4 ms·

According to free-range child advocate Lenore Skenazy, there are a little over 100 stranger abductions per year in the US. [1]. Therefore, abductions are a not

According to free-range child advocate Lenore Skenazy, there are a little over 100 stranger abductions per year in the US. [1]. Therefore, abductions are a not a big deal. According to Wikipedia, 100 years ago, there were about 100 lynchings per year in the US. [2] Therefore, lynching is a big deal. I love this meme about the media. Quick question: for you, personally, when was the last time you saw a media story about an abducted child? When was the last time you saw a media story about paranoid helicopter parents, etc, repeating the ideas you see above? In my experience, the ratio is 1:10 if not 1:20. There's a very straightforward reason why parents keep their kids indoors: the same parents, while outdoors, regularly encounter human beings that they wouldn't trust their kids around. Deinstitutionalization anyone? Free-range mental patients or free-range children: pick one. [3] [1] http://www.freerangekids.com/over-700-children-are-abducted-a-day-says-viral-video/ http://www.freerangekids.com/over-700-children-are-abducted-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institutions#Deinstitutionalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institu...

DanBC 11y ago
> Deinstitutionalization anyone? Free-range mental patients Perinatal mental illness is a significant cause of death of women - in the UK suicide is the third leading cause of perinatal death. Many women experience mental illness during or after pregnancy. Ignorant, stigmatising views like yours about mental illness make it harder for women to seek help for their mental health problems. And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children. https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/perinatal_web.pdf https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/perinatal_web.pdf Rates of perinatal mental health problems post-partum psychosis is about 2 women per 1,000 maternities; chronic serious MI is 2:1000; severe depressive illness 30:1000; mild-moderate depressive illness and anxiety state 100-150:1000; PTSD 30:1000; adjustment disorders and distress 150:1000
- emgoldstein 11y ago
  > There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children. Of course not. The cause of helicopter parenting is irrational parents who perceive, obviously due to media stereotypes, that people with a mental illness cause a risk of harm to other people or to children. I love you, Weimerica. Don't ever change.
  - dang 11y ago
    Please stop taking HN threads on ideological flamewar tangents. That's not what this site is for.
    - emgoldstein 11y ago
      From within, a monoculture is easily mistaken for an absence of ideology. From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture. Even without any dissenting thoughts, it remains a flamewar; just a flamewar with only one side. Perhaps I'm alone in finding that a little creepy.
      - nkurz 11y ago
        From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture. What's the evidence that causes you to believe that there is an "ideological monoculture"[1] here? I don't know how close to a majority it is, but I'd guess there are many people that would agree with you. I for example 'vouched' for your top comment in this thread, since I thought it was wrongly flagged. But I cringed when I saw your 'Weimerica', because that's just not a useful means of discourse, and will cause people to dismiss your earlier (worthwhile) content. I'd guess that Dan's response to you came from the same sentiment: you started well, but then veered off into "sheeple" territory[2]. Consider: is he more likely to offer corrective advice on "tone" to people with ideas he wants to see more of, or to those whose ideas themselves are unwelcome? Rather than concluding that your ideas aren't welcome here, consider that the problem might simply be the tone. [1] Speaking of monoculture, did you know that Dan isn't American? Happy Thanksgiving, Dan! [2] Regardless of the aptness of the term, I find "sheeple" a reliable indicator of a failed argument.
- rcurry 11y ago
  "And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children." And yet I keep hearing about this need to prevent the mentally-ill from acquiring firearms. Is that just more ignorance? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your take on that.
  - codingdave 11y ago
    This is standard Risk Management stuff - the likelihood of causing damage may be low, but when you bring guns into play the magnitude of the potential damage is greatly increased. So the overall risk with guns, even with a low likelihood, is worth mitigating.
  - rquantz 11y ago
    Yes it is ignorance. The mentally I'll are not violent at a greater rate than the general populace.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    (I'm strongly against gun ownership by private citizens. I struggle with questions like these but I'll try.) 1) It's mostly ignorance. When we look at mass shooters we see histories of violence, or of drug and alcohol addiction, or sometimes mental illness. The drug and alcohol addictions and previous history of violence are better predictors of future violent behaviours. 2) Reducing access to means and methods is an important part of suicide prevention. People who complete suicide are more likely to have a mental health problem than the general population. Reducing access to guns would help those people. This does not need to be done through law. The taboo around suicide doesn't seem to stop people doing it, but does it does stop people seeking help. Ideally people would work together with their clinicians and carers to identify and ameliorate risk. 3) Some politicians seem to suggest that if you stop mentally ill people having guns you stop all mass shootings. That's clearly not true. You stop some of them. But when we talk about mental illness it's not clear what those politicians means. Do they mean serious, life long, psychotic style illness (rate about 2 people per 100)? Or the subset of that group who have command-hallucinations? Or do they mean everyone who's had a diagnosable mental illness? (Where diagnosable would be defined by DSM 5) - someone who was treated for depression two years ago? Someone with hoarding? Someone with OCD that was treated four years ago? It's odd to see people who are pro-gun using this argument, because their calling for about 1 in four people to be prevented from gun ownership. And not all mass-shooters use their own guns. Harper-Mercer (killed 9 people) used a mix of guns owned by him and his family; Lanza used guns bought by his mother. 4) Looking at mass shooters we see sometimes see failed checks: people with histories of violence are allowed to buy guns; people are prevented from buying some guns (eg rifles) but allowed to buy others (eg shotguns). Wong's background check took longer than 3 days, so he was allowed to buy a gun. He went on to kill 13 people. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-sh...
deciplex 11y ago
Well, they're not exactly locking up people with mental problems and throwing away the key in Japan, either. They take the trains like anyone else, and yes that includes people talking loudly to themselves or occasionally shouting for no reason.

