People casually using and over using mental illness term

There are also theories that he was basically a pawn in a scheme gone bad ... There are quite a few theories involving him not being mentally ill that corroborate the facts more than the stance he was mentally ill do - yet the claim by some that he was mentally ill is still loudly heard.

Unfortunately, if it's the media we're talking about, remember that they have a distinct agenda: to present the "news" with as many colourful adjectives as they can in the shortest time possible...and of course, presumably, they do it while trying to be accurate and as clear as possible with the knowledge that they have.

Based on how long it's taken for these issues to be spoken about openly and accurately in mainstream Western society, that means it will take roughly another 100 years for the terminology to become agreeable to all, incisive beyond reproach, and non-insulting to anyone.

I'm glad the conversation can take place...but remember, we're in the early days of enlightening others around us, and that sort of thing doesn't happen overnight.

Actually - I sometimes wonder if it IS their agenda to be accurate or just to be "news worthy"

Sometimes I wonder if we haven't managed to get "unhappiness" and "depression" all tangled up together. I think it's fair to say that a mass shooter is not a happy camper. The argument is being made by many thoughtful social analysts that we have gotten in the growing habit of "medicalizing" every emotional experience. For instance, I think we overcategorize every negative experience as "trauma." In that case, who hasn't been traumatized? When a category is broadened to include virtually everyone, it ceases to function as a category.

The Dept. of Veterans' Affairs says that 30% of vets treated at VA medical facilities have been diagnosed with PTSD. They further state, on their website, that over half of all people in the general population are survivors of trauma. That strikes me as expanding the category of trauma to be overly inclusive of experiences that might be better thought of as highly stressful, very disturbing or extremely upsetting. Every negative experience is not "traumatic."

If that might be so in a given case, then the question from me would be that of whether the individual is capable of being remorseful and repentant (turning away from evil) after being made fully aware of the inherent nature of his or her actions. The appropriate sentence for the crime would still be imposed either way, but the repentant individual would not have to wear an "E" for the remainder of his or her life.

My stance on this has always been those who did not feel some sense of guilt or remorse would not commit suicide - even if they were thinking of consequences. After all, if they feel it is somehow "acceptable" to do this, would they not also imagine a judge or jury may at the very least give leniency? And a psychopath - well a psychopath wouldn't care one way or the other except that it was no longer of benefit to them, but it would not be something to "fear". So, Stephen Paddock committed suicide, I would say he had some sense of remorse, especially since the general consensus is he was not suicidal.

Maybe "sociopath" might fit here...

Knowing how my own mind occasionally tries to work, I could see anger driving past conscience to justify evil...and then using suicide to avoid facing the reality of having no legitimate defense.

I sincerely don't see him as being either sociopathic or psychopathic. I see him sseparate from mental illness or mental disorder completely.

I think mass shooters commit suicide because they don't want to go to jail. They don't want to be controlled by anyone. They want themselves to have total control. They want to have "the last word."

In this case - I think the control of what he did belonged in large part to someone else (nothing is totally without the individual's control), but the control of his suicide was his own. That is my own opinion though. And I am aware many will disagree with me either in part or in full but we are all allowed our individual opinions and that is mine. Take it or leave it. I cannot go into details as to why I believe as I do bc this site frowns upon that type of discussion so please do not ask.

My boyfriend's home attendant told me there was evidence presented on-line that the shooting was a plot by "the Democrats" and that there was a second shooter.

I think political bias can sometimes turn into mental illness.

We are getting so politucally polarized in this country that every bad thing that happens is considered by some to be part of a conspiracy by their political rivals. Mel Gibson's father believes 9/11 was actually caused by the U.S. government.

I don't believe it was "by the democrats" but yes I have heard that theory

I was wondering where these theories come from. So I googled it. It seems radio talk show host, Alex Jones, is a major contributor to these theories. Here's a discussion of that: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/20...heories/218163

According to Jones, the FBI recruits mentally ill and mentally disturbed people to be patsies, set up by the FBI to enact terrorist attacks that the FBI can then use as rational to expand the budget and the power of the FBI.

