Statistically speaking, the premise of your argument should prevent all gun ownership for these populations as well unless you can disprove the correlation. If you are prepared to make sweeping generalizations about all people with mental illness on the basis of a couple of people with mental illness who also happen to be violent, then you must also do so for other populations such as men and white people whose individual members also happen to be violent sometimes. Or, you could actually look at what causes the violence in individuals instead of targeting whole populations without reasonable cause.
All ordinary members of the public should be prevented from owning guns, let lone the mentally ill. In a civilized country ordinary people do not carry guns.
Here's an analogy: Person A is diabetic, and therefore avoids high-sugar foods which may kill him. Person B has the flu. Person A decides that Person B should not be allowed to eat sugary foods either, because he knows the risks posed by his own illness, and, he reasons, they are both ill after all. Therefore, neither of them should be allowed to eat sugary foods. Does this seem like sound reasoning to you?
Thank you for sharing your personal perspective on this as a person with mental illness. However, can you really claim to speak for all who struggle with psychopathology? Do you know what it is like to be someone with each of the 300+ mental disorders recognized by psychiatric medicine? If not, then on what basis can you justify restricting someone's rights just because you both have an illness?
Totally missed the point, congratulations. Since sugar is bad for the diabetic, should we stop the person with the flu from having sugar?
Mental illness is a very large group. Only a small portion of mentally ill people would be dangerous with a gun. The concern is stopping everyone who has some kind of mental illness, including phobias.
Totally missed the point, congratulations. Since sugar is bad for the diabetic, should we stop the person with the flu from having sugar?
Only dangerous if the Flu person forces Diabetics to eat sugar...
Mental illness is a very large group. Only a small portion of mentally ill people would be dangerous with a gun. The concern is stopping everyone who has some kind of mental illness, including phobias.
Any metal illness that causes severe depressions, manic changes, hallucinations, panic attacks, delusion or loss of memory or frequent seizures.
Mentally illness and ar15 with plenty of ammo rarely ends by only one death...
I disagree with that statement even though I'm on your side of the debate. An extremely small percentage of guns are actually used in mass shootings, probably 5-15% are probably owned by people with some kind of mental illness.
There is zero evidence indicating that those with mental illness are statistically more likely then those without it to act violently towards others. Zero. (source)
Statistics can also be useful and accurate. That is why you have to look at the original research methodology, and why replicated results by different parties hold more merit. Which is precisely what my source citation references and discusses.
'Mental illness' encompasses a broad spectrum, from challenges with adjustment to life circumstances all the way up to schizophrenia and personality disorders. Not all people with various forms of mental illness would necessarily pose a risk as firearms owner--For example, someone with a phobia of dogs or obsessive compulsive personality disorder. Furthermore, many people who are not diagnosable as mentally ill would likely pose a greater risk--For example, a member of a hate group. It seems unreasonable to restrict firearms across the board based on mental illness history.
Mentally ill means that your brain is fucked up ergo you cannot think properly ergo you your decision to kill person for wearing yellow sweater may not be seen by others as a valid reason.
Mental illness does not always equate to increased tendency towards violence. Generalizing this kind of assumption to a gigantic group of people with very diverse illnesses is, frankly, laughable. Consider the person with agoraphobia (fear of leaving the home). Nothing about the symptoms of this illness suggest an increased likelihood of harming someone with a firearm:
A) anxiety about being in places or situations from which escape might be difficult (or embarrassing) or in which help may not be available in the event of having an unexpected or situationally predisposed Panic Attack or panic-like symptoms. Agoraphobic fears typically involve characteristic clusters of situations that include being outside the home alone; being in a crowd, or standing in a line; being on a bridge; and traveling in a bus, train, or automobile.
B) The situations are avoided (e.g., travel is restricted) or else are endured with marked distress or with anxiety about having a Panic Attack or panic-like symptoms, or require the presence of a companion.
