What is mental illness?

 When we hear about mass killings, the next we hear is it has to be mental illness. It must be someone insane. I think that's at least partly because we can't imagine anyone doing such a thing, who was totally sane. 

When I began to think about how mental illness impacts violence, I thought somewhat the same. Until, I researched technical papers that said of all the mass killings in our country (numbers in last blog), only 25% are linked to a past clinical diagnosis of mental illness. 

That led to another question for me. If that is the case, what is mental illness? Well, according to these articles, it's schizophrenia, bipolar disease, major depression, and assorted other things that impact quality of life. 

Of course, even with the numbers being 25%, how did they get their hands on mass assault weapons when buying guns requires background checks? Well, the issue anyway, with such a diagnosis-- most people with mental illness are not violent. One article claimed that in 2020, 20% of Americans have been clinically claimed to fall into one of those categories. Obviously, 20% of Americans are not committing violent crimes.

The other thing about 'legit' mental illnesses is that you don't get off anyway, if you get violent. It takes being insane, which means the perpetrator does not know what they did is wrong, hence does not fear getting caught. That does happen, but we can see from what we read that it's not the norm with mass killings. Many of them kill themselves when it's obvious they can't kill more innocents.

The desire to commit suicide fits what another article I read claimed as the main reason for mass shootings-- either by their own hand or that of the authorities. 

I don't actually buy into that theory as the main reason for their violent acts. I think other things fit the reason better.

So, if not certifiable mental illness or desire to commit suicide, how come so many instances of violence? What leads someone to commit a violent act, whether a mass killing or of family members or loved ones?

The next reasons given are what I group as behavioral: nihilism, emptiness, anger, noteriety. We have to find that based on social media postings, friends, or families because as soon as someone is charged, defense lawyers get into the picture and make it difficult to question the assailants, assuming they survived. This is supposedly about them not incriminating themselves, the Miranda Act, but come on-- many of them have been clearly identified by survivors or photos. To me, this becomes a sad act that prevents a culture from more clearly understanding why these tragedies happen. (Obviously, I am no lawyer; so this is my view as a citizen, you know what we used to call commonsense.)

Looking at the possible behavioral reasons, I will start with nihilism, which means life has no meaning. What the heck leads someone to feel that way at an age old enough to commit these massive crimes? Is it in the family? how about the community? Schools? Media? Or if they are middle-aged, what in their life had led to that feeling of emptiness?

In my personal life, I have no experiences that would have led to a feeling of hopelessness. Was that because I grew up on a farm, where you sure see a lot of death and suffering but you adjust to it. Life has tough
elements but hard work is what you have to use to get through bad times. I learned that from my parents, who both outworked me and never let me make an excuse.

Same thing with school for me. I got good grades but because I worked for them. I began first grade in a two room school with no buses to deliver us. That meant, I walked a mile and a half since my mom did not drive, and dad worked nights into mornings.  The walk from the school went past some homes, a dairy, then open farm land, timber and eventually through more timber to get to the top of our hill and my home.

For the first grade, I read all the second grade work before our district consolidated and there was a bus with a bigger school. I had to redo all that second grade work as the bigger school had no ability to skip ahead with the work. I have heard of kids who feel bored with their school work. Maybe the farm life helped, with just going through it.

So, I have no experience to know  about a feeling of nihilism, even though I grew up during the Cold War where my bigger school had 'bomb shelters' to go to in case of a nuclear attack. Seriously, that's what we were told lol

Again, back to that feeling of emptiness where I just can't get what would cause that or anger for that matter. I had some things happen that could have made me mad, but I just took it, felt disappointed but can't remember being mad at the one who caused the hurt. 

As for social media, again no experience at all. We only got a TV, black & white with one channel, when I was already in school. Not a lot there to entertain kids, not yet anyway.

And, where it comes to wanting noteriety. Heaven forbid. I am an introvert, which means not wanting too much attention. Stay in the middle worked for me, then and now. 

Was I lucky when I grew up? I have often thought so. I think today's kids grow up with a lot more awareness of what can go wrong... maybe. I did read though that most mass shootings aren't kids but middle aged men. What went wrong for them? What can we as a culture do about it before it happens and innocents pay the price?