DanBC 11y ago

> Deinstitutionalization anyone? Free-range mental patients Perinatal mental illness is a significant cause of death of women - in the UK suicide is the third leading cause of perinatal death. Many women experience mental illness during or after pregnancy. Ignorant, stigmatising views like yours about mental illness make it harder for women to seek help for their mental health problems. And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children. https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/perinatal_web.pdf https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/perinatal_web.pdf Rates of perinatal mental health problems post-partum psychosis is about 2 women per 1,000 maternities; chronic serious MI is 2:1000; severe depressive illness 30:1000; mild-moderate depressive illness and anxiety state 100-150:1000; PTSD 30:1000; adjustment disorders and distress 150:1000

emgoldstein 11y ago
> There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children. Of course not. The cause of helicopter parenting is irrational parents who perceive, obviously due to media stereotypes, that people with a mental illness cause a risk of harm to other people or to children. I love you, Weimerica. Don't ever change.
- dang 11y ago
  Please stop taking HN threads on ideological flamewar tangents. That's not what this site is for.
  - emgoldstein 11y ago
    From within, a monoculture is easily mistaken for an absence of ideology. From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture. Even without any dissenting thoughts, it remains a flamewar; just a flamewar with only one side. Perhaps I'm alone in finding that a little creepy.
    - nkurz 11y ago
      From outside, this thread looks like a set of mocking, contemptuous dismissals of anyone who doesn't agree with that ideological monoculture. What's the evidence that causes you to believe that there is an "ideological monoculture"[1] here? I don't know how close to a majority it is, but I'd guess there are many people that would agree with you. I for example 'vouched' for your top comment in this thread, since I thought it was wrongly flagged. But I cringed when I saw your 'Weimerica', because that's just not a useful means of discourse, and will cause people to dismiss your earlier (worthwhile) content. I'd guess that Dan's response to you came from the same sentiment: you started well, but then veered off into "sheeple" territory[2]. Consider: is he more likely to offer corrective advice on "tone" to people with ideas he wants to see more of, or to those whose ideas themselves are unwelcome? Rather than concluding that your ideas aren't welcome here, consider that the problem might simply be the tone. [1] Speaking of monoculture, did you know that Dan isn't American? Happy Thanksgiving, Dan! [2] Regardless of the aptness of the term, I find "sheeple" a reliable indicator of a failed argument.
rcurry 11y ago
"And your wider point is wrong. There's no evidence that people with a mental illness pose a risk of harm to other people or to children." And yet I keep hearing about this need to prevent the mentally-ill from acquiring firearms. Is that just more ignorance? I'd be genuinely interested in hearing your take on that.
- codingdave 11y ago
  This is standard Risk Management stuff - the likelihood of causing damage may be low, but when you bring guns into play the magnitude of the potential damage is greatly increased. So the overall risk with guns, even with a low likelihood, is worth mitigating.
- rquantz 11y ago
  Yes it is ignorance. The mentally I'll are not violent at a greater rate than the general populace.
- DanBC 11y ago
  (I'm strongly against gun ownership by private citizens. I struggle with questions like these but I'll try.) 1) It's mostly ignorance. When we look at mass shooters we see histories of violence, or of drug and alcohol addiction, or sometimes mental illness. The drug and alcohol addictions and previous history of violence are better predictors of future violent behaviours. 2) Reducing access to means and methods is an important part of suicide prevention. People who complete suicide are more likely to have a mental health problem than the general population. Reducing access to guns would help those people. This does not need to be done through law. The taboo around suicide doesn't seem to stop people doing it, but does it does stop people seeking help. Ideally people would work together with their clinicians and carers to identify and ameliorate risk. 3) Some politicians seem to suggest that if you stop mentally ill people having guns you stop all mass shootings. That's clearly not true. You stop some of them. But when we talk about mental illness it's not clear what those politicians means. Do they mean serious, life long, psychotic style illness (rate about 2 people per 100)? Or the subset of that group who have command-hallucinations? Or do they mean everyone who's had a diagnosable mental illness? (Where diagnosable would be defined by DSM 5) - someone who was treated for depression two years ago? Someone with hoarding? Someone with OCD that was treated four years ago? It's odd to see people who are pro-gun using this argument, because their calling for about 1 in four people to be prevented from gun ownership. And not all mass-shooters use their own guns. Harper-Mercer (killed 9 people) used a mix of guns owned by him and his family; Lanza used guns bought by his mother. 4) Looking at mass shooters we see sometimes see failed checks: people with histories of violence are allowed to buy guns; people are prevented from buying some guns (eg rifles) but allowed to buy others (eg shotguns). Wong's background check took longer than 3 days, so he was allowed to buy a gun. He went on to kill 13 people. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-sh...

deciplex 11y ago

Well, they're not exactly locking up people with mental problems and throwing away the key in Japan, either. They take the trains like anyone else, and yes that includes people talking loudly to themselves or occasionally shouting for no reason.