Except - Paddock was touted as not being mentally ill by his family members n those who knew him, so that rule of thumb is not one that applies here
It also would not apply with the 911 theories bc the 911 theories include a deathbed admission, but only years after the theories began and the "evidence" of those theories have more to do with science than anything else - other supposed evidence are files, videotapes, and survivors that happened to be in specific areas at certain times.

Evidence regarding Paddock consists of science, videotape released from several different people at the shooting, sounds heard during the shooting, facts given by friends n family of Stephen Paddock, the fact there are so many security cameras - but none picked up any guns, the fact so many cases of ammo was taken up 52 flights but again no suspicion raised, the idea one person can change out so many guns n aim so accurately while firing so quickly from a far range - these are some of the things that helped me come to my conclusion before I ever heard any theories at all.

I can't speak to the event at hand but I do have a comment for the general theme of the thread - the casual misuse of the terms related to mental illness.

I hate when someone launches into a lengthy description of being depressed - all because something has not gone perfectly. I don't mean to discount Depression but I refer to those using the term to gain sympathy and attention. it's even worse when the individual gives a little giggle.

So to it boils me up when people call things nutty or crazy. When they refer to another as being crazy I cringe and must bite my tongue.

I was recently at a church children's play where I had the wonderful experience of 35 kids yelling "crazy" and circling a finger about the heads mid-story. So hurtful and uncalled for. What message were we teaching these children then?

I could go on....

It annoys me also because I have a provisional diagnosis that already scares many people.

In my opinion, people do it, especially politicians, to avoid the gun control debates.

Psychiatry does this also. Read some of the new definitions of various issues in the DSM-5. It would be almost impossible to find a person that doesn't have a diagnosable mental illness.

I agree that the concept of mental illness has been, as BlueCrust aptly terms it, "watered down."

Here's the standard I would apply: A person might be mentally ill, if, based exclusively on their coping capacity, you wouldn't want this person babysitting for you. (Of course, there are many other reasons you might not want that. And impaired coping capacity can be ascribed to things other than nental illness.) To better put it - if you are someone whom reasonable people would trust to mind their kids, then you are not mentally ill.

Not everyone experiencing angst is mentally ill.

Great, turns out I’m not mentally ill. Just a little messed up.
Anyone need a babysitter?

Funny. I had many wonderful babysitters for my kids. Later found out that 2 of them tried to kill themselves.
We just don’t have all the answers.

PS. I also had a shrink & a therapist have successful suicides.

I keep my ear close to the middle school age level & my SO does the HS level.
There is a slow push to get MH issues out in the open during the teen yrs & many schools have embraced this, but what I’ve heard from many teenagers is that it is now very acceptable to talk about mental health, depression, anxiety, eating disorders etc. etc. that shows their schoolmates that they are current and up-to-date. It’s cool. The problem is that they will not take the next step & seek help for this. It’s now acceptable to their peers to discuss it, but not take the next step. If they take the next step & really get help...their labeled.
Bec their theory is “everyone has issues”, so that includes them all. But not the one student that is REALLY sincere; that really needs help. So they feel ignored bec they have voiced to others they have issues.
This is becoming more & more apparent on social media. “Everyone” has an ED, “everyone” is depressed, “everyone” cuts, “everyone” has sexual gender issues.....@ the ripe old age of 13!

So does this cycle drive a young mind in a different direction bec they “think” they have issues. Do they have real issues? Manifestations? Is it bec that so much information is at their fingertips? Like mentioned above, the MH terms being watered down. So many kids take these “are you depressed” tests....along side “is this Love” test.

I have serious MH issues. Some run in my family, but I refuse to tell my kids about it bec there’s a very good chance they will use that information as a crutch or excuse. It also makes me hyper vigilant & scared as hell.