Thinking the unthinkable - <AUTHOR> http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html <comment><USER3> Post like this terrify me. What if there isn't anything that can be done? It seems like there are some people that are just born broken or at some point they break.

Men who experience schizophrenia it often stars in their late teens or early 20s, and late 20s/early 30s for women [1]. I had a friend in high school who was completely normal in every way. During his first year in college he literally just went crazy. It wasn't a singular event but over 6 months he lost it and he's never been the same. He has access to mental health care and after several years his parents even had him committed for a few months. Nothing helps and even his parents have finally accepted that he will never be the same or even normal.

I don't know what we as a society are supposed to do in these cases and that's what terrifies me above all else.

[1] [http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/ment...](http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/conditions/mental_health_disorders/schizophrenia_85,P00762/)

<comment><USER4> This may be politically incorrect to say right now, but I think the genes associated with mental illnesses that have a tendency to lead to violence will be phased out by a future generation sometime within this century and the next.

We'll soon enough try gun control. That won't stop mass killings. Then we'll try increased mental healthcare access. That won't do much because we'll struggle with the Constitutionality of locking people up in mental hospitals when they aren't _yet_ a threat to anyone.

By this point in the future, genetic screening will be ubiquitous and affordable, possibly mandatory. Cultural attitudes will shift with this, and it will be expected for people to study their genome and compare openly when dating. People will pass on mates due to a high risk of major issues occurring should they have children together (this already happens in the Jewish community with Tay Sachs). Eventually people will be a lot more picky and aware of heredity and we could see a lot of hereditary mental illnesses removed from the population.

(I want to make clear I'm not expressing an opinion on or endorsing this, merely trying to make a prediction)

<comment><USER5> Is "wanting to kill people" really so far from the norm as to have a gene associated with it? What would the gene be responsible for, "Propensity to give a fuck about other living beings"? Because in my mind, the line between being "sane" and killing everyone in sight is pretty fine.

One's logic could go like this, "Man, everything sucks, and those kids down at the preschool are always so damn happy. Fuck Them. If I'm not happy no ones gets to be happy. Lock and load assholes." Suddenly you've got another tragedy. I would imagine people that are suicidal sometimes feel like this. Maybe it depends on how introverted or extroverted they are. The introverts disappear quietly in the dead of night, and the extroverts start mowing down pedestrians in the town square and then blow their brains out standing on the Mayor's statue.

If a gene could be isolated for "suicidal tendencies" and also for intro/extro we might be able to reduce future events like this. But just because someone is a suicidal extrovert that hates everyone it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to start killing people. Maybe the ones that don't are just pussies and the gene for "guts" or "courage" would also have to be isolated?

I don't know I'm just rambling. I ask myself why I don't kill my neighbors. Is it because I'm "sane"? Well I guess so, if "liking others" and not wanting them to be sad is a characteristic of sane people. But I firmly believe that there's a tiny slice of murderer in all sane people, and I like to think of people like Adam Lanza as having just a bigger slice, because putting them in a different category of "mentally ill" sort of feels like I'm denying a part of my own nature.

<comment><USER6> I don't think it's so simple as to written off as some genetic issue certainly and, to be honest with no malice intended, the idea there will be no mental illness at some point in this center is the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile, but I also don't think the "line" between being "sane" and "killing everyone in sight" is fine; why would that be the case? It seems if it really were as precarious as you say, we would have a lot more violence. Only a very small percentage of people become these sorts of rampage shooters.

<comment><USER5> Hmmm maybe fine isn't the right word.

Wasn't there a time not too long ago when tribes of people would go around raping, pillaging, and slaughtering others just for the hell of it? Because it was fun for them? If our world had respawn, I think life would turn into a sort of valhalla-ish existence for a not small percentage of people, and I bet many would learn about a part of themselves they did not know existed, or had supressed.

Maybe rampage shooters are just people born in to the wrong time period, where in another they would fit in perfectly. The line isn't fine, but they aren't as different as we make them out to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was reading this and it made me sad. Not because of the obvious content but because of the diagnosis being thrown around and how when reading them my immediate thought was "I hope it isn't a personality disorder". I say this knowing full well that many insurance companies will NOT cover anything related to personality disorders because they feel that they aren't curable.

I still remember when I called my insurance company at my first job after college to see if they would cover an exam to diagnose an autism spectrum disorder for myself. Their response was as follows: they would cover it if I was found not to have autism and they would not cover it if I did have autism. I remember taking time in the private room I was in at work and just crying. It was just so backwards. In fact, I have been putting off going back for further testing solely because the official diagnosis won't benefit me but could only harm me. At least now if I go see a therapist, the individual symptoms would be listed as reason for the visit instead of possibly something that no insurance company would cover.

<comment><USER8> My heart really goes out to you. Can you imagine replacing "autism" with "type 1 diabetes" in your story and any health insurance company acting that way? Unthinkable. I hope our culture gets to the point where it stops regarding some illnesses as unworthy of care.

<comment><USER7> Thank you. I am just baffled that an insurance company would pay for an unnecessary test instead of one that was deemed necessary. It seems completely contradictory to how they want to make money.

<comment><USER9> I am sorry about your situation but also curious as to how you think insurance companies work (if you don't mind me asking).

<comment><USER7> They negotiate a rate with providers in the network and pay out based on that. My point (and I don't think it was very clear) is that the system currently is set up (for at least that one company) so that if you don't have autism they will pay for the exam (which isn't cheap). Since there is no barrier to getting an exam, everybody could go and get the exam and for the majority of the people the insurance company would pay because they would (most likely) not be diagnosed with autism. The insurance company would pay out for all of these people for a useless test. Granted that this is only if a bunch of people wanted to waste their time and the time of the doctor(s), but it would still not be beneficial to the insurance company.

<comment><USER9> I am sorry, I don't really get what you think they do here. I worked for an insurance company for five years. The longer I worked there, the more policies I canceled. I am sure they won't go extinct just because I think what they do makes Darth Vader look warm and fuzzy, but their test policy is exactly in line with their goal: If you are diagnosed with autism, they don't want to cover treatment.

If you actually need treatment, they want to find a way to limit their liability. They want most people paying in to need little or nothing from them. They work like Las Vegas in that they design the game so the house wins much more often than it loses. It is the only way to pay the employees and keep the doors open. But at least Las Vegas has the redeeming value that you can view any small gambling losses as the cost of entertainment, as no different from buying, say, a movie ticket to be entertained for the evening.

Edit: But thank you for replying and have an upvote for indulging my curiosity.

Edit2: This is a criticism specifically of health and life insurance. Car insurance is another ball of wax and I think has more redeeming value.

<comment><USER7> "They want most people paying in to need little or nothing from them."

Exactly. I'm not conveying my thoughts very well. The way it is setup would allow people to treat the autism diagnosis exam as preventative care. If they know they don't have autism or suspect they don't, they can go get the exam done and insurance will cover it, even though there may have never been a valid reason for that person to take the exam. Granted, this isn't going to be something that many people (if anybody) would do for fun or to make the insurance company suffer, but it is an option the way they have it setup. I hope that makes more sense on my end.

