How about this:

Irrational violence is either the product of an unhealthy mind OR someone who's reasoning faculties are otherwise impaired by an irrational world view deriving from mental conditioning, social ostracism or a faulty assumption about reality. It can also be some combination of the two.

Rational violence results from conditions where a rational individual with a healthy mind makes an informed choice to engage in violence because they reasonably believe that violence is the best or only tool for this particular interaction.

There can also be incidences where violence is both rational and irrational and we as a society must decide to what degree each sort of motivation is present.

We can then take each separate incidence of violence on a case-by case basis and stop being so goddamn dogmatic and intellectually lazy about it.

Trying to keep guns out of the hands of paranoid schizophrenics isn't ableism, because it's rational to do this, as their reasoning faculties are severely impaired. Trying to keep guns out of the hands of those suffering from minor depression or ADHD on the other hand IS ableism.

It might be best if we all just stop trying to make hard and fast rules about this kind of thing, and instead take it on a case-by-case basis.

It would probably also be a good idea if we also make an effort to be mindful of the kind of language we employ when talking about issues like this, lest we be mistaken by others as to what we mean.

Plus precision of language is always a good idea IMHO.

Well what about Audie Murphy? He killed a metric fuck ton of people and hit his wife a lot, but he lead a very successful acting career. He even stared in a movie about himself and people thought he was pretty great.

Flirt. blacktext

I would argue that his killing was rational, given the data we have to work with.

I would argue that his wife-beating was a separate incident of violence and was most assuredly irrational. It is probable, given what we know, that his wartime experiences might have damaged his mental faculties or inherent mental disorders were what made him so good at his job, or some combination of the two. We would need more data to figure this out and make a judgement on it.

I would also argue that Lanza's killing was irrational, given the data we have to work with.

...Fuck all this shit. Seriously.

Seriously.

I really had no idea ableism was so fucking prevalent.

This is a misunderstanding of how schizophrenia works for most people.

Also, it's interesting that when talking about people with paranoid schizophrenia they are labelled as "paranoid schizophrenics" (making that their primary descriptor, instead of "people with..."), but talking about people with depression or ADHD they are "those suffering from minor depression or ADHD".

Sadly, this is only a fraction of what it's actually like.

Um. Yes, that is pretty much in ableism. A) They aren't all the same and B) they aren't anymore violent then people without any kind of illness or disorder. To say that they are the dangerous gun owners is horse shit.

That wasn't for you to answer; it was an additional to my previous post. You just happened to sneak one in between it.

But because you did; Why do you immediately assume hitting his spouse was a sign of his "mental health?" Hitting women was pretty commonplace at the time.

Look, I used to work with a paranoid schizophrenic. When he was off his meds he saw people that weren't really there and believed they intended him harm. His medication prevented the hallucinations most of the time, but it wasn't 100%, he developed a resistance to it while we were working together and had to be hospitalized.

You can't seriously be arguing that a person who's reasoning faculties are damaged to that extent be granted all the same rights and privileges as a person who's reasoning faculties are not, with no regard for their condition. Folks who are legally blind are not allowed to drive a car, is that ableism?

So, in your sample of 1...?

See where I'm going with this?

I didn't. I said it was irrational. as in "someone who's reasoning faculties are otherwise impaired by an irrational world view deriving from mental conditioning"

It could be mental illness. It could be social conditioning. It could be both. We need more data to make this determination.

Yes, but where you're going is stupid. Now answer my question: Is taking a driver's license away from someone who's legally blind ableism?

Two logical fallacies in two sentences, well done.

Let me try one - should someone with medication controlled epilepsy be allowed to drive?

Blindness isn't MI. ...Just sayin'

No one should be allowed to drive.

It's a disability, and MI's like schizophrenia can cause blindness in some cases. ...Just sayin'

So, is revoking rights based upon problems caused by a disability ableism if the disability reasonably interferes with their ability to responsibly exercise those rights?
Which two? If you're going to say ad-hominem, you're incorrect.

A logical fallacy? I'd rather you didn't. :D

Smartassness aside: As for medication controlled epilepsy it would depend upon how well the epilepsy was controlled by the specific medication. If the schizophrenia can be reasonably controlled by medication, I'll concede you've got a case for gun ownership, but at this point I'm hesitant as everything I've read and seen indicates that anti-psychotics are a bit more of a crapshoot when compared to anti-epilepsy medication.

Now, since it's obvious that no one will answer my first question let's try another one: with rights come responsibilities, if we eliminate debilitating mental illness as a reason to restrict rights, should we also eliminate the insanity defense in court?

It's a disability, and MI's like schizophrenia can cause blindness in some cases. ...Just sayin'

So, is revoking rights based upon problems caused by a disability ableism if the disability reasonably interferes with their ability to responsibly exercise those rights?
Which two? If you're going to say ad-hominem, you're incorrect.

A logical fallacy? I'd rather you didn't.

As for medication controlled epilepsy it would depend upon how well the epilepsy was controlled by the specific medication. If the schizophrenia can be reasonably controlled by medication, you've got a case for gun ownership

Now, since it's obvious that no one will answer my question let's try another one: with rights come responsibilities, if we eliminate debilitating mental illness as a reason to restrict rights, should we also eliminate the insanity defense in court?

Gnet ate my edit, but I'd also like to point out that anti-psychotic medication is a bit more of a crapshoot then anti-epilepsy medication and personal gun ownership is far less crucial to someone's continued health and well-being than access to transportation.

a) True, which is why I'm arguing for a nuanced approach to this.

b) Not true Schizophrenics are at significantly higher risk for violence than the general population, but this may be due to the fact that schizophrenics have a higher incidence of drug use.

In any case, even if you aren't more violent personally, you're less likely to shoot straight if you can't trust your own eyes.

Miss Absynthe:

It would seem that there are restrictions & prohibitions on epileptics who drive in many countries depending upon the severity of their condition.

What's your point? You mentioned blindness; not MI. And now you're trying to bring it back to MI by saying that schizophrenia can cause blindness. That doesn't really change the nature of the discussion. People should be barred from driving because they COULD go blind? I don't get it. Anyone's body can fail for several unknown reasons. It'd be silly to walk on eggshells in real life just because our bodies can fail at any moment.

Are you trying to say that MI people should have society at the ready to remove their agency or self determination at any moment?

I was going to mention that people with MI aren't any more violent then people without, but then I remembered that I already said that a couple times. Also, I think MissAbsythne said calling people with schizophrenia schizophrenics is lame.

NOPE. I'm just going to play Batman.

Depends on how likely they are to go blind, how bad their vision is, or have a seizure etc.

If changing the rules for someone with a mental illness is ableism, than changing the rules for someone with a physical disability is also ableism. Is restricting senior citizens from driving if they have poor eyesight or dementia ableism and ageism, or is it only ableism and ageism if their disabilities reasonably interfere with their ability to drive?

People with mental illnesses aren't all the same, yo. It would be inappropriate to treat them all in the same way.

Folks who are seriously disturbed can be committed against their will. This can be done for good reasons or bad reasons.

I'm just going to go play Skyrim.