Blaming someone else for everything that goes wrong doesn't seem like a good way to grow up. Are schools doing too much of that, some schools anyway, and not enough of the basics, like reading, writing, mathematics, history, and once upon a time how to cook and sew for girls and do wood and metal work for boys. Maybe too sexist for today's world? Well, let the kids choose whether they want home skills or shop abilities. Why not?

Somewhere, we need to let kids find a sense of accomplishment and purpose, ones that let them feel proud of real skills, ones that make their world and the ones around them better-- and that means middle-aged men who are still blaming others for what they must find in their own ability to turn it around when they work for something that can make them feel fulfilled, instead of blaming someone else whether someone they think let them down or a stranger.

For those wanting noteriety, how about less publicity for the killers? No photos (unless they are needed for a capture) and minimal information; it's not a lot. A concept that fame comes with doing an evil act has to be knocked down. 

I realize that's no real answer probably but it's all I've got. Does working for what you want seem too simplistic?. You might be surprised how that turns out. Also FBI needs to take more seriously tips, for which, they request and then we are told they sometimes ignore. We need a place for those who are threatening-- before they do it. Try to turn their thinking around. It wouldn't hurt if we stopped admiring old time outlaws as if we don't want modern ones, why act like the old time ones are kind of heroes.

Okay, why the cat pictures. Because, this week, literally last Saturday, we adopted a shelter cat. We had two cats after having lost one a year and a half ago; we decided it was time for us to expand our fur family. The two cats haven't agreed. They are adjusting, as is Luna, a tuxedo cat, our new addition. We hadn't intended to get another black cat, well, Luna is a tuxedo but mostly black. We fell in love :). Hopefully the other two also do, eventually. Last Saturday was not fun for us or the cats. lol

I thought pictures of cats would maybe lighten the blog here as this is a dark topic, with currently no answers for the horrible tragedies, that impact all of us when we learn of them. Although the US has the most, other countries have experienced the tragedies with different weapons. Some say it's all about guns, I don't think so, since many weapons are effective ways to end lives. We need to get at the WHY, and do something to redirect these troubled souls, beforehand.

Something to Think About

 

Thinking what might lead to violent actions, involves a lot of possibilities and differences of opinion. Maybe it takes a combination of things that come together in one, weapon-toting individual, who generally is male when it involves hurting more than one person and generally random strangers.

There are seven Saturdays, counting this one, before the election for President of the United States. Below, I have issues, some could impact violence. Many don't seem they could as I thought on them. All impact quality of life one way or the other, which might be a factor in violence. Obviously, I won't be touching on all of them. You might look at the list and see which matter the most to you.

I will share no thoughts on personalities of the candidates or who to vote for, because I feel issues are where we need to concentrate. So many say they'll vote for this or that one, but have no idea what they will actually do in supposedly forming a perfect nation (which we know won't happen as nations are made up of imperfect humans--well, maybe a few perfect but I've yet to meet that one).

Because this blog has readers from around the world, I will try to choose topics that could apply anywhere.

After the election for a long time, no more politics, no matter who wins. I do not want to be one of those who lives on hate. I will hope that whoever wins, it will be good for the country. and the world.

Some of the issues listed can lead to increasing/decreasing violence. Some might join together in a blog. I think all have varying levels of importance to voters and life.

• climate change
• mental illness
• health care
• abortion
  
• taxes 
• voting IDs
  
• educational system
• socialism/capitalism/communism
  
• poverty
• games/movies
• globalism-- one world government
  
• news media
• policing
• legal system
• immigration
• economy
• divided country
• environment
  
• guns. 

None of those are easy to break down and discuss, but I'm going to start with the last one: guns. In my country, that involves a Constitutional Amendment, which was ratified along with others in the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Second Amendment. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Rather than go into our history with regulations, state and court opinions, I give you a link to a pretty extensive look at it on Wikipedia. Some don't like it; but this time, it seemed to give a lot of validated information. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

Okay, now for how guns relate to violence or they don't. They have been used in most mass killings. The ones used tend to look like military weapons as they can fire multiple rounds without cocking. None are fully automatic rifles unless they have been modified (finger on trigger keeps it shooting) as those are illegal in the US for ownership by citizens.

