Jew World Order

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Researchers at Duke University have analyzed the intersection of gun violence and mental illness to determine the root of the problem and have discovered that fixing them mental health system will not reduce gun violence – because it may not have anything to do with mental illness.

Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences with DU School of Medicine, has specialized in studying gun violence and mental illness.

Swanson believes we do not need to “improve mental health care in a context driven by violence prevention… we need mental health reform because people are struggling with illnesses and they don’t have access to care.”

DU researchers gave 9,282 participants surveys within the US from 2001 to 2003 in order to determine how many angry gun owners had been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Based on less than 10,000 gun owners (even though 1/3rd of the American population owns a gun ), Swanson estimated that 1 in 10 American adults had a problem with “anger and impulsive aggressive behavior” and simultaneously had access to a gun.

Swanson determined that these high risk persons would most likely be “male, younger, married, and to live in outlying areas around metropolitan centers rather than in central cities” while also being at the most risk for meeting the “diagnostic criteria for a wide range of mental disorders, including depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, pathological gambling, eating disorder, alcohol and illicit drug use disorders, and a range of personality disorders.”

The problem is only 8% to 10% of these types are diagnosed and/or

Along with the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Swanson has pushed for criteria restricting “gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses, or because a person has made contact with the judicial system” be amended to be “based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

Based on Swanson’s work, these recommendations by advocacy groups have called used when creating policy meant to keep mentally ill patients from accessing a firearm; however this method has one fatal flaw.

It is at the discretion of the psychiatric doctor to accurately identify Swanson’s “subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

And according to a 2012 study , the odds of accurately diagnosing mental illness “varies depending on how [risk assessment tools] (RAT) are used.”

When it comes to “identify[ing] low risk individuals” we display “high levels of accuracy”; however utilizing risk assessment tools solely for “sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence.”

In other words we are very good when it comes to accessing whether or not a person is capable of shoplifting a pack of chewing gum, but we are terrible when it comes to predicting whether or not someone is likely to commit murder.

Swanson puts it this way: “The mental health community and stakeholders are very concerned about reinforcing the false association in the public’s mind between mental illness and violence, because that is a source of a great deal of discrimination.”

Based on this perspective “gun ownership restrictions related to mental health are too broad and too narrow” and focus on those who are “low risk [for] perpetrating gun violence … [and] miss people who have yet to be diagnosed, adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed, including people who are suicidal or have pathological anger.”

To combat this inherent problem, Swanson would like to see “comprehensive background checks” implemented that include “criteria … based on evidence of danger” rather than pending charges or convictions for violent assault, domestic violence restraining orders or multiple DUIs.

Swanson classifies them as “indicators of aggressive, impulsive or risky behavior” but say nothing about “contemporaneous indicators of risk” and therefore are not effective in reducing gun violence.

In line with Swanson’s proposals, the American Psychological Association (APA) would like to create a new method of identifying “high-risk individuals who should be denied gun access” because current tactics do not consider the theory that those who are mentally ill and never display violence toward others should not be included with the violently mentally ill because there is a difference in their diagnosis.

The APA asserts that violence is not a symptom of the “major mental disorders” including personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder and “merely having a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder should not be the only basis for disqualification from firearms.”

And because “a small proportion of angry people with guns has been hospitalized for a mental health problem”, most impulsively ill persons “would not be prohibited from firearms under the involuntary commitment exclusion” in the presidential executive actions.

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Researchers at Duke University have analyzed the intersection of gun violence and mental illness to determine the root of the problem and have discovered that fixing them mental health system will not reduce gun violence – because it may not have anything to do with mental illness.

Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences with DU School of Medicine, has specialized in studying gun violence and mental illness.

Swanson believes we do not need to “improve mental health care in a context driven by violence prevention… we need mental health reform because people are struggling with illnesses and they don’t have access to care.”

DU researchers gave 9,282 participants surveys within the US from 2001 to 2003 in order to determine how many angry gun owners had been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Based on less than 10,000 gun owners (even though 1/3rd of the American population owns a gun ), Swanson estimated that 1 in 10 American adults had a problem with “anger and impulsive aggressive behavior” and simultaneously had access to a gun.

Swanson determined that these high risk persons would most likely be “male, younger, married, and to live in outlying areas around metropolitan centers rather than in central cities” while also being at the most risk for meeting the “diagnostic criteria for a wide range of mental disorders, including depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, pathological gambling, eating disorder, alcohol and illicit drug use disorders, and a range of personality disorders.”

