Family of six killed by depressed and suicidal 19-year-old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study recently completed in the United States (1,18,19) has made a concerted effort to address these problems, so it stands out as the most sophisticated attempt to date to disentangle these complex interrelationships. Because they collected extensive follow-up data on a large cohort of subjects (N=1,136), the temporal sequencing of important events is clear. Because they used multiple measures of violence, including patient self-report, they have minimized the information bias characterizing past work. The innovative use of same-neighbour comparison subjects eliminates confounding from broad environmental influences such as socio-demographic or economic factors that may have exaggerated differences in past research.

In this study, 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. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%).

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/#!po=1.25000

NOT ‘less than one percent’

Indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighborhood controls. Your entire theory of how to identify who is dangerous is defeated by this piece!

No it isn’t. Are you seriously so dense? My premise is that mental illness does lead to violence in a substantial number of cases - the literature I’ve cited proves this, and it entirely refutes the person here who has repeatedly posted that major depressives engage in violence at a rate of less than one percent - when the rate is actually almost 30%!

For all the bragging about academic pedigrees here, there seem to be a lot of folks incapable of basic reading comprehension.

Here is a quote from the very first paragraph of the study you cited:

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. Therefore, early identification and treatment of substance abuse problems, and greater attention to the diagnosis and management of concurrent substance abuse disorders among seriously mentally ill, may be potential violence prevention strategies. Members of the public exaggerate both the strength of the association between mental illness and violence and their own personal risk. Finally, 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.

How ridiculously you now grasp at straws. The first paragraph doesn’t begin to comprehensively address the topic of the article, as you well know. As you could see and anyone else who bothers reading it can see. The article clearly establishes that the mentally ill commit violence at a rate equal to or double the non mentally ill population - double when substance abuse is concurrent as it is in a great many cases. That is the finding of the article.

You are some kind of incredible asshole.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, on second thought you do sound nutty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study recently completed in the United States (1,18,19) has made a concerted effort to address these problems, so it stands out as the most sophisticated attempt to date to disentangle these complex interrelationships. Because they collected extensive follow-up data on a large cohort of subjects (N=1,136), the temporal sequencing of important events is clear. Because they used multiple measures of violence, including patient self-report, they have minimized the information bias characterizing past work. The innovative use of same-neighbour comparison subjects eliminates confounding from broad environmental influences such as socio-demographic or economic factors that may have exaggerated differences in past research.

In this study, 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. A concurrent substance abuse disorder doubled the risk of violence. Those with schizophrenia had the lowest occurrence of violence over the course of the year (14.8%), compared to those with a bipolar disorder (22.0%) or major depression (28.5%).

From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/#!po=1.25000

NOT ‘less than one percent’

Indistinguishable from their non-substance abusing neighborhood controls. Your entire theory of how to identify who is dangerous is defeated by this piece!

No it isn’t. Are you seriously so dense? My premise is that mental illness does lead to violence in a substantial number of cases - the literature I’ve cited proves this, and it entirely refutes the person here who has repeatedly posted that major depressives engage in violence at a rate of less than one percent - when the rate is actually almost 30%!

For all the bragging about academic pedigrees here, there seem to be a lot of folks incapable of basic reading comprehension.

Here is a quote from the very first paragraph of the study you cited:

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. Therefore, early identification and treatment of substance abuse problems, and greater attention to the diagnosis and management of concurrent substance abuse disorders among seriously mentally ill, may be potential violence prevention strategies. Members of the public exaggerate both the strength of the association between mental illness and violence and their own personal risk. Finally, 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.

How ridiculously you now grasp at straws. The first paragraph doesn’t begin to comprehensively address the topic of the article, as you well know. As you could see and anyone else who bothers reading it can see. The article clearly establishes that the mentally ill commit violence at a rate equal to or double the non mentally ill population - double when substance abuse is concurrent as it is in a great many cases. That is the finding of the article.

You are some kind of incredible asshole.

I quoted the summary of the article. In case you are unfamiliar with how research is written, a summary summarizes the contents within.