For 2024 statistics, 527 people have been killed in such shootings.1,755 have been wounded in 432 shootings. Victims have been all ages but many have been in schools and children. Some of the shootings are gang related. A few involve someone the perpetrator wanted to kill with innocent bystanders caught in the action. Of course, there are also those who use their guns, or other weapons to kill one person, most often a family member or ex-partner.

Some of the shooters should not have been allowed to buy any guns, if background checks meant what they should. Some of the shooters got their guns through family members and some of those enablers are being charged also-- as they should be, (In my opinion).  There is also the black market and the most recent attempted assassin, evidently got his from the mail (from another country)-- neither of which are legal, but if you want to kill, legal doesn't matter to you.

Background checks have been resisted by some of the most ardent pro-gun people who have a strong need for guns to protect themselves and others. Some even believe they might be needed against an out of control government.

The argument against confiscating all guns comes down to ... the real outlaws will never turn theirs over. There is also fear that signing anything admitting to having a gun can end up with confiscations as has happened in other countries. 

There are those on the anti-gun side who want all guns taken by the government. The problem with that reasoning is knives, machetes, bombs and even vehicles can be used to kill by those with warped thinking. What stops them?

To me, fear and hate are the main reasons why the gun situation is never settled.

Now, about my own beliefs where it comes to guns. I believe in the ownership but not of guns only meant for killing people, like the AK /AR types. But, watch how that gets defined as the 22 Mag that I use when at the farm allows me to shoot as fast as I can pull the trigger  to protect our sheep from marauding coyotes, yes, they do kill sheep when they can.

I would be fine with no more AK 47s or AR 15s in this country, but they are in so many hands that I am not sure it's possible. I also believe in background checks that should involve animal or human abusers, red-flag laws. The issue is making the background check work. Many gun owners would have no problem with that.

The Christmas when I had turned 12, I got my first .22 rifle. I asked for it since our sheep were having their guts ripped out by the neighbors' dogs,  that were allowed to run free. 

One of the main memories I have is walking with my .22 to the back of our property, hoping I'd see those German Shepherds when the sheep were out grazing. I was by myself, trilliums were blooming on the side hill and no people or dogs were to be seen. No black bears either, as they did also patrol our property. I felt no fear because of that gun. To kill a bear with it would require a perfect shot, but I wasn't worried.

I still have that gun and now there are a lot more in our home of various types, but no AK47s or AR15s. We have no need for them. I do though have a loaded handgun within reach if someone broke into the house and didn't immediately leave. I can only imagine shooting in self-defense, which is how I consider the times I shot at a coyote to get it to leave our sheep alone.

I don't hunt, never have. Ranch Boss used to but hasn't for years. For us, guns are for self-defense or fun target practice. I believe in gun ownership. I also believe in gun safes, which we also have for storing guns we don't need handy for use. I also don't keep my finger on the trigger until I am ready to fire it. More than a few have shot themselves by making that mistake.

Knowing my revolver was handy was why I didn't fear being by myself when Ranch Boss was on business trips. Because  we learned when we moved here that there had been two women shot at a business and a woman raped not that far from our Arizona home, I could have been afraid with good reason. 

Some think they'd never need a gun for protection. I hope for their sake they are right. So far, I never have, but it's given me security many times over many years just to know it's there. As for shooting someone innocent, if they broke into my house, they are not innocent by definition. And, outside the house, I'd never shoot anyone. They would have to show themselves a danger.

To have a gun means you should be trained to use it. For those afraid of guns, don't get one. Be a good shot when you do have one and only use it when needed. Do NOT point a gun at anyone unless you know you could pull the trigger if they approached closer.

For me, gun ownership is an important issue when I vote. Not the only one, but important. Oh and photos here are at our Oregon farm and in 2004 (I think lol) with same .22 that I got when I was twelve. Fortunately, Ranch Boss is good at gun repair and has kept it in great shape.

Violence -- a political issue?

 

Strictly speaking, violence is not, but its impact on our lives is great whether it touches us directly or through what we read or hear. Why do we see so much random violence to the point we cannot feel totally secure? 