The problem is only 8% to 10% of these types are diagnosed and/or

Along with the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Swanson has pushed for criteria restricting “gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses, or because a person has made contact with the judicial system” be amended to be “based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

Based on Swanson’s work, these recommendations by advocacy groups have called used when creating policy meant to keep mentally ill patients from accessing a firearm; however this method has one fatal flaw.

It is at the discretion of the psychiatric doctor to accurately identify Swanson’s “subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

And according to a 2012 study , the odds of accurately diagnosing mental illness “varies depending on how [risk assessment tools] (RAT) are used.”

When it comes to “identify[ing] low risk individuals” we display “high levels of accuracy”; however utilizing risk assessment tools solely for “sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence.”

In other words we are very good when it comes to accessing whether or not a person is capable of shoplifting a pack of chewing gum, but we are terrible when it comes to predicting whether or not someone is likely to commit murder.

Swanson puts it this way: “The mental health community and stakeholders are very concerned about reinforcing the false association in the public’s mind between mental illness and violence, because that is a source of a great deal of discrimination.”

Based on this perspective “gun ownership restrictions related to mental health are too broad and too narrow” and focus on those who are “low risk [for] perpetrating gun violence … [and] miss people who have yet to be diagnosed, adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed, including people who are suicidal or have pathological anger.”

To combat this inherent problem, Swanson would like to see “comprehensive background checks” implemented that include “criteria … based on evidence of danger” rather than pending charges or convictions for violent assault, domestic violence restraining orders or multiple DUIs.

Swanson classifies them as “indicators of aggressive, impulsive or risky behavior” but say nothing about “contemporaneous indicators of risk” and therefore are not effective in reducing gun violence.

In line with Swanson’s proposals, the American Psychological Association (APA) would like to create a new method of identifying “high-risk individuals who should be denied gun access” because current tactics do not consider the theory that those who are mentally ill and never display violence toward others should not be included with the violently mentally ill because there is a difference in their diagnosis.

The APA asserts that violence is not a symptom of the “major mental disorders” including personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder and “merely having a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder should not be the only basis for disqualification from firearms.”

And because “a small proportion of angry people with guns has been hospitalized for a mental health problem”, most impulsively ill persons “would not be prohibited from firearms under the involuntary commitment exclusion” in the presidential executive actions.

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Researchers at Duke University have analyzed the intersection of gun violence and mental illness to determine the root of the problem and have discovered that fixing them mental health system will not reduce gun violence – because it may not have anything to do with mental illness.

Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences with DU School of Medicine, has specialized in studying gun violence and mental illness.

Swanson believes we do not need to “improve mental health care in a context driven by violence prevention… we need mental health reform because people are struggling with illnesses and they don’t have access to care.”

DU researchers gave 9,282 participants surveys within the US from 2001 to 2003 in order to determine how many angry gun owners had been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Based on less than 10,000 gun owners (even though 1/3rd of the American population owns a gun ), Swanson estimated that 1 in 10 American adults had a problem with “anger and impulsive aggressive behavior” and simultaneously had access to a gun.

Swanson determined that these high risk persons would most likely be “male, younger, married, and to live in outlying areas around metropolitan centers rather than in central cities” while also being at the most risk for meeting the “diagnostic criteria for a wide range of mental disorders, including depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, pathological gambling, eating disorder, alcohol and illicit drug use disorders, and a range of personality disorders.”

The problem is only 8% to 10% of these types are diagnosed and/or

Along with the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Swanson has pushed for criteria restricting “gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses, or because a person has made contact with the judicial system” be amended to be “based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

Based on Swanson’s work, these recommendations by advocacy groups have called used when creating policy meant to keep mentally ill patients from accessing a firearm; however this method has one fatal flaw.

It is at the discretion of the psychiatric doctor to accurately identify Swanson’s “subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

And according to a 2012 study , the odds of accurately diagnosing mental illness “varies depending on how [risk assessment tools] (RAT) are used.”

When it comes to “identify[ing] low risk individuals” we display “high levels of accuracy”; however utilizing risk assessment tools solely for “sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence.”

In other words we are very good when it comes to accessing whether or not a person is capable of shoplifting a pack of chewing gum, but we are terrible when it comes to predicting whether or not someone is likely to commit murder.