<comment><USER9> The insurance company is well aware that few people will seek such an exam unless they have reason to suspect they have a problem. It is similar to the idea that you don't want to sell insurance specifically and only to cover pregnancy. Any woman looking to sign up for such coverage is extremely likely to be planning on getting pregnant.

Insurance is about risk management. In order to have "risk" there has to be chance. A lot of human behaviors are a choice, not a random roll of the dice. The insurance company is well acquainted with that fact.

I understand your framing, but, no, it doesn't really work that way. You just aren't going to have enough people who are sure they do not have autism decide to get tested for it for it to be a serious risk for the company. Their current policy covers their ass: if you get tested to confirm your diagnosis, you get to pay for the test and, apparently, volunteer to pay out of pocket for any further treatment related to your new diagnosis. They can merrily claim to cover the test if you do not need it because, in practice, the odds are really poor you won't get it if you do not need it.

I hope that is a little clearer from my end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I always get rather nervous when I see posts like this. Things like this obviously happen. However - statistically - people with mental illness are no more likely to commit violence than anybody else.

See <http://psychcentral.com/archives/violence.htm> for example.

When people with mental illness are violent it's usually for the same reason everybody else is. It's usually aimed at family when it does occur - not the world in general.

The story that gets portrayed in the media of mentally ill people being a major danger to the general public is just that - a story. The facts don't back it up.

And those with mental illness have to deal with the bigotry and prejudice that results from this story.

<comment><USER11> Thank you.

There is a big difference between saying that people need better access to diagnosis and treatment, and saying that people need to be locked away before they've done anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel for the parent who has written the article, and whereas I agree we must do more to address the needs of kids with mental illness, I disagree with the stated premise of the article, that it's easy to talk about guns. It's actually not easy to talk about guns in this country, which has led to a lack of any serious gun control regulation. It borders on insanity when we look at the type of weaponry we allow our citizens to purchase, all in the name of an amendment written in a long gone era, where the survival of a fledgling democracy was still uncertain. Just as islamic extremists have hijacked the interpretation of their Koran to serve their purpose, so has the NRA hijacked our constitution to serve its own purpose. And so it's time to come and call out the NRA for exactly what it is - a terrorist organization. Despite whatever mental illness may be afflicting these young unfortunate individuals - the answer to preventing what happened in Connecticut from happening again is extremely strong gun control regulation. To the point where even those few who are allowed access cannot keep weapons at home. I know this does not make the lives of families of people with mental illness any easier - but at least it prevents tragedies of this sort from occurring.

<comment><USER13> "It borders on insanity when we look at the type of weaponry we allow our citizens to purchase..."

"The nra is a terrorist organization."

Wow. Just plain wow. It's probably pointless to respond to your post, considering the emotions you are displaying regarding this topic, you probably won't even listen to a single thing, no matter, at least others who see this reply might understand just how perturbed you really are.

It is a founding principal of america for individuals to maintain and own weapons. Let's just start right there. Since there are many countries with the kind of gun laws you apparently want, I'd suggest moving to them. Reason being, is owning your own weapon isn't a passing fad, it's a mentality that will not be broken by you or anybody else. The best course of action for you, might be to leave america for other countries that place safety above an individuals freedom.

" the answer to preventing what happened in Connecticut from happening again is extremely strong gun control regulation."

Well then I'm sure are glad you are here to tell us the answer. I really would like to hear this, because Connecticut has some of the strictest gun control regulation in the country. The guns the kid used in the shooting were stolen from his mother. Exactly what sort of legislation on the books, beside from a complete ban altogether, would have helped?

I'm personally insulted by your insinuations that the nra is a terrorist organization, and I'm insulted by your blanket statements regarding gun ownership.

"but at least it prevents tragedies of this sort from occurring."

Yes, lets impede on the freedom of a majority, because a minority are unable to handle something. That is possibly the worst logic a person could use. That somehow everybody should be punished because a statistical fraction of users are unstable.

You sir, are part of the problem.

<comment><USER14> > It is a founding principal of america for individuals to maintain and own > weapons.

Are you referring to the second amendment? Because as far as I can tell, that is about state militia as opposed to a standing federal army - and after the Canadians burned down the white house that whole concept got scrapped in favour of a federal army.

Much as I sympathize with the idea of a People on the same footing as the government - you would have to be hopelessly naive to think that the right to own a semiautomatic hand gun will significantly help your fight against the current US Army -.should that be needed.

<comment><USER15> Have you read the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means and it's historical context, as laid out in the Heller and McDonald decisions?

It's reasonably accessible reading (if long) but complete debunks your statement.

<comment><USER14> I hadn't. But I notice that in the most recent (2008) decision four out of nine justices seem to agree with my interpretation; so "completely debunks" seem a bit strong.

You are of course right that in light of the ruling; personal defence is part of the _current_ constitution - I was referring to the original intent - <USER2> which we may only speculate - and I'd say it's not entirely clear that the current law is not based on twisting the words of the constitution to be in line with the gun lobby. I was making more of a moral/theoretical argument; not a direct legislative one wrt the US of today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This woman is saying she both doesn't have the ability to handle her son, and is afraid of him. He's repeatedly threatened to kill her, and is old enough to be a credible threat.

I'm all for individual rights, families taking care of their own members, etc., but it sounds like society would be better if there were a way for her to give him to the state or some specialized institution, rather than just waiting for him to be the next spree killer (or just run of the mill killer, or even just suicide).

This clearly falls in the "public health" category of expenses even most libertarians would be fine with taxes and the state covering.

<comment><USER17> Her kid is also extremely intelligent and seems to have mastered sweetness as a way to get his way still. I wouldn't be surprised if he could behave "normally" for a long stretch of time to get out of whatever institution they put him in. Unless these diagnoses are for life and these institutions are basically a hotel Calofornia.

<comment><USER18> But it would leave a paper trail, just like the social worker said, and this would prevent them later on from getting a firearm legally, which is the way most of the weapons used in mass murders are obtained.

<comment><USER17> Ah, there are some regulations with respect to getting a firearm then? But given the enormous amount of firearms around, would it be hard to get one illegally? I suppose everyone knows someone with a healthy mental outlook and with a serious gun. It does not seem as if you have to go to some heavy criminals to get one.

But it is good to hear that there is at least some sort of barrière to obtain a dangerous weapon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > _Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A > kindergarten classroom._

There are crazy people in every country on earth, many (most) of which have worse "health care" systems than the US; yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons.

I very much doubt it has anything to do with mental health (nowhere else in the world are young children medicated for being kids to such an extent as in the US, BTW).

I think there are two main reasons why there are so many shootings in the US 1/ it's a behavior that has ceased to be "unthinkable" (and every reporting of every new incident adds to the problem) 2/ guns are everywhere

I know HN frowns upon any kind of "political" discussion, so I'll won't elaborate too much, but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol??

\- - -

Also, if I had had a "soccer mom" that told me I couldn't wear a this or that color of trousers when I was 13 (13!!), I would have called her names, too. I have three kids of my own. They can dress any way they please.

<comment><USER20> _I know HN frowns upon any kind of "political" discussion, so I'll won't elaborate too much, but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol??_

She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do.