No candidate though would run on- I'm for more violence. The thing of interest  is what leads to violence in a community and that is very much a political issue where candidates promise us peace and good lives. Sometimes, they come up with what things they would get rid of if they win a political office. Those things are issues. Here is where we need to think about whether it's right and do they speak to all of what might lead to it in a culture where violence is too prevalent-- even when it is random?

Touching on those topics here will, by necessity, be cursory. It would take books to explore each of them. I hope a blog will be enough to trigger interest for those who haven't, maybe, thought that deeply for how it might impact their lives through black swan events.

The topics include wars (an obvious one), guns (maybe also obvious at least to some), law enforcement, news coverage, and I could add entertainment, which means movies and games), but I am unsure how much it adds to actual violence given it's been around a LONG time. Still, I'll discuss it and maybe a few other things as they come to me.

Let's start with wars. Where it comes to violence, wars are the epitome of approved violence, at least on one side. Yet, are they even mentioned in most of our political rhetoric?

Wars have much impacted my life. I was born in the middle of WWII. I grew up in its aftermath and the Cold War era. The Korean war from 1950 to 1953 was called an Armed Conflict, but it was a war.

Some believe that fighting wars overseas will keep the blood from being spread on their own land. I heard it a lot about Vietnam and the domino effect if we didn't send troops there. Well, we sent them and many without wanting to go as the draft  (more about conscription) dealt with that. Young men were the only ones subject to the draft in the beginning, but I've since read today, that young women must also sign up. Where could that lead? Calling up the draftees is mostly needed when we fight an unpopular war or a long one.

So, why do I think wars can lead to violence at home? Part of it is those who came back not only with injuries but also PTSD for what they experienced. This can lead to confused thinking and violent actions. One of the first mass killings I remember came from a rooftop in Texas with a veteran of the Vietnam War.

With that war, of 1955 to 1975, we eventually had to get out after 282,000 deaths on our side and from the allied forces. For Vietnam, including civilians on the North and South's side it was over 1,000,000. 

Today, we trade with Vietnam as it is a manufacturing hub, North and South joined together. No domino effect.

I mention it because it was a war that fit what President Eisenhower earlier said in a last speech:

On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military industrial complex.

Did we listen?

The Vietnam War impacted my generation and some a bit older or younger. The war touched all of us because of how the draft was deployed. Men had a number and their chances of being called up was related to a lottery. If he came from a district with a lot of men of that age, he was less likely than smaller districts. There were exemptions as there had been in earlier wars, but I am sure the Vietnam War impacted all of us at that time with the uncertainty.

After that, it was a mostly peaceful time in the United States until along came 9/11. By this time, the draft had been ended, but many joined as the US had been attacked and patriotism was part of the sign up. IF we have a future war, I don't know if that will be the case or if drafting enrollees will be back. People have to sign up for it but are not forced to join. I've read young women also.

Why do I equate wars with an issue? Because the government is behind wars, or they don't happen. Which candidate is most likely to be led into wars by the military industrial complex that Eisenhower knew a bit about considering his own history.

Besides maybe taking lives on both sides, what do wars do? I believe, as mentioned above, that the violence comes back like a fever or virus, whether someone served or not. It's like a fever in the air-- a mentality. PTSD leads to some of it, but I think the fact that we think war is important sometimes leads to thinking violence is a logical means to get what someone wants. I won't say wars are never needed, but I've read that many could be fended off if a culture acted sooner with other steps. Of course, not always given human nature...

Human nature comes into it with the military leaders. Some might support a war but not how it's being fought. Or not like the war for the same reason. Soldiers can lose ranks if they don't do as they are told-- at the least. 

One more thing to add here, but not political. In some places, returning soldiers were treated very badly. I think we learned about that and it won't happen again; but wars are ugly things and to blame those you sent to fight it, is very wrong. Remember a large percentage in the Vietnam era never wanted to go, but even if they did, it's a war and it is savage. It's meant to be. Take that into account before blaming those who fight it. I also knew a man who volunteered to go back four times because of loyalty to the team he had fought with.

Since the United States began with a war, fought others to acquire land, and even fought a war against itself, definitely could make it an answer some would turn to. Can't blame that on politicians of today... unless reincarnation is true *s*.