C) The anxiety or phobic avoidance is not better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as Social Phobia (e.g., avoidance limited to social situations because of fear of embarrassment), Specific Phobia (e.g., avoidance limited to a single situation like elevators), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (e.g., avoidance of dirt in someone with an obsession about contamination), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (e.g., avoidance of stimuli associated with a severe stressor), or Separation Anxiety Disorder (e.g., avoidance of leaving home or relatives) (Source: http://www.medicalcriteria.com/criteria/ agoraphobia.htm). .) It makes no sense to ban ALL people with mental illness from owning firearms. They are not all the same!
Mental ilness means that they are physically incapable of clear thinking... there is nothing more to say... Only US and maybe Somalia allow mentally ill people own weapons.
"Mental ilness means that they are physically incapable of clear thinking"
I would be interested to see your evidence for such an absolute belief. Mental illness is not the same as unclear thinking or incapacity for logical thought. Many of the greatest thinkers in human history struggled with mental illness, and the same is true today. You are laboring under the burden of outdated stereotypes, and ignorance regarding the nature of mental illness.
It certainly does not "literally" mean this. I will grant that it is a popular theory that some (not all) mental illnesses are caused by irrational thinking. This is not the same as inability to think. Nor is irrational thinking exclusive to the mentally ill.
I don't know about that. Antisocial personality disorder seems to increase the likely hood of aggressive behavior in comparison to catatonic schizophrenia.
(1) It would be helpful if you cited any reference at all to substantiate your claim.
(2) Referencing a mental health condition characterized by catatonia to set your baseline for violent disposition would make virtually anyone more likely to be aggressive.
(3) To my knowledge, all research on antisocial personality disorder is based upon the diagnostic standards laid out in DSM IV-TR or earlier. Prior to the DSM-V, antisocial personality disorder diagnostic criteria required a history of illegal, behavioral misconduct (rather than exclusively observing the attributes innate to the condition). This excluded those with the traits of antisocial personality disorder who were not more violently inclined, thus skewing data on the relative violence of those living with antisocial personality disorder. It is possible that this population is more prone to violence, but such a conclusion is premature and cannot be claimed with reasonable certainty at this time.
Wow. Congrats on being one of the only debaters to mention the DSM-V. I like that.
It is possible that this population is more prone to violence, but such a conclusion is premature and cannot be claimed with reasonable certainty at this time.
Indeed, I have to agree. The data doesn't support my side very much, but you did say "not one illness". I thought antisocial personality disorder would be one.
Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to accept where the evidence does and does not exist to support your views. What troubles me is how many people form opinions about people living with mental illness without the data and evidence to support those views. That people then justify limiting the rights and liberties of those with mental illness based on those uninformed (if not actively misinformed) opinions bothers me even more. This issue is personal for me so I make a point to counter misinformation, and that means being up to date and informed myself.
Nice. I wasn't aware that this was a personal issue. I should have assumed so seeing as you actually knew about the DSM IV and V. I think many, if not most, generally hold negative views towards mentally ill people. Negative as in you cannot trust them with a weapon or that they are too dangerous to give a weapon to. Yet as you have demonstrated this isn't the case at all.
There are some people who are well informed on mental health and illness for whom the issue is not personal, but they are few and far between. You are correct that most people hold negative views against those living with mental illness. The stigma against mental illness is so pervasive that even those living with a diagnosable condition hold many of the same prejudices against mental illness as those who do not.
Well you have certainly brought this topic to my attention.
I am glad to hear it, and grateful for your being more open minded than most in learning.
I'm also assuming you are for gun rights? The upholding of the second amendment?
Not entirely; I do support some restrictions where I consider them to be merited. My concern with gun rights is that so long as they are recognized they be equitably protected and restricted only where truly justifiable (as with any other legal right).
Those living with mental illness are not statistically more likely to be violent:
"Mental disorders are neither necessary nor sufficient causes of violence. Major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and economic factors. Substance abuse is a major determinant of violence and this is true whether it occurs in the context of a concurrent mental illness or not. [...] Members of the public exaggerate both the strength of the association between mental illness and violence and their own personal risk. [...] Too little is known about the social contextual determinants of violence, but research supports the view the mentally ill are more often victims than perpetrators of violence." (source)