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.
I would pay higher taxes for mental health support, period. However, mental illness does not actually have a causal relationship with shootings.
"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)
It is positively reprehensible that the only thing galvanizing mental health care reform after decades of systemic neglect is the misdirected and prejudicial attack on the those living with mental illness; it is, of course, far easier to falsely target a group than to actually address the real issues in our society.
Mental disorders are neither necessary nor sufficient causes of violence.
Of course. And being hungry is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of eating.
Major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and economic factors.
OK, then let's change the question to whether you would pay higher taxes to improve mental health and 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.
You can add substance abuse to the question above then. Substance abuse is very broad though - are there specific drugs that are more likely to induce mass violence?
research supports the view the mentally ill are more often victims than perpetrators of violence.
Yes, there are more victims than perpetrators in general, because a perperator usually shoots more than one person.
Of course. And being hungry is neither a necessary nor sufficient cause of eating.
This argument makes no sense in light of the source I cited. If you care to actually provide any evidence whatsoever that your presumed causal relationship between mental illness and shootings is legitimate then we can have an actual debate. Otherwise, my point stands that your presumption was fallacious and prejudiced.
OK, then let's change the question to whether you would pay higher taxes to improve mental health and socio-demographic and economic factors. & You can add substance abuse to the question above then. Substance abuse is very broad though - are there specific drugs that are more likely to induce mass violence?
Yes, I would pay higher taxes to improve all three so long as I thought the revenue would be appropriately and effectively directed. I would do this independent of the shooting aspect, but with substance abuse and poverty would consider said aspect an additional compelling motivation (in a way that I would not for mental illness, given the lack of evidence to support that association).
Yes, there are more victims than perpetrators in general, because a perperator usually shoots more than one person.
You have completely missed the point here. Rather than being more likely to commit acts of violence against others, those living with mental illness are more likely to be targets of violence by others. Your conceptions of the relationship between mental illness and violence are opposite of what the evidence supports.
"A recent study of criminal victimization of persons with severe mental illness showed that 8.2% were criminally victimized over a four month period, much higher than the annual rate of violent victimization of 3.1 for the general population." (source)
This argument makes no sense in light of the source I cited. If you care to actually provide any evidence whatsoever that your presumed causal relationship between mental illness and shootings is legitimate then we can have an actual debate. Otherwise, my point stands that your presumption was fallacious and prejudiced.
LOL. It makes sense in whatever light you want to shine on it.
But here's some evidence. The first three shootings that come to mind -- Ft. Hood, Newtown, and Virginia Tech -- were done by mentally ill people. There was one big shooting where the guy actually left a note saying his brain should be examined because something was wrong with it (and he was right).
Now can you stop pretending there's no evidence? I'd like to see some evidence that most shootings are carried out by perfectly well adjusted people.
You have completely missed the point here. Rather than being more likely to commit acts of violence against others, those living with mental illness are more likely to be targets of violence by others.
No, you're the one missing the point. Everyone is more likely to be a victim than a shooter. So what? It doesn't matter for this discussion how likely someone is to become a victim, only how likely they are to become a shooter.
"A recent study of criminal victimization of persons with severe mental illness showed that 8.2% were criminally victimized over a four month period, much higher than the annual rate of violent victimization of 3.1 for the general population."
It's unfortunate that the mentally ill are disproportionately targeted (though that probably doesn't apply to mass shootings), but suppose 100% of all mentally ill people became shooters. The 8.2% figure wouldn't negate that, right?
But here's some evidence. The first three shootings that come to mind -- Ft. Hood, Newtown, and Virginia Tech -- were done by mentally ill people. There was one big shooting where the guy actually left a note saying his brain should be examined because something was wrong with it (and he was right).
The shooters were also all men; how about we restrict the rights of all men to carry firearms because of that? You are still demonstrating correlation not causation. Just because an individual has a mental illness does not mean they are going to be violent (and, as I have already proved, most people with mental illness are not violent which makes mental disorder a very poor standard for exclusion).
What was important with these shooters is not that they had a mental illness (or more ambiguous "irregularity"), but that socioeconomic factors limited their access to care, that they were experiencing significant stressors in their life, that they abused substances, etc. These are the variables that actually have a proven causal bearing upon propensity for violence.
Now can you stop pretending there's no evidence? I'd like to see some evidence that most shootings are carried out by perfectly well adjusted people.