For those who think that is different with the Ukraine and Russian wars where we just supply arms to keep it going and help the 'good' side; I suspicion those people will find out otherwise, too late as if we end up in WWIII, the United States itself will not be immune, not with the weapons that are out there today.

This went on way too long, and I have a lot more to say on the many possible issues that might lead to more violence in the homeland; so come back next Saturday if you find that of concern in your country or this one. If you have an opinion, feel free to voice it, agree or disagree.

Dreams: Visions and Reality

 

Photo from Montana

Once again, my idea for a blog is being rewritten by a dream, which led to an idea or maybe more accurately thoughts when I woke. Things I'd not have written otherwise.  Dream first.

Ranch Boss and I were leaving the small town closest to our farm. I saw a road turning up  a hill just past a small store. I wanted to walk up it. So we left our vehicle and proceeded up the narrow road. It was pretty with tall trees and lots of ivy. Most of the houses were still occupied but a few had been abandoned. Ivy entwined everywhere. 

As we got closer to the top of the hill, we saw some of the usual piles of small limbs and brush that had been piled to burn in the fall. By this time, we knew no more homes would be and turned around. This time we saw what we had missed earlier. Roads and bulldozed clearings were where there had been trees and orchards. The cleared areas were massive, seemingly everywhere we looked. 

Those people, who lived where we had passed coming up, had no clue what was about to happen as the roads in didn't pass their homes, but when apartment buildings and houses were built, as seemed obvious, their life would change in ways they couldn't have imagined. No chance to change any of it-- it was too late.

When I woke, I thought as I always do. What did that mean? I've driven that Oregon road many times, but the side road never. So, did the dream have a cultural or political meaning?

In Oregon, there were rules passed in 1973, which made it difficult to do what we had just seen in the dream. Farm land, timber, orchards were limited for development and that included private land and government. Vast tracts of land were protected from uses not intended to help the people but just to make money. The kind of development I've seen in other states including Arizona where I live much of the year and maybe soon,  permanently.

The thing about regulations is they can be good or bad. Some are in place simply to enrich others as a reward for what they have done. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch said that such regulations can be good but also if they go too far, they can stifle needed growth (paraphrased). That's where having strong, honest, ethical leaders is so important-- not those paid off by someone with greed as a motive. How do we as voters determine which is which?

The Oregon leaders, like Tom McCall, who set environmental laws in place valued something more than dollars. They knew you can't eat dollars but rather must have places to buy what dollars can purchase. Imagine if those leaders had not existed then.

We don't have to imagine. We are seeing it, and it's not just one political party, wish it was. Ranch Boss and I have traveled across the United States from border to border and the Pacific to the Atlantic, both flying and driving. In many places, there are hodgepodge developments thrust wherever someone wished. It's not just close to cities but also in the middle of seemingly nowhere. There are places people can buy chunks of raw land where there is no water but just dreams. 

What we see today so many places is where land is cut up with no more hope of making a living on it than those first homesteaders had, with many places too dry with no water. Who profits from that?

Another thing we see in Arizona is where other countries have bought land that they take the water to raise crops that will be sent to those countries. The water they use require deeper and deeper wells for those already there-- until the time there is no water down there.

Too often, ordinary folk have no power. In fact, even big ranches and farms owned by families are often forced to be subdivided or sold to the highest bidder. They are torn apart due to federal and state estate taxes if the owners have not found a way to protect their operations, sometimes of many generations.

In my opinion, right now, too many leaders, state or federal, use their positions to enrich themselves. Give me one reason why so many who come into office without a lot end up wealthy? If you don't know that's true, do some research.

When they run for office, they are all for the ordinary folk, but once in, it changes. Many may know that they are going to do that, but some may just be seduced. I don't know, but I do know we used to have leaders who could look ahead and see what was good for the people.

So, what does any of this mean, my dream or what came after? I guess that depends on what matters most to voters-- talk or actions.

Another thing-- is it too late to change what is happening like in my dream and a lot more? Voting is the only hope of which I can imagine changing things. Voting is when the little people do get a chance to make a difference. The thing is though what matters most-- short term or long term? We can't stop change. It's coming, but which direction?