|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 2, 2020 17:34:08 GMT
I know the news reported specifically that it was a katana, but just because a sword makes "a lot of blood" doesn't mean only a katana can do that. Any sword can make a right proper mess if it cuts an artery or makes a big enough slash. I think the news reporters understandably don't have much sword knowledge, and they are paid to sensationalize everything to a certain extent.
Regardless, I will never understand this kind of random killing. What makes a person reason that killing random people is a good idea? Just goes to show that as long as there are people, there will be crazies among them.
|
|
|
Post by RaylonTheDemented on Nov 2, 2020 21:48:57 GMT
Regardless, I will never understand this kind of random killing. What makes a person reason that killing random people is a good idea? Just goes to show that as long as there are people, there will be crazies among them. To be fair is there any 'understanding' the crazy?
So far media are focusing on the mental illness issues side and how its been 'neglected' over the lest decades in the province. Long ago there was a lot of mental institutes, most have been closed due to budget over the years and most mental illness is now treated 'in the street' so to speak, expecting participation from the ill to take medications and suppressors.
I'm not saying that's wrong. However, many schizophrenic characters with delusions of killing people would have been held in institutes in the past, today they wait for them to commit the act to admit them in.
I don't know...
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Nov 3, 2020 1:03:16 GMT
Regardless, I will never understand this kind of random killing. What makes a person reason that killing random people is a good idea? Just goes to show that as long as there are people, there will be crazies among them. To be fair is there any 'understanding' the crazy?
So far media are focusing on the mental illness issues side and how its been 'neglected' over the lest decades in the province. Long ago there was a lot of mental institutes, most have been closed due to budget over the years and most mental illness is now treated 'in the street' so to speak, expecting participation from the ill to take medications and suppressors.
I'm not saying that's wrong. However, many schizophrenic characters with delusions of killing people would have been held in institutes in the past, today they wait for them to commit the act to admit them in.
I don't know...
I don't know what the issues are in Canada as far as reduction in commitments of the insane go, but down here in the USA, most "state hospital" mass releases happened back in the 1970's because of court cases that limited the grounds for locking people up, following a number of ghastly scandals, and the doctors themselves deleting many forms of public weirdness from the official lists of valid diagnoses. Budget typically wasn't an issue.
Frankly, a lot of the old nuthouses were dungeons a short putt from Bedlam, with a great deal of questionable experiments, neglect, and outright sadistic abuse going on, and you could get an annoying person locked up for damn near anything. Now it's harder to get violent nutcases locked up, but you don't have oversexed teenagers getting put away for "nymphomania", doped, electroshocked, and lobotomized, either, just for one example of what used to go on. Neutering the insane was also popular in a number of states.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 3, 2020 2:35:00 GMT
Yeah, as someone with (thankfully, at this point, mild) mental problems; and as someone who has multiple friends and relatives with mental problems, I'm happy that the old Dr. Frankenstein method of dealing with mental illness is out the window. But, I also wish there was a heck ton more awareness of mental health. I think a big problem is the stigma associated with mental illness; a lot of people are afraid to go get help. People always talk about the gun violence problem in the U.S., but the truth is that more than half the gun deaths in the U.S are suicides (I could be wrong on that, but I think that's right).
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Nov 3, 2020 4:20:36 GMT
Yeah, as someone with (thankfully, at this point, mild) mental problems; and as someone who has multiple friends and relatives with mental problems, I'm happy that the old Dr. Frankenstein method of dealing with mental illness is out the window. But, I also wish there was a heck ton more awareness of mental health. I think a big problem is the stigma associated with mental illness; a lot of people are afraid to go get help. People always talk about the gun violence problem in the U.S., but the truth is that more than half the gun deaths in the U.S are suicides (I could be wrong on that, but I think that's right). You are correct. Suicides make up 6 out of 10 gun deaths.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 3, 2020 12:24:33 GMT
Just using objective data and not interjecting any personal opinion or bias into the discussion: there is a direct correlation between the increase in random killing (school shootings, etc) and the closing of mental institutions. If people today were diagnosed using the standards of the 60's and 70's, they would be committed to a hospital and given treatment and not be out on the streets.
With mental health reforms, people who need help can decline the help, and there is nothing that can be done until they step over the line and hurt innocent people. The debate is between the rights of the individual, and the rights and safety of society.
So there I will leave my input, because beyond the objective data it becomes a political/social argument and I won't go into that here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2020 14:32:33 GMT
Just using objective data and not interjecting any personal opinion or bias into the discussion: there is a direct correlation between the increase in random killing (school shootings, etc) and the closing of mental institutions. If people today were diagnosed using the standards of the 60's and 70's, they would be committed to a hospital and given treatment and not be out on the streets. With mental health reforms, people who need help can decline the help, and there is nothing that can be done until they step over the line and hurt innocent people. The debate is between the rights of the individual, and the rights and safety of society. So there I will leave my input, because beyond the objective data it becomes a political/social argument and I won't go into that here. In the cases of violence, the diagnosis of any mental illness often occurs after the fact. Say some of those most remembered from history. No need to list them I guess but the list would fill many pages. For instance though, Charles Whitman. A man that had a model 1950s upbringing in a violent home. Or say, Albert DeSalvo. Another violent household as a child but never studied as a troubled child. Chapman, Hinckley, on and on. Add the hundreds of thousands we don't read about.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Nov 3, 2020 20:34:05 GMT
A tragic issue, with so many homeless on the streets (or in jail) and in dire need of mental help best done in a proper psych hospital. Have a friend years ago who lapsed into illness and nobody, like friends/family, could step in because he had legal rights (have to be a danger to self and others), so finances pretty much destroyed and he became homeless.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Nov 3, 2020 21:01:41 GMT
At one time Miami was throwing the mentally ill in jail because there was no more room in the hospitals. They had a floor reserved for such. Things went on status quo until something happened, cannot remember what, a death of some sort perhaps and the papers got wind of it. The conditions were not good with over packed cells and no medical aid immediately available. They made changes, at least that was given out to the press but how much change actually took place I don’t know.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Nov 6, 2020 8:37:50 GMT
Just using objective data and not interjecting any personal opinion or bias into the discussion: there is a direct correlation between the increase in random killing (school shootings, etc) and the closing of mental institutions. If people today were diagnosed using the standards of the 60's and 70's, they would be committed to a hospital and given treatment and not be out on the streets. With mental health reforms, people who need help can decline the help, and there is nothing that can be done until they step over the line and hurt innocent people. The debate is between the rights of the individual, and the rights and safety of society. So there I will leave my input, because beyond the objective data it becomes a political/social argument and I won't go into that here. In the cases of violence, the diagnosis of any mental illness often occurs after the fact. Say some of those most remembered from history. No need to list them I guess but the list would fill many pages. For instance though, Charles Whitman. A man that had a model 1950s upbringing in a violent home. Or say, Albert DeSalvo. Another violent household as a child but never studied as a troubled child. Chapman, Hinckley, on and on. Add the hundreds of thousands we don't read about. Mental health institutions have a confidentiality statement that says they won't share any info you give them. The exception to this rule is if they have reason to believe you're a danger to yourself or others, or if there's something to do with child abuse, in which case they'll contact someone to deal with the situation. I'm not positive what the difference between the mental health diagnosis process in the 60s-70s and the modern one is, but the modern method seems like a pretty decent system to me.
|
|