Swanson puts it this way: “The mental health community and stakeholders are very concerned about reinforcing the false association in the public’s mind between mental illness and violence, because that is a source of a great deal of discrimination.”

Based on this perspective “gun ownership restrictions related to mental health are too broad and too narrow” and focus on those who are “low risk [for] perpetrating gun violence … [and] miss people who have yet to be diagnosed, adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed, including people who are suicidal or have pathological anger.”

To combat this inherent problem, Swanson would like to see “comprehensive background checks” implemented that include “criteria … based on evidence of danger” rather than pending charges or convictions for violent assault, domestic violence restraining orders or multiple DUIs.

Swanson classifies them as “indicators of aggressive, impulsive or risky behavior” but say nothing about “contemporaneous indicators of risk” and therefore are not effective in reducing gun violence.

In line with Swanson’s proposals, the American Psychological Association (APA) would like to create a new method of identifying “high-risk individuals who should be denied gun access” because current tactics do not consider the theory that those who are mentally ill and never display violence toward others should not be included with the violently mentally ill because there is a difference in their diagnosis.

The APA asserts that violence is not a symptom of the “major mental disorders” including personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder and “merely having a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder should not be the only basis for disqualification from firearms.”

And because “a small proportion of angry people with guns has been hospitalized for a mental health problem”, most impulsively ill persons “would not be prohibited from firearms under the involuntary commitment exclusion” in the presidential executive actions.

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Researchers at Duke University have analyzed the intersection of gun violence and mental illness to determine the root of the problem and have discovered that fixing them mental health system will not reduce gun violence – because it may not have anything to do with mental illness.

Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences with DU School of Medicine, has specialized in studying gun violence and mental illness.

Swanson believes we do not need to “improve mental health care in a context driven by violence prevention… we need mental health reform because people are struggling with illnesses and they don’t have access to care.”

DU researchers gave 9,282 participants surveys within the US from 2001 to 2003 in order to determine how many angry gun owners had been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Based on less than 10,000 gun owners (even though 1/3rd of the American population owns a gun ), Swanson estimated that 1 in 10 American adults had a problem with “anger and impulsive aggressive behavior” and simultaneously had access to a gun.

Swanson determined that these high risk persons would most likely be “male, younger, married, and to live in outlying areas around metropolitan centers rather than in central cities” while also being at the most risk for meeting the “diagnostic criteria for a wide range of mental disorders, including depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, pathological gambling, eating disorder, alcohol and illicit drug use disorders, and a range of personality disorders.”

The problem is only 8% to 10% of these types are diagnosed and/or

Along with the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Swanson has pushed for criteria restricting “gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses, or because a person has made contact with the judicial system” be amended to be “based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

Based on Swanson’s work, these recommendations by advocacy groups have called used when creating policy meant to keep mentally ill patients from accessing a firearm; however this method has one fatal flaw.

It is at the discretion of the psychiatric doctor to accurately identify Swanson’s “subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

And according to a 2012 study , the odds of accurately diagnosing mental illness “varies depending on how [risk assessment tools] (RAT) are used.”

When it comes to “identify[ing] low risk individuals” we display “high levels of accuracy”; however utilizing risk assessment tools solely for “sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence.”

In other words we are very good when it comes to accessing whether or not a person is capable of shoplifting a pack of chewing gum, but we are terrible when it comes to predicting whether or not someone is likely to commit murder.

Swanson puts it this way: “The mental health community and stakeholders are very concerned about reinforcing the false association in the public’s mind between mental illness and violence, because that is a source of a great deal of discrimination.”

Based on this perspective “gun ownership restrictions related to mental health are too broad and too narrow” and focus on those who are “low risk [for] perpetrating gun violence … [and] miss people who have yet to be diagnosed, adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed, including people who are suicidal or have pathological anger.”

To combat this inherent problem, Swanson would like to see “comprehensive background checks” implemented that include “criteria … based on evidence of danger” rather than pending charges or convictions for violent assault, domestic violence restraining orders or multiple DUIs.

Swanson classifies them as “indicators of aggressive, impulsive or risky behavior” but say nothing about “contemporaneous indicators of risk” and therefore are not effective in reducing gun violence.