I cannot understand for the life of me why the focus here is on guns. Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history, but mass shootings are a comparatively _new_ phenomena that are sadly becoming increasingly frequent, so 'ready access to guns' doesn't seem like a particularly compelling explanation. Neither does the influence of media reporting, since this reporting is worldwide but the mass shootings remain predominantly American.

As an immigrant to America, I wonder if the emphasis on individualism and dynamism that makes America so appealing also comes with costs. People here may be more likely to take bold action to solve their problems (or perceived problems), and this includes the segment of the population that's criminal, evil, or mentally ill.

Now if so, this is nothing new - America's been a dynamic culture of entrepreneurs and dreamers long before this outbreak of mass violence. However, America previously combined this dynamism with stronger forms of moral education and social control - primarily religious ones, but also bonds to local communities and extended families. The gradual weakening of _these_ bonds has coincided with the rise of mass shootings.

To sum up, America's individualistic, energetic culture minus a strong moral foundation and community ties = very bad news.

Of course, this is just my own theory, and it's probably wrong. Societies are complicated things. But I do wish people would dig about a bit more under the cultural hood before reflexively pinning the blame on firearms.

<comment><USER19> > _She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do._

She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? And she needed to keep the gun (and ammunition) in her home?

It isn't true that "Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history"; talking about the "Second Amendment" makes it seem that nothing has changed since the 18th century, but the truth is the current situation started no earlier than the 1960s.

And about media reporting:

1/ Media reporting abroad is nothing compared to the US -- as with most news, big events are talked about a lot in the country of origin, and are just a topic among others in all other nations; right now the five first articles on the front page of Slate is about this, for example, whereas here in France, it's hardly a topic of conversation (it did make the front page of Le Monde on paper, but not on the web where all news are in a section called "Americas")

2/ Where things happen matter a lot. If it happens in a distant country it will not influence you the same way as if it happens in your own neighborhood (or somewhere perceived as such).

<comment><USER21> > She liked to go shooting with a Glock??

Yes??? What do you think a glock is, just out of curiosity? It's a completely boring handgun.

Semi-automatic doesn't mean what you think it does. Basically all modern guns are semi-automatic. It's a broad classification.

<comment><USER19> > _It's a completely boring handgun_

That's the point. "Boring" means failsafe: good for the shooter, not so good for the victims.

A gun that would threaten to explode in the face of the shooter every other round, or that would make it almost impossible to hit the target, would be completely non-boring. It would also make it a poor choice to carry on a mass- shooting.

The Glock is the Mercedes of guns.

<comment><USER21> Hm, I'm afraid I don't totally understand your point. Why shouldn't a recreational shooter want reliability?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is the standard NRA line. It's not about guns, its about mental illness. But in fact its about the intersection of easy access to guns and mental illness. It's terrifically hard to screen for mental illness. It's stupidly easy to restrict access to guns.

<comment><USER23> The view of Second Amendment advocates is that civilian access to firearms is a fundamental civil right that protects the people from their government. This makes it a fundamentally different question than the standard utilitarian arguments one could come up with. It's easy to imagine ways of making people safer by eliminating their civil rights. But we choose to maintain these civil rights despite the costs.

<comment><USER22> And the fourth amendment says that protection against unreasonable search and seizure is also a fundamental right that protects the people from their government. But that was gone in a flash.

<comment><USER23> No, it's not. You're being hyperbolic.

In any case, I think you and I would agree that it's worthwhile to resist violations of the fourth amendment even if you could make a case that they would save lives. I'm just suggesting we apply the same standard to other civil rights. American liberals are a little two-faced about this kind of thing.

<comment><USER24> _> You're being hyperbolic._

I wish he was being a lot more hyperbolic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is incredibly important.

Every time I talk to people from outside of the country about the US, the first thing that comes up is the difficulty of obtaining proper healthcare.

<comment><USER26> Is there any evidence that healthcare would help with this situation?

<comment><USER27> As somebody who has dealt with the mental health care system without and with mental health care... absolutely yes.

<comment><USER28> While I don't doubt your assertion, I think the parent was looking for more evidence than a simple "yes".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It good to talk about mental illness, but the debate on guns is still relevant.

Here is a similar incident in a country with no easy access to gun: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre>

With a truck and a knife, it's 7 deaths instead of 28.

<comment><USER13> Yes, and if there were no knives, maybe there would have been zero deaths. But for some reason a call to ban knives is never heard.

Calling for a ban on guns due to what is relatively a statistical anomaly, is kneejerk at best, and encroaching on individual rights at worst.

<comment><USER30> There is no call to blanket ban knives/blades because of their many basic and common uses.

However, many countries do have legislation knifes, sometimes outright banning certain blades. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm sorry. Im a parent. This lady needs to control her kid. Vote it down if you want, but when 'Michael' snaps and shoots up a school then everyone will say shouldve couldve woudldve. She is clearly ALLOWING this behavior. Funny, no mention of a father.

From experience, mothers are way more tolerant of out of control kids.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen.

<comment><USER32> Considering she explains in detail how she has had to take him to hospital multiple times with the assistance of police to restrain him, and further admits that pressing charges against him is perhaps the only last remaining option (which she indicates she is understandably reluctant to do), I'm having a hard time seeing what she isn't doing?

Could you perhaps elaborate as to what you would do to control a mentally ill child such as her own?

<comment><USER33> Press charges.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Mental health care isn't that easy to obtain north of the border either, here in Canada.

I had to wait nearly 1.5 years to get the help I needed. I've dealt with issues for over 25 years, and only recently have I identified them. I still struggle with them. During the last 1.5 years, I nearly failed out of my Master's program.

Here's hoping I can finish it.

<comment><USER35> I have two family members that were bipolar. One lived in the US and was diagnosed and treated for decades. She received free care due to Medicaid and Medicare. She was always poor.

Was it the best care? Perhaps not, but at least she could always get it when she acknowledged she needed it.

The other lived in the UK and went undiagnosed for decades. When he finally met his mom and realized he was also bipolar, he had to push the health service doctors hard to accept his diagnosis and finally treat him. He was successful engineer and even owned his own company.

It seems universal care sacrifices everybody's quality. Personally, I think 2 sensible people could sit down and design a better system than either approach.

Good luck with finishing your degree.

<comment><USER36> "It seems universal care sacrifices everybody's quality".

I don't think thats quite the case. I live in the UK and can't comment on the US system from personal experience, however what I hear most about over the pond is the many people who get screwed from not having health care or not actually having significant cover when the need arises. Its said that having a life threatening illness will pretty much bankrupt the majority of people.

Obviously if thats true, then all those people who aren't getting great service for whatever the reason would be better off with the UK system, but even with universal health care, I've had additional private health care for most of my working life, so theres nothing stopping you from getting the best care available despite the fact they'll send you to the same doctors and get you the same treatment in the vast majority of cases.

Personally I think our national health service is fantastic. The system isn't perfect and there are some advantages to private, like for non life threatening issues you can often get seen a lot sooner, and we should always be trying to strife to improve our situation. I'd never trade it for the American system though.

We also don't have a lot of massacres, but I'd wager thats a much more complicated discussion.