My claim has never been that mass shootings are carried out by "perfectly well adjusted people", but that at most mental illness is an incidental variable rather than the causal factor. The research I shared expressly supports this. The clever trick played in conversations around mass shooters, serial killers, etc. is that in order to do something like that a person has to be insane; this automatically defines mental illness and violence as synonymous with one another... yet while there is obvious instability not all were diagnosed or diagnosable for any actual mental illness or disorder.
No, you're the one missing the point. Everyone is more likely to be a victim than a shooter. So what? It doesn't matter for this discussion how likely someone is to become a victim, only how likely they are to become a shooter.
No, I understand that. The point I was making is that far from being predisposed towards violence generally, the majority of those with mental illness are more likely to become victims of it. The impact of this, again, is that screening for mental illness is not an effective violence reduction tactic.
It's unfortunate that the mentally ill are disproportionately targeted (though that probably doesn't apply to mass shootings), but suppose 100% of all mentally ill people became shooters. The 8.2% figure wouldn't negate that, right?
You cannot suppose that because it is factually false. Further, my point was not that the number of mentally ill victims could negate mentally ill perpetrators or visa versa but (again) that the strong association presumed between mental illness and proclivity for violence is incorrect.
The shooters were also all men; how about we restrict the rights of all men to carry firearms because of that?
I would not support that.
I find it interesting that the debate has gone in this direction. It was meant to be "yes, we should support mental health" vs. "why should my tax dollars pay for other people?" For the record, I'm not against the mentally ill.
Why not? It is the same exact rationale you are applying to denying firearm rights to those with mental illness. Purportedly all the shooters were mentally ill, and factually they were all men. Add to that that men are actually statistically more likely to be violent than women are (whereas the mentally ill are not), the case for restricting the firearm rights of men is stronger than that for restricting the rights of the mentally ill.
I find it interesting that the debate has gone in this direction. It was meant to be "yes, we should support mental health" vs. "why should my tax dollars pay for other people?" For the record, I'm not against the mentally ill.
Yes, it has gone in rather a different direction than you obviously intended... and now no one else is posting; apologies if I completely derailed the debate from its intended subject. I did it though because I think that regardless of your intentions the premise the question is based upon is actually prejudicial against the mentally ill (even if you do not personally consider yourself to be "against the mentally ill).
Other matters discussed
Did you opt not to address the bulk of my analysis because you are not really interested in continuing this debate (which I would understand, since it isn't what you were going for initially), or for some other reason? I respect you as a debater, so I am trying not to presuppose that you do not actually have a counter argument (which is my usual default).
Why not? It is the same exact rationale you are applying to denying firearm rights to those with mental illness.
I don't think I said I would deny firearm rights to mentally ill people. But now that you bring it up, it's an interesting question. Should mentally ill people automatically be disallowed to own a gun? I guess it's like asking if blind people should automatically be denied a driver's license. Maybe on average blind people are terrible drivers, but any one particular blind person might be a good driver somehow.
I think the average person would make a poor gun owner, and therefore I think the average mentally ill person would certainly be a poor gun owner. Could there be exceptions? Possibly.
apologies if I completely derailed the debate from its intended subject
No problem, I just found it interesting that it took this turn.
Did you opt not to address the bulk of my analysis because you are not really interested in continuing this debate
I just don't have all that much interest in debating at all these days. It has nothing to do with you or this topic. It takes a good amount of effort to debate, and I just find myself asking, "Why?"
Should mentally ill people automatically be disallowed to own a gun? I guess it's like asking if blind people should automatically be denied a driver's license.
No, actually, it is not at all similar. If you cannot see then you cannot drive safely; that is a proven fact. Living with a mental illness has zero proven causal correlation with increased risk of violence. Period.
I think the average person would make a poor gun owner, and therefore I think the average mentally ill person would certainly be a poor gun owner.
On what basis? Other than your personal prejudice.
No, actually, it is not at all similar. If you cannot see then you cannot drive safely; that is a proven fact.
Being blind makes it very unlikely that someone can drive safely, but I can't say that it's impossible. Maybe they have a car that almost drives itself, for example.
Living with a mental illness has zero proven causal correlation with increased risk of violence. Period.
Are you sure about that? So depression isn't causally correlated with suicide? What are we talking about when we say "mental illness" anyway?
On what basis? Other than your personal prejudice.
Which part are you referring to, that most people would make poor gun owners, or that mentally ill people would make poor gun owners?
Being blind makes it very unlikely that someone can drive safely, but I can't say that it's impossible. Maybe they have a car that almost drives itself, for example.
You are stretching, and I think you know that. If you cannot see you cannot drive because sight is integral to the action. If the car is driving itself, then the person is not driving and the example does not apply.