In line with Swanson’s proposals, the American Psychological Association (APA) would like to create a new method of identifying “high-risk individuals who should be denied gun access” because current tactics do not consider the theory that those who are mentally ill and never display violence toward others should not be included with the violently mentally ill because there is a difference in their diagnosis.

The APA asserts that violence is not a symptom of the “major mental disorders” including personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder and “merely having a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder should not be the only basis for disqualification from firearms.”

And because “a small proportion of angry people with guns has been hospitalized for a mental health problem”, most impulsively ill persons “would not be prohibited from firearms under the involuntary commitment exclusion” in the presidential executive actions.

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

Susanne Posel ,Chief Editor Occupy Corporatism | Co-Founder, Legacy Bio-Naturals

Researchers at Duke University have analyzed the intersection of gun violence and mental illness to determine the root of the problem and have discovered that fixing them mental health system will not reduce gun violence – because it may not have anything to do with mental illness.

Jeffrey Swanson, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences with DU School of Medicine, has specialized in studying gun violence and mental illness.

Swanson believes we do not need to “improve mental health care in a context driven by violence prevention… we need mental health reform because people are struggling with illnesses and they don’t have access to care.”

DU researchers gave 9,282 participants surveys within the US from 2001 to 2003 in order to determine how many angry gun owners had been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Based on less than 10,000 gun owners (even though 1/3rd of the American population owns a gun ), Swanson estimated that 1 in 10 American adults had a problem with “anger and impulsive aggressive behavior” and simultaneously had access to a gun.

Swanson determined that these high risk persons would most likely be “male, younger, married, and to live in outlying areas around metropolitan centers rather than in central cities” while also being at the most risk for meeting the “diagnostic criteria for a wide range of mental disorders, including depression, bipolar and anxiety disorders, PTSD, intermittent explosive disorder, pathological gambling, eating disorder, alcohol and illicit drug use disorders, and a range of personality disorders.”

The problem is only 8% to 10% of these types are diagnosed and/or

Along with the American Psychological Association and the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Swanson has pushed for criteria restricting “gun access based solely on mental illness diagnoses, or because a person has made contact with the judicial system” be amended to be “based on more subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

Based on Swanson’s work, these recommendations by advocacy groups have called used when creating policy meant to keep mentally ill patients from accessing a firearm; however this method has one fatal flaw.

It is at the discretion of the psychiatric doctor to accurately identify Swanson’s “subtle indicators of potentially dangerous behavior”.

And according to a 2012 study , the odds of accurately diagnosing mental illness “varies depending on how [risk assessment tools] (RAT) are used.”

When it comes to “identify[ing] low risk individuals” we display “high levels of accuracy”; however utilizing risk assessment tools solely for “sole determinants of detention, sentencing, and release is not supported by the current evidence.”

In other words we are very good when it comes to accessing whether or not a person is capable of shoplifting a pack of chewing gum, but we are terrible when it comes to predicting whether or not someone is likely to commit murder.

Swanson puts it this way: “The mental health community and stakeholders are very concerned about reinforcing the false association in the public’s mind between mental illness and violence, because that is a source of a great deal of discrimination.”

Based on this perspective “gun ownership restrictions related to mental health are too broad and too narrow” and focus on those who are “low risk [for] perpetrating gun violence … [and] miss people who have yet to be diagnosed, adjudicated mentally ill or involuntarily committed, including people who are suicidal or have pathological anger.”

To combat this inherent problem, Swanson would like to see “comprehensive background checks” implemented that include “criteria … based on evidence of danger” rather than pending charges or convictions for violent assault, domestic violence restraining orders or multiple DUIs.

Swanson classifies them as “indicators of aggressive, impulsive or risky behavior” but say nothing about “contemporaneous indicators of risk” and therefore are not effective in reducing gun violence.

In line with Swanson’s proposals, the American Psychological Association (APA) would like to create a new method of identifying “high-risk individuals who should be denied gun access” because current tactics do not consider the theory that those who are mentally ill and never display violence toward others should not be included with the violently mentally ill because there is a difference in their diagnosis.

The APA asserts that violence is not a symptom of the “major mental disorders” including personality disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol use disorder and “merely having a diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder should not be the only basis for disqualification from firearms.”

And because “a small proportion of angry people with guns has been hospitalized for a mental health problem”, most impulsively ill persons “would not be prohibited from firearms under the involuntary commitment exclusion” in the presidential executive actions.

Related Posts

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 25, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016

By Susanne Posel – January 23, 2016