<comment><USER35> There may actually be a dearth of reports on "So and so got adequate care".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Thank god a post like this was brought up. This incident in CT has undoubtedly brought up a national debate about gun control, but I hope to God it sparks a debate about mental illness, the real cause behind all of these mass shootings.

<comment><AUTHOR> Amen to that. Thanks for upvoting it (I assume), rather than flagging it. I had some doubts about posting this vis a vis the guidelines, but thought it was important, especially given the stridently political nature of all the discussion I've seen about the shooting in CT on here thus far.

<comment><USER38> Thanks for bringing this case which shows the complexity of the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > "Then I'm going to kill myself," he said.

I remember doing that.

> He's been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a > Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

I remember that.

> A few weeks ago, Michael..threatened to kill me

I did that too.

She forgot to mention the time(s) he threatened to run away. (I'd be surprised if he didn't.)

After a marathon of transfers, expulsions, and incidents, I was at the end of the line. My parents interrupted my electronic solipsism for a moment to tell me the truth. It was a long conversation, but it can be summed in a sentence.

"Son, you're out of options, if you want to have a future you need to play nice at this next school."

Maybe I'd been delivered that message in the past, if I was, I don't remember it. This time it clicked for me. I realized that I'd had my fun hurting the faculty of various schools, but if I wanted to see the day after tomorrow, I would need to stop hurting people.

Before I continue on with my story, I would like to share an anecdote about handwriting:

For the longest time my handwriting was awful. My whole life in fact. When I was learning, I had a mean, evil instructor. She would yell at me when I wrote the letters wrong, it really seemed to bother her. So I wrote the letters the wrong way on purpose, because making her mad was more important to me than drawing Latin runes. Eventually I had learned how to handwrite, entirely wrong, out of habit.

As the years passed by, the root of this badness became obscured in other peoples memory. My mom attributed it to mental illness, everyone else did too. But I knew better. I _know_ better. A few months ago, I decided to improve my handwriting. I would pick a font and learn to write in it. There wouldn't be any tutorials of course, I'd just copy the symbols until they looked right.

At first it was just trial and error, I would try and write the symbol the way I saw it on my computer monitor. (The only one that eluded me is that weird 'a' that looks more like an '&'.) Then, once I figured out how to write the symbol, I would practice the motions over and over on paper. I eventually moved on to writing whole sentences, entirely in this new script. Then whole paragraphs. I stopped short of essays, because by then I had basically mastered the points where my current writing lacked.

Then at school I would apply it, even when it was slower than my normal note taking, I would slowly and methodically do my symbols the new way; the right way. Occasionally I would fall back into my old habits, but only for a moment. Slowly I got better, faster. Over the course of days it became a habit. Over the course of weeks it became second nature. Over the course of months it faded into the background.

Back to my story. I knew I couldn't do what I was doing anymore. So I sat myself down and listened to Linkin Park's _Breaking the Habit_ , over and over, on repeat. The problem is that it's stupid easy to threaten to kill people. It's stupid easy to be a terrible person. I decided I didn't want to be that person anymore, partly because I couldn't be.

I got to school, and did the last overtly malicious thing I can think of. (At least, that can be characterized by my earlier behavior.) There was a boy, let's call him Jacob, Jacob had earned a reward for his good behavior. I knew this before he did, because I was in an introductory one on one with the instructor, to explain the rules. She told me to tell him she wanted to tell him something. But not to spoil it.

I went up to him and promptly relayed that he was in major trouble. He went into the head instructors office crying. I hadn't meant to do _that_. I figured when he heard that he had actually received an award it would lift his spirits even more. It was a pretty stupid idea.

He came out of her office drying his tears, but still sobbing a little. It hurt me to see this. He didn't deserve that, and it was all my fault. I'd ruined what should have been a happy moment in his life. Of course; the instructor had words for me, they were scalding as I remember them. But as I contemplated Jacob, they were just background noise. I cried.

And after that, things got better. I stopped lying, I stopped calling people names, or threatening to blow them up. Occasionally I would fall into my old habits, but I'd rebound. Eventually, I was so well behaved that they couldn't justify keeping me at a specialty school, I was filtered back into the public school system.

I often think about what my younger self would think of me now, I don't think he would like me very much; in fact he might even threaten to kill me. If he did, I'd probably laugh. I'd tell him the truth:

"You can kill me, but that won't solve your problems."

<comment><USER40> If a sudden moment of clarity would be a repeatable cure for mental illness, we would not need mental healthcare. Please read up on confirmation bias.

<comment><USER41> Agreed. I'm a little taken aback by the parent post's "I was like that, but fixed myself with Linkin Park" attitude. It came off to me as rather dismissive, although I don't believe that was the intention at all.

My mother-in-law has bipolar, and is in the hospital pretty much every spring. She has the benefit of being in Australia, where the health care system is leaps and bounds better than what we have in America, at least. I also have a friend who's worked in the mental ward of two hospitals.

Sure, when you're young, it's fun to go down the DSM and think about how some of the symptoms of schizoid personality disorder feel like they kind of apply to you, and there are so many self-diagnosed aspies on the internet, but this leads to anecdotal trivialization of serious mental illness.

Go volunteer in your local mental ward. Spend a few long months with diagnosed, treated (as well as they can be) mentally ill people. It'll change your perspective on so many things, from tragedies like this to views on trends in modern humor.

<comment><USER42> > _I'm a little taken aback by the parent post's "I was like that, but fixed > myself with Linkin Park" attitude. It came off to me as rather dismissive_

Almost as dismissive as summing up his post as, "I was like that, but fixed myself with Linkin Park."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> > In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it's easy to talk about > guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness.

I think it becomes all the more important to talk about weapons when you have a mentally inflicted person in your family.

> methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single > Tupperware container that now travels with me

This is exactly what i'm talking about.

> > [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9748253/Connecticut- > school-shooting-live.html)

This is an article i just read after reading this post. According to it: Lanza's mother was a big fan of guns. And taught her son how to shoot. And they had lot of weaponry at home.

I do not know of mental history of Lanza. Assuming if there was a bad side to it, it is obviously very inconsiderate to have such a child being introduced or even be in periphery of any kind of weaponry.

> God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

Amen. Also, in retrospect, it is really important to regulate access to weapons, especially in a case where there is a bad mental history.

</comment><comment><USER44> Reading this nearly brought a tear to my eye. I can't imagine what it's like for a mother to fear her own barely-teenage son and worry about the implications of his condition for the remainder of her life. I agree it's important to discuss mental illness and how it should be handled, but what is she suggesting should be implemented to address situations like this?

</comment><comment><USER45> I think this woman's blog post is interesting, for all the obvious reasons as well as the consideration that Aspergers and other forms of autism are associated with Silicon Valley children.

<comment><USER46> As someone from her sons perspective.

Unfortunately, she doesn't deal with her son the way he needs to be dealt with. Stick him in-front a computer, surround him with electronics(DO NOT TAKE THEM AWAY, USE THEM AS THERAPY) and feed him. Nothing else... This is how your autist/aspy child becomes a brilliant geek. If you even attempt to program them in the NORMAL way, they will do nothing but, reject, and yes, call you a "stupid bitch"(as I have done to my own mother, apologies.)

