Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is pretty simple, you don't need 30 years of studies. There were numerous firearms in a home of a mentally ill person in Conn. and we have seen the results.
Holy drawing conclusions from a single anecdote, Batman!
(Not that I think psychotics, schizophrenics, and other seriously mentally ill people should have guns. But so much is listed under the umbrella of "Mental Illness" nowadays that it would be wholly unreasonable to deprive anyone of any right merely because they were generically considered "mentally ill".)
No one was pushing for the mentally ill to own guns. But the scientific studies cited clearly show they are no more dangerous, violent, or inclined to crime than the general population. They are the VICTIMS of crime and violence much more often. Your reference to the Conneticut shootings is typical anecdotal illogical thinking. You could find many such incidents in you looked for them. They prove nothing. To derive a conclusion a scientifically organized study with the necessary number of incidents, controls, and multivariate analysis to account for possible confounding variables is necessary.
You are assuming that scientific studies are indeed scientific. In many cases, agendas lie behind such "studies", such that they are not studies at all, but propaganda devices. Especially in the case of a left-wing institution such as Harvard, which is brazen in concocting "studies" that support altruist-collectivist propositions.
So no, the mere fact that you announce that "studies" support your illogical position, proves nothing. And, in fact, an anecdotal conclusion based on vague premises is superior to a "study" where the conclusion was reached first, and the experiment to prove it was constructed so as to assure that a contradictory conclusion could not be reached. And in fact, mere application of logic is superior to the tainted studies that you cite to push your obvious agenda.
Today's academics are first to be suspected, rather than respected. A professor at Harvard ranks somewhere above a common prostitute, but the gap is not very large.
You are assuming that scientific studies are indeed scientific. In many cases, agendas lie behind such "studies", such that they are not studies at all, but propaganda devices. Especially in the case of a left-wing institution such as Harvard, which is brazen in concocting "studies" that support altruist-collectivist propositions.
So no, the mere fact that you announce that "studies" support your illogical position, proves nothing. And, in fact, an anecdotal conclusion based on vague premises is superior to a "study" where the conclusion was reached first, and the experiment to prove it was constructed so as to assure that a contradictory conclusion could not be reached. And in fact, mere application of logic is superior to the tainted studies that you cite to push your obvious agenda.
Today's academics are first to be suspected, rather than respected. A professor at Harvard ranks somewhere above a common prostitute, but the gap is not very large.
Many studies are done on a topic before a conclusion is reached. If someone publishes a study with biased results, it will be shown false or biased. Publishing studies that have not been done properly will usually not even be accepted. Studies with falsified data will usually soon be revealed by the results of other researchers. Publishing such data is considered a serious crime in science, and researchers who engage in the practice are discredited and usually fired. So your position that citing refereed published studies as evidence doesn't make sense. What do you propose using to get at the truth? If an issue is in doubt, the only way to determine the truth is through properly designed scientific studies and experiments.
Your assertion that a conclusion reached on anecdotes is absurd; it is an elementary logical fallacy. The mere application of logic tells you nothing about the real world. Logic deals with correct reasoning from established facts. The most it can do is reveal relationships that may not be evident. Researchers are not just academics; research is done in many government labs and private companies. They almost all use results published by other labs. I don't see how Watson and Crick would have clarified the basis of all life or Fermi and Bohr elucidated the structure of the atom, or Fermi shown how atomic power could be generated if they started from biased conclusions.
You claim the studies cited are "tainted." If they are false, why haven't other researchers reached other conclusions? Nature often is quite strange, but the studies cited showing that the mentally ill are no more dangerous than the general population, and are in fact victimized much more often are not that surprising when you consider that the vast majority of the mentally ill are not homicidal maniacs but suffer from things like depression, eating disorders, phobias, etc.
As Dr Eisnberg wrote “The direction of causality is the reverse of common belief: persons who are seriously mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violence than its initiators,†said Leon Eisenberg, M.D., professor emeritus of social medicine and health policy at Harvard Medical School, in an accompanying editorial. “The evidence produced by Linda Teplin et al. settles the matter beyond question.â€
Most people who have a disconnect from reality (virtually anyone diagnosed with schizophrenia or a psychotic disorder) do not go on to kill others. And research has shown that there is no significant statistical difference between people with mental illness and people without it when it comes to violent crimes.
Most individuals with schizophrenia are not violent; more typically, they are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Most violent crimes are not committed by persons with schizophrenia, and most persons with schizophrenia do not commit violent crimes."
--John M Grohol PsyD, World of Psychology Is Mental Illness Relevant in Reporting a Crime? | World of Psychology
There's another summary showing this at Facts About Mental Illness and Violence - Mental Health Reporting - UW School of Social Work
Even those with serious mental illnesses are rarely violent
You have to be careful in separating out the possible confounding variables in comparing populations. For example, if one population has a higher rate of drug use, it will skew the results. The same hols for other drugs BTW. A certain percentage of any population exhibit sociopathic, risk-taking behavior, but it is their basic personalities that cause them to commit crimes, take drugs, and become involved in other risky behavior.
Your assertion that "an anecdotal conclusion based on vague premises is superior to a "study" where the conclusion was reached" is really absurd. BTW, I am also against "collectivist propositions" if by that you mean nanny state, socialist-like proposition.
I have ADD and while some people do use it as a crutch, the side affects including direct links to depression, schizophrenia, and addiction problems are absolutely there:
For people with LEGIT adult ADD, I feel like there really isn't enough awareness especially in the workplace. Not everyone wants to use Aderol on a daily basis. They want to be independent of prescription drugs (myself included in this boat.)
Although I will say, Aderol on a recreational basis is pretty fun
oh yeah, of course I didn't mean you. you are the one person where ADD is legit, everyone else is just faking it for some meds and excuses.
You are assuming that scientific studies are indeed scientific. In many cases, agendas lie behind such "studies", such that they are not studies at all, but propaganda devices. Especially in the case of a left-wing institution such as Harvard, which is brazen in concocting "studies" that support altruist-collectivist propositions.
So no, the mere fact that you announce that "studies" support your illogical position, proves nothing. And, in fact, an anecdotal conclusion based on vague premises is superior to a "study" where the conclusion was reached first, and the experiment to prove it was constructed so as to assure that a contradictory conclusion could not be reached. And in fact, mere application of logic is superior to the tainted studies that you cite to push your obvious agenda.
Today's academics are first to be suspected, rather than respected. A professor at Harvard ranks somewhere above a common prostitute, but the gap is not very large.
I get a little scared when I agree with Marc
I too read many scientific journal articles and biased studies absolutely get approved all the time. If you read them as often as you say (to the OP), you'd know that. The FIRST thing I do when reading any scientific studies or data is look at the last page to see who funded the study, then I read the publication knowing if there is an agenda behind the results. I can find you "legitimate" studies that say smoking is not harmful. Of course they were funded by the tobacco companies. I actually did a paper on this in vet school on a study by Bayer saying Advantage was effective for a common rabbit parasite and then had 3 other legitimate non-pharmaceutical backed papers proving it was completely BS. They were all published in a respected peer reviewed journal of Veterinary Parasitology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get a little scared when I agree with Marc
for this thread at least.