Are you sure about that? So depression isn't causally correlated with suicide?
Given the context, I was rather obviously referring to violence against others. In that situation I am absolutely certain, as a direct consequence of the evidence I have already provided to you which you haven not refuted.
What are we talking about when we say "mental illness" anyway?
As it is used within the medical profession, mental illness refers to "disorders generally characterized by dysregulation of mood, thought, and/or behavior, as recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, of the American Psychiatric Association" (source). Even the medical profession recognizes the imperfection of this definition, however, and that the line between normal and abnormal neuropathy is an ambiguous one. In part this is because thresholds for diagnosis are not clear, but it is also because half of any given population experiences a diagnosable condition in their lifetime (i.e. what is "normal" when the majority is "abnormal"?).
The common public tends to use mental illness with careless disregard, indicating any mental condition which they find odd or unsettling.
Which part are you referring to, that most people would make poor gun owners, or that mentally ill people would make poor gun owners?
Both, but especially the latter assertion in light of your complete failure to causally connect mental illness with increased risk of firearm violence.
You are stretching, and I think you know that. If you cannot see you cannot drive because sight is integral to the action. If the car is driving itself, then the person is not driving and the example does not apply.
Yes, I'm definitely stretching, just as I'm stretching to consider that a mentally ill person might be a responsible gun owner.
Given the context, I was rather obviously referring to violence against others. In that situation I am absolutely certain, as a direct consequence of the evidence I have already provided to you which you haven not refuted.
I haven't looked at your evidence. It could be the case that mentally ill people are not more likely to commit violence against others. But maybe it's because of the laws that prevent them from owning guns.
Both, but especially the latter assertion in light of your complete failure to causally connect mental illness with increased risk of firearm violence.
I guess I shouldn't say "most," but rather "many." I don't know what percentage of gun owners are responsible, given that they don't make the news. But owning a gun is a huge responsibility, and there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't have them because of the risk that they'll use them improperly or fail to secure them. Since I'm not a fan of average Joe owning a gun, I'm not a fan of mentally ill Joe owning one either.
Yes, I'm definitely stretching, just as I'm stretching to consider that a mentally ill person might be a responsible gun owner.
The difference between the two is that your argument is stretching the facts, whereas mine is stretching your mental faculties by challenging your presumptions.
Most people living with mental illness (which is 1/4 of the population at any given moment) are functional and not as unstable as you seem to think; if we were then you would notice it considering the proportion of the population we comprise. Truth is, we do not pose any greater risk to others than the "average" person without mental illness.
I haven't looked at your evidence. It could be the case that mentally ill people are not more likely to commit violence against others. But maybe it's because of the laws that prevent them from owning guns.
It is the case. If you had actually bothered to even skim the evidence, you would understand why your argument is incorrect. Those with mental illness are not more likely to be violent in any fashion (i.e. with or without a firearm).
But owning a gun is a huge responsibility, and there are a lot of people out there who shouldn't have them because of the risk that they'll use them improperly or fail to secure them. Since I'm not a fan of average Joe owning a gun, I'm not a fan of mentally ill Joe owning one either.
I trust the average person to own a gun about as much as I trust them to drive (which is to say, not much), so we can agree on that point I suppose. My issue remains that you seem to feel more strongly about restricting the rights of those with mental illness, despite lacking any actual reason for doing so.
If you had actually bothered to even skim the evidence
LOL. It's not my job to skim your evidence. This is just a hobby.
Those with mental illness are not more likely to be violent in any fashion (i.e. with or without a firearm).
Is mental illness an advantage? Do you recommend that people acquire mental illness if they have the opportunity?
My issue remains that you seem to feel more strongly about restricting the rights of those with mental illness, despite lacking any actual reason for doing so.
What rights am I trying to restrict, exactly? This debate is just about whether taxpayers should provide funding to support mental health. BTW, why has no one else said anything?
Yes. That would rather explain the word choice, would it not?
LOL. It's not my job to skim your evidence. This is just a hobby.
Same here. I just do not know how to debate with someone who keeps reasserting false claims because they cannot be bothered to read the full counterargument and evidence...
Is mental illness an advantage? Do you recommend that people acquire mental illness if they have the opportunity?
Those with mental illness are also more likely to be victims of criminal violence, to face discrimination, etc. So... no.
What rights am I trying to restrict, exactly? This debate is just about whether taxpayers should provide funding to support mental health.
Sorry, I keep forgetting. Conflating this with the other debate(s) going on simultaneously. My issue, then, really is just the prejudice implicit in the original debate question (despite the good intentions of funding more mental health support).