In public school, and even private institutions(outside of those full of computer-savvy aspy/autistic) the social-structure environment is completely inappropriate for someone such as her son, and he may(probably will) experience a "rejection" from the greater majority of peers.

Social interaction from a terminal is not the same as true in-real-life social interaction, but it can be used as a bridge to safely communicate remotely, and also develop social-interactivity concepts for when he is in the real world.

This mom seems to be (insanely)attempting to program a NOT-Normal-Child into a Normal-Child. She needs to be as proactive as possible to seek alternative programming methods for a child with Autism/Aspy.

One thing she mentioned was that she would strip the electronic devices from him to institute punishment(THAT WILL GET YOU KILLED). Instead, use the electronic devices as an incentive to contribute to good things and when instructing punishment, have him USE the electronic devices to CONSTRUCT or, meditate in the cyber-environment)

Maybe, he'll be the next Steve or Bill. Perhaps, he'll be the next Gary Mckinnon.

Its all about the programming.

<comment><USER47> > _"Maybe, he'll be the next Steve or Bill. Perhaps, he'll be the next Gary > Mckinnon."_

Or maybe something will trigger him at age 20 and he makes good on his threats.

> _"This mom seems to be (insanely)attempting to program a NOT-Normal-Child > into a Normal-Child."_

Because the "not normal" side of the child is violent, cunningly manipulative, and possibly homicidal. There is a line at which we draw acceptable behavior - homicidal and violent intent seems pretty liberal.

This is not a typical aspie we're talking about. When a child has demonstrable, repeated, unpredictable, and _extremely_ violent tendencies we can't just lock them in a room with a terminal and hope everything turns out ok.

<comment><USER48> "When a child has demonstrable, repeated, unpredictable..."

If its repeatable, its definitely predictable now.

Thank you for the person who posted this method(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivotal_response_therapy>), it was unknown to me before, but it seems to be what could be attempted in a majority of these situations.

As far as anyone becoming more isolated...Why does a person have to be social in the first place, isolation is sometimes exactly what is needed even, wanted. In the mindset of certain autist/apsy, Tradition(s), family-concepts- dynamics, even self-preservation are completely worthless ideological fantasies.

The violent behavior is purely reactive, and just an escalation of the manipulation technique that he is employing. He's SO SMART his brain is brute- forcing social methods of manipulation in order to obtain/achieve a goal/objective. If he is rejected one way, he will just attempt another method to get what he wants, and so on. Violence is usually the last resort of the reactions unless, he knows it will usually work the first attempt.

Its intelligence that is both the savior & the enemy here.

<comment><USER47> > _"He's SO SMART his brain is brute-forcing social methods of manipulation in > order to obtain/achieve a goal/objective."_

This seems like wild supposition to me. We know that the child has wild mood swings and alternates between "normal" and "manipulative and violent". I don't think it's clear at all that his behavior is due to raw intelligence. To be more blunt, this seems like armchair psychology with _nothing_ in the blog post (or the other cases referenced in this thread) to support this perspective.

There needs to be substantial support if we are to believe that a child that experiences psychotically violent phases is doing so for logically sound reasons, because our current understanding of disorders such as this point in the opposite direction.

> _"As far as anyone becoming more isolated...Why does a person have to be > social in the first place"_

I think you're conflating two issues. There is indeed no reason to _force_ anyone to be social - but the reality is that even in the 21st century it is practically impossible to lead a life without social contact. Even the most ardent hermit _must_ interact with the rest of the world at some point.

The question here, in the context of the tragedy that occurred this week, is not about the child. It is about whether or not, if left alone without interference, the child will eventually pose a substantial threat to society at large. It's about the state of mental health care in this country and whether or not people like this child need to be "fixed".

And when it comes to explosively violent people - particularly people who can be set off by unpredictable triggers (the child's mother, after caring for him for _years_ still has no handle on his triggers, and there is no real reason to believe the mother is unbelievably daft) - I emphatically believe that it is correct to pathologize this behavior.

<comment><USER49> Just as I was/am, and probably just as he is.

We are cunningly manipulative from the get-go, any emotional response from that point is just part of the game, even the fits of rage are a last-ditch effort to assert some form of dominance over the situation after we have expelled every last conceivable option/variable to achieve a set/dynamic goal or objective.

It starts with the parent not parenting an autistic child as an autistic child. The article has a few points that threw red flags immediately, that would be regular triggers for me(such as her punishment strategies for just one) also, the way she attempts to have him CONFORM to school rules though, there had clearly been an exemption made for his clothing(he wants to be free to be free, and in this conformal society, that's ludicrous)...

I hope they make it.

<comment><USER50> How many poorly-disguised sockpuppet accounts do you have, JohnLatter/LatterJohn/RettalnhoJ? Really clever on that last one, Count Alucard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm not sure how I feel about this post but it does make some good points. As someone who grew up with 2 mentally unstable brothers, a bi-polar single mom, and a con-artist dad I feel like I have seen a wide variation of mental conditions that range from genetic, to environment, to choice. I have never once seen a person "fixed" of their mental condition besides depression. One of my brothers went on to be a convicted rapist serving time in prison. My other brother was forced into a mental facility and is constantly sedated due to his considerable talent at making threats. My mother died of a sudden brain aneurism, which may or may not have attributed to her mood swings. My father is on the move enough to avoid most victims of his cons and we talk on the phone once or twice a year. The outcome for each of them has only one commonality, nothing changed. Sometimes the most difficult answer is to admit there is no answer and certain people are stuck with certain personality traits. Sometimes the only solution is to give them a peaceful environment that will keep them and others in the community safe.

</comment><comment><USER52> This blog post reminds me of a New York Times article about Child Psychopathy... I'm not sure if it is the same as Schizophrenia but if they are not the same, I would say the child in this article sound closer to being psychopathic rather than schizophrenic... There are certainly not much the system can do for you in either case.

If you're interested, here's the chilling article by the NYT: [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you- call-a-9-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you- call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER53> Divorced 4 years ago, children angry, this kid probably needs discipline more than he needs drugs, many of which aren't even properly tested on developing brains.

</comment><comment><USER24> _> At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You'll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing._

Right there, is why we needed health care reform. (And still need more.) I'd like to meet one middle class person who's not on a big company's premium plan tell me otherwise.

<comment><USER54> _I'd like to meet one middle class person who's not on a big company's premium plan tell me otherwise._

Happy to oblige. I recently looked into this before I quit my job four months ago to spend some time working on hobby projects. So here's the situation as I understood it: (a) There is a law called COBRA which says after you've quit your job the insurance company has to keep you on the same plan you had for the next 18 months (36 months in California), with the same rates your employer was paying, (b) There is a law called HIPAA which says that after you've used up all COBRA the insurance company has to give you coverage regardless of any preexisting conditions, as long as the gap in your coverage was below (I think) 60 days. So someone in my situation (middle class person not on a big company's plan, as you asked) there is no gain from the healthcare reform. Also, while this was not immediately relevant to my situation, I think that (in CA at least) the insurance company cannot deny you coverage based on the preexisting condition if you're below certain age (19 years old I think?). So as long as you've _either_ gotten the coverage below that age _or_ had a job with a group plan at any point later in your life, and had no gaps in coverage since, you are fine.

I'm not at all against the healthcare reform, but I suspect that most of the time when people complain about the healthcare situation in the US they just don't know the facts. I also suspect that in many cases when people share their health insurance horror stories, there is something they're not telling you. Like that they had a gap in coverage. Or that they had to take a job because they needed steady income, and saying it was because of health coverage has a better ring to it.

<comment><USER24> _> Happy to oblige. I recently looked into this before I quit my job four months ago to spend some time working on hobby projects._

I should simply extend this to, "one middle class person who's not had the benefit of being on a big company's premium plan tell me otherwise." If it wasn't for COPBRA and HIPAA, you'd be in a much different situation.

 _> So as long as you've either gotten the coverage below that age or had a job with a group plan at any point later in your life, and had no gaps in coverage since, you are fine._

That's a whole lot of stipulations. I think it should just be reduced to the last 3 words.

 _> I also suspect that in many cases when people share their health insurance horror stories, there is something they're not telling you._

I see lots of people _roll their eyes_ when I mention my sister's healthcare horror stories. How is it that people know _a priori_ that, "there is something they're not telling you?" There is some clear prejudice operating here -- without exception, people who have that axe to grind don't even let me finish the sentence before their eyes roll. Incidentally, my sister is covered under the plan for the New York City Ballet. She's a dance educator and takes the same classes as the company as enrichment for her job. Even she has a healthcare horror story.

She blew out her hamstring during one of those classes. She was scheduled to go in for an MRI to see if she needed surgery, but there was a traffic accident involving a toddler, and they had to MRI the kid first, so she couldn't get her MRI, so the doctors have her stay overnight at the hospital to get her MRI first thing in the morning. Well, it turns out she didn't need surgery, so the insurance company sticks her with over $4000 for the hospital stay! There is nothing I'm not telling you about that.

<comment><USER55> I quit my job at a tiny company 2 years ago and then I got an individual plan for myself while I worked for myself.

Why did she need to stay in the hospital to get an MRI? Couldn't she just wait in the ER until it was her turn? Seems like blown hamstring shouldn't require an overnight hospital stay for any reason ever...

<comment><USER24> _> Why did she need to stay in the hospital to get an MRI?_

Have you tried to get yourself home with a blown hamstring?

 _> Couldn't she just wait in the ER until it was her turn?_

The toddler in the accident had the last slot of the day. So, are you recommending that she could've just waited all night in the waiting room?

 _> Seems like blown hamstring shouldn't require an overnight hospital stay for any reason ever._

She just did what the doctors recommended.

<comment><USER55> >Have you tried to get yourself home with a blown hamstring?

I assumed she had family in the area. Did she drive herself home the next day with a still blown hamstring?

> The toddler in the accident had the last slot of the day. So, are you > recommending that she could've just waited all night in the waiting room? > For 4k I would have.

> She just did what the doctors recommended.

I can certainly understand that, but also don't think it needed a hospital stay. The MRI doesn't fix anything, it just tells you how bad things are. She could have had a relative drive her home, sleep in her bed, and drive her back the next day.

For the record, I broke my arm playing softball 3 years ago. The paramedics wanted to drive me to the hospital. I told them no, because I knew it would cost 1-2k for the 10 minute drive. Instead I had a friend do it. They didn't ask me to stay overnight for my x-ray, but i did wait for several hours. If for some reason they had asked me stay because it broke (the machine) or wouldn't be ready, you can guarantee I would not have. I know it's really expensive, and there isn't anything they would be doing for me. I'd have gone home and been miserable for free instead of staying and been miserable for 4k.

Sometimes you need to question what doctors tell you. They are in the business of helping people, but they are also for profit. Maybe they assumed your insurance would cover it, but that doesn't mean it was necessary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Sorry, but what is "society" supposed to do exactly? Last time I checked, mental health professionals _don't_ know how to cure or fix kids like this. What exactly does it mean to say we don't have enough mental healthcare? This article did nothing to help me understand that.

</comment><comment><USER57> Right now I can understand why it's a gun control problem rather than a health care problem. But what about when one day 3D printer is everywhere? Printing of firearms would be made possible by high-quality 3D printer and it would be next to impossible to control. Just as it is impossible to control piracy. We have to deal with this problem, before it is deemed too late.

<comment><USER58> There's still a bit of time before we can print ammo. Gun control could evolve into ammo control.

<comment><USER13> I don't mean to come off as insulting, but you do understand how incredibly easy it is to make your own ammo right?

Dye casting lead is peanuts, considering the low boiling point of lead makes for easy casts.

There is so much ammo already out there, new brass probably won't even need to be created, simply reusing all old brass that's out there would more than suffice for the needs of even a large squad.

So we have lead, and we have brass covered. Next is the explosive primer. That would probably be the weakest link in the chain, in that your average basement redneck won't be creating his own primer anytime soon, but it is possible. The problem is how little primer is actually needed per round; and you have guys that have put away in storage literally pounds of primer.

It might be possible, but I'm sure if it ever got to that point, it would be trivial to order primer online, just like how one can order not-quite-legal- drugs online and have them delivered right to your front door.

In this modern world, I don't think it is possible to regulate things like it used to be. Anyway, anything can happen, and thanks for reading.

<comment><USER58> I wrote that in a spirit of "put ingredients in the machine on one side, collect ammo on the other."

I just meant to say it's just as sensible to regulate ammo than it is to regulate guns, and (IMHO) easier. That doesn't mean home ammo is out of reach. Just like I don't think home-built guns are.

I admit not having considered it in as much detail as you did :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Sobering read, reminds me of this rather depressing NY Times article: "Can you call a 9-year old a psychopath".

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you- call-a-9-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you- call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER60> Does anyone know a) how often this sort of pattern presented itself historically, and b) what people did back in the good old days? For example, what would a small rural town have done to support someone like Michael? Would they have treated him somehow? Would they have assumed he was possessed by a demon and tried an exorcism? Or would they have found a way to get rid of him in a hunting accident, and had a dirty little town-wide secret? Or what? It's a really hard problem, obviously, and history might at least give us some ideas (possibly some very bad ones, granted).

Of course, since his outbursts are so episodic, it would be interesting to consider installing some sort of drug system in the kid, remote-controlled that either knocks him out or just sedates him when he gets belligerent, similar to how diabetics have insulin dispensers. It would be interesting to see if his "sweet, sunny" self would accept this leash on his evil twin, or even the particularly interesting possibility that he can be taught to observe the episode and trigger the device himself. It would also, of course, be interesting to get an fMRI of his brain before and after an episode - he could advance our knowledge of the biological basis of rage and hatred. Heck, if he's really that smart he'd probably do well to consider a neuroscience track so he can study himself, eventually.

<comment><USER61> > Of course, since his outbursts are so episodic,

My suspicion is that they very specifically aren't episodic - lots of kids with this style of behavior problem are excellent manipulators. You can't discount the possibility that he's behaving well and poorly in order to extract what he wants out of other people.

<comment><USER60> That doesn't sound consistent with the article at all. I mean, the kid seems to have uncontrolled outbursts which don't sound manipulative to me. I mean, he didn't want to go to the mental hospital but he repeated the behavior he knew would get him there. Perhaps it was a gamble to see if his mom would keep her word, but the way the article is written, it doesn't sound like that.

<comment><USER27> Outbursts can, from what i've seen, be a final attempt to manipulate somebody. If every time you bring up death/suicide, and you get what you want, well then... why wouldn't that child try that technique again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> After reading the story, one big glaring question. Where is the father? He's not around. Boys need fathers. If you want to screw up a child, take away the father.

</comment><comment><USER63> This article [1] seems to highlight a number of issues with the original.

[1] [http://thegirlwhowasthursday.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/you- ar...](http://thegirlwhowasthursday.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/you-are-not-adam- lanzas-mother/)

</comment><comment><USER64> There have been suggestions that this woman's son has issues in part due to abuse at the hands of his parents: [http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want- the-truth-behind-i-...](http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want-the-truth- behind-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-read-her-blog/)

I don't know enough about the situation to make a claim one way or the other, but it's worth taking note.

</comment><comment><USER65> Outlaw guns, knives and rocks, and wink them out of existence, and these people are still there.

Treat them, and some of them will come back.

Outlawing guns doesn't solve this problem. But outlawing guns is the kind of "solution" we like, because a) there's a clear, specific action to argue over, and b) we can focus on it long enough to get the law through and then fool ourselves into thinking we've done something.

<comment><USER66> Regulating guns ("outlawing" is a straw man) ameliorates the problem of how much damage a mentally disturbed person can do.

A knife in the same situation is much less dangerous, as evidenced by the incident in China at the same time where people were hurt, but none so far killed.

Degrees matter.

<comment><USER67> > Regulating guns ... ameliorates the problem of how much damage a mentally > disturbed person can do.

No, it makes it much worse. We want the violent lunatics to have guns, because guns are not particularly fast or efficient at killing people. A lone gunman can kill at most a few hundred people before he is stopped.

You know those nightclub fires that kill hundreds of people in ten minutes? We want our nutjobs to have guns so they will not be forced to recreate a nightclub fire on a stadium scale, followed by decades of copycats.

<comment><USER68> These "more efficient" methods are also available without gun regulation, so why doesn't this happen already? Apparently there's something about guns that makes them an attractive weapon for these people.

Another thing here is that gun regulation alone is not sufficient. In the Netherlands guns are heavily regulated, but we still had the incident in Alphen a/d Rijn [1] last year. The shooter was a member of a shooting association and _was known to have mental problems_. That's just not a good combination.

If guns could be regulated in such a way that they _never_ end up in the hands of violent lunatics that would probably be okay, but I just don't see how you could do that without banning them altogether.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_ma...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting)

<comment><USER67> > Apparently there's something about guns that makes them an attractive weapon > for these people.

Thousands of exciting movies and TV shows about guns as a tool for "justice".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Children are a severe puzzle. What can we tell mothers like this?

Is there a long-term self-care situation for a child that misbehaves, even if his IQ is "130"? Do we tell her to modify her expectations—that no test can change his disabilities?

Or do we embrace the neurotypical? At low expense the taxpayer can pay people to study kids like these and build an environment where their "high IQ" can thrive.

We are weird with children in this country. Our constitution does not establish any interest, state or federal, in them. We have gun rights and not children's livelihood rights. We abrogate responsibility of the hard question—treat like disabled or treat like special genius—to fallible and powerless parents.

The discussion is not, What do we do with moms or guns? It's what do we do with children.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here are some numbers from Gloucestershire, a rural county in England.

In a population of about 800,000 people there are about 4,000 people on the books of specialist MH treatment services at any time.

There are about 2,000 people with a diagnosis of psychotic illness (eg, schizophrenia). There are about 3,000 people with a diagnosis of mood disorder (eg, depression).

There are about 60 beds for 'adults of working age'[1] with a MH problem. Most treatment is successfully provided in the community by community and home treatment teams. Staff visit people in their homes daily, weekly, fortnightly, monthly, whatever. Treatment is not just medical and drugs, it involves therapy, but it also involves occupational stuff. (Occupational stuff does not just mean 'work' (although that's important and there are specialist teams focussed on 'place and train' return to work) but includes meaningful social activity, education, exercise, family and friend networks, etc.)

There are no beds in county for children. Children with a need for a psychiatric in-patient stay are sent out of county. (Apart from a short time each year when adult drug and alcohol re-hab is used for children.)

There are a small number of beds in a low-secure forensic unit.

There is an estimated 30,000 (thirty thousand) (high end) or 22,000 (twenty two thousand) (low end) people with a probable diagnosis of one of the personality disorders.

PD is a difficult diagnosis. It used to be a diagnosis of exclusion. Someone with a diagnosis of PD would not be committed to MH hospital, because PD was thought to be not treatable. PD is no longer a diagnosis of exclusion. Someone with a diagnosis can be committed to a MH hospital. But they are much more likely to find themselves involved in the criminal justice system.

Gloucestershire has had a well known incident where someone with a mental illness has killed - (<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1182902.stm>) (etc).

The serial killers Fred and Rosemary West lived in Gloucestershire. They killed maybe 13 people. (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_West>)

We hear a great deal about these significant murders. We hear very little about the every day murders - the murders by the sane. Very many children are raped or abused or murdered by their sane parents; very many people are murdered by their sane spouses; very many sane people commit acts of violence every day. We don't hear too much about the number of ill people killing themselves. (UK: about 1000 murders a year, about 4000 suicides per year.)

People with a mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than to be the perpetrators of violent crime.

The US does have serious problem with terrible care for people with mental illness. Do you really need a spree killing to start that discussion? Do you walk past the homeless and think it's okay so long as they're not killing anyone?

[1] Historically services have been split between "old people"; "adults of working age"; "children and adolescents"; and "people with an IQ < X". There are problems with these arbitrary divisions, and modern services are moving away from them.

<comment><USER70> You should be thankful that you have 1000 murders a year. We have 3X as many _per capita_ in the US.

<comment><USER11> Well, I'm really just comparing rates of murder to rates of completed suicide. From a very quick bit of web searching I find that rate of completed suicide in US is about 11.3 per 100,000 while rate of homicide is 5.5 per 100,000 people. Completed suicide numbers are roughly double homicide numbers.

Here's my sources:

([http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in- the-u...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us- statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml))

NIMH (national institute of mental health) say about suicide in the US:

> In 2007, it was the tenth leading cause of death in the U.S., accounting for > 34,598 deaths. The overall rate was 11.3 suicide deaths per 100,000 people.

(Suicide statistics can be tricky and there are normally a bunch of caveats.)

(<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm>)

For 2009:

> Number of deaths: 16,799

> Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5

> Cause of death rank: 15

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Nobody wants to consider the fact that there are children that are unwell. Regardless of whether it is physical (leukemia, bone cancer, any one of a whole host of really nasty immune system related and quite deadly genetic predispositions) or psychological. Schizophrenics have been cute little babies too, with parents that love them very much and want the same wonderful life for there children as anyone else. And that goes for all of the people who have any kind of autism spectrum issue, borderline, bipolar disorder, chronic depression and so on. They exist. Their parents exist and many of those parents are in hell. In absolute hell. You would do well to remember that, one day you might be the father or mother who is crying themselves to sleep every night wondering what will become of your child or whether they will survive their next suicide attempt. Whether they will ever be able to make it on their own. When the next call from school will come because they've hurt someone. Blaming them accomplishes nothing. It's just a sign that you are lacking in empathy or have never loved something so much that the thought of them suffering is physically painful.

</comment><comment><USER72> Why is it so hard for people to conceive of the possibility that there may be multiple issues contributing to tragedies like Friday's? Mental illness is certainly an issue that does not get enough attention in the US. Gun control is also an issue that does not get enough (real) attention. These /two/ issues, and likely others, are together responsible for the shooting.

We need to address both.

</comment><comment><USER73> C'mon guys... The kid is not ill. He is angry and pissed of at the world. He has established different society norms for himself and his behaviour is off limits, but he is still in control of his brain and his body. And he understands what he's doing. He is not brain damaged. Don't treat him as one, cuz it would piss me off to.

<comment><USER74> I feel very similarly. I knew kids who threatened to kill themselves and swore at their parents. They were bad kids, but not mentally ill.

Discipline is something that needs to be taught from a young age. I've seen it do wonders for autistic children (but definitely not cure them), and I have no doubt that learning to live with and manage a mental illness is better than attempting to treat it. Psychiatry is still a very ham-fisted science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> I live in northern ireland where the state of mental health institutions is probably closer to eastern europe than it is to other western institutions (at least it is in my limited experience). Patients are usually prescribed a bunch of vague, cure all drugs and left to rot. There arent any activities or things to do for patients. Patients tend to get worse rather than better because of effect of the drugs and the general malaise and hopelessness of the place.

Mental hospitals are more or less the lowest common denominator when it comes to treatment of mentally ill people. It takes more money in the short term to do house calls, and to support people in normal life, but in thelong term it is more beneficial to keep these people in the mainstream of society, and not artificially compartmentalized and ostracized.

</comment><comment><USER76> I never see diet mentioned in articles dealing with mental disorders. Research[1] shows that eating a natural foods ancestral diet free of gluten and casein can reduce symptoms of ADHD and autism. The recent rise in mental disorders seems to be correlated with the rise in diabetes. Could it be all the sugar and processed food we are feeding our children now? Why are we so quick to prescribe drugs with fatal side effects without looking at diet first?

[1] [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229105128.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120229105128.htm)

<comment> guard-of-terra "can reduce symptoms of ADHD and autism" Both positive and negative or just negative?

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Thank you for sharing your story. I agree with many of the points you made. But I have some questions. Knowing what you know about yours sons condition, would you ever consider taking him out and teaching him to shoot a gun? You said you lock up all the sharp objects around the house, but do you leave out your pistols and semi-automatic guns?

We definitely need to do and learn more about mental illness. But in the case of Adam Lanza, his mother shouldn't have owned guns and should have never been able to purchase one with a child that's unstable and has a history/record.

</comment><comment><USER78> It's interesting to consider that if the mother, by keeping the troubled child "Michael" in the middle class artificially, she is some how enabling a possible shooter (but still unlikely).

If the child was shunned now, sure, he'd end up homeless in LA, but he would be so busy struggling with his daily existence that he wouldn't have the resources or time to go on a mass rampage.

The father seems to understand this.

<comment><USER6> Because poor people don't commit violent crimes? ... ... Really ... ... ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> As some point, as a loving parent, shouldn't you possess the right to have your son/daughter peacefully put to sleep for the sake of Everyone, and for the Love of God? It's almost too painful to imagine the combined heartache that resonates from the 1 in a million that simply need to be reborn instead of suffer through their glitch.

</comment><comment><USER80> Well, the boy is indeed very naughty. But his behaviour or temperament is very likely to be caused by the environment he is livening in (ie. his family and social background). One obvious inappropriate thing his mom has done is that the mom chooses to threaten the son when he did anything wrong. Threatening only creates fear. And fear is no good, because it will most likely make the son more rebellious. An alternative would be love and care. To have a deep talk with the son, to find out what the root cause of his rebellious reaction is and to help the son cope with the society better may be a bette method. When America has an alarmingly high psychiatric problem rate, it is clear that most of them are not caused by genetics, meaning, they can be changed for good. Surely, the mom has tried to talk to the son. But the depth of the talk is questionable, simply because when the mom finds it urgent to have a serious conversation with the son, the son may have already developed a distrust against the mom, and the talk can be very difficult. When the mom gives up to call the police, even the 13-year old son may yet to have a serious mental problem, he will develop one.

</comment><comment><USER81> which came first - the controlling mother or the breakaway child?

</comment><comment><USER82> We have a mother that is proud of being anarchist loving Che Guevara, a man that will kill those people he did not agree with.

She is having an anarchist child, he does not want someone else to tell him what to do, and reacts aggressively when forced to.

Probably that could be a good thing, Bill Gates had the same issue, as a child he wanted to be left on his own, his parents went to the doctor and the doctor said: leave him, if he wants to leave home or make a company while being a child let him, and they did. It took a lot of money from their family to find a phychologist with common sense.

Not all children are created equal, the round pegs in the square holes are just that. We designed standard schools that more or less work for 95% of the kids.

Those 5% that not, they could burn in hell. If someone is introvert, she must be healed of his disease staying with a majority of extroverts that wont understand him, will isolate and humiliate her because of their fear to what they don't understand.

<comment><USER83> Could you cite me where Bill Gates threatened his parents with a knife? I must have missed that article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> This is a useful article [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/10/081110fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all)

</comment><comment><USER85> "And it's impossible to predict what will set him off."

If I had to go to a school that had such ridiculous rules as having to wear black or tan pants I would probably be pretty ticked off too on a regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER86> Armchair Doctoring on Hacker News, my favorite kind of thread.

<comment><USER87> Don't be so flippant. Some of us have our doctorates from the prestigious WebMD.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Thinking the unthinkable: boys of single mothers have bad outcomes.

<comment><USER89> And they also become President of the United States: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama>

<comment><USER88> Bubba too. Unfortunately, the plural of anecdote is not data. Statistically, children of single moms fare poorly. I am curious as to the degree that it is different beween single fathers and single moms.

<comment><USER90> > _Statistically, children of single moms fare poorly_

That doesn't mean there's a causal relationship, of course.

It's also possible that third factors (poverty, etc) tend to cause both "single-mothership" and "poorly faring kids." [Indeed, it seems fairly likely.]

<comment><USER91> No, the correlation persists even at normalized income.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> Where is the father? Boys need a father growing up.

<comment><USER93> He's with another woman that he met online and married six weeks after his divorce was final. Now he's not paying any child support. [http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-from- war...](http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-from-war-on-women- front.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> agree.

</comment><comment><USER95> Angry white adult males don't go to the doctor. Get their guns.</comment>