What percent of the US population is unhinged - offshoot of text shoot (1 Viewer)

[Clifford]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

 

[Arizona Ron]

There are plenty of sociopaths in the business world. Most are smart enough not to do something stupid but they're still "unhinged".

 

[tom22406]

I said 6-10 percent but it could be much higher as it really does depend on what the situation is as to how many will actually snap.

 

[Rayderr]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.

that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

 

[StrikeS2k]

No 100% option??

 

[flysack]

The more interesting question is -

What percentage of the FFA is unhinged?

 

[Steve Tasker]

The more interesting question is -

What percentage of the FFA is unhinged?

I'm guessing it's a higher % than the general public.

 

[lod01]

Easily over 10% and growing. It's like 90% around the Chicago area isn't it?

 

[Clifford]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.

that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

Were you trying to be funny in your first paragraph? Honest question.

 

[Sarnoff]

My best analysis puts the number at between 33% and 40%

 

[Two Deep]

I don't consider myself unhinged......but if I had a disappearing ray gun... there would be a lot less people in the world.

 

[Rayderr]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.

that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

Were you trying to be funny in your first paragraph? Honest question.

No, just trying to keep your example accurate. big difference in getting shot because of texting and getting shot in an altercation over texting. But you already know that.

 

[jonessed]

Many normal people can become "unhinged" if put under enough stress.

 

[Clifford]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.

that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

Were you trying to be funny in your first paragraph? Honest question.

No, just trying to keep your example accurate. big difference in getting shot because of texting and getting shot in an altercation over texting. But you already know that.

No I don't see one bit of difference between shooting someone for texting and shooting someone for a minor verbal dispute and some popcorn. Both are 100% insane in my view. And seeing one as somehow more justifiable in any way shape or form shows a monstrous lack of respect for human life. So I guess I'll take you at your word that the shooting was "wrong" but also somehow justified.

 

[jonessed]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

Were you trying to be funny in your first paragraph? Honest question.

No, just trying to keep your example accurate. big difference in getting shot because of texting and getting shot in an altercation over texting. But you already know that.

No I don't see one bit of difference between shooting someone for texting and shooting someone for a minor verbal dispute and some popcorn. Both are 100% insane in my view. And seeing one as somehow more justifiable in any way shape or form shows a monstrous lack of respect for human life. So I guess I'll take you at your word that the shooting was "wrong" but also somehow justified.

Why are you being so obtuse? He's not justifying either, he's simply clarifying what happened.The odds of someone becoming "unhinged" in an altercation is much higher than someone becoming "unhinged" because of texting.

 

[T Bell]

Everyone's closer to that line than they like to think as everyone's got some thing or things in their lives that they're both passionate and irrational about. Kids would be one common example of that.

Just look at the amount of fear and paranoia about kids' safety, and the crazy way that people act when they think someone's unfairly targeting their kids or preventing their success.

 

[Clifford]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

Were you trying to be funny in your first paragraph? Honest question.

No, just trying to keep your example accurate. big difference in getting shot because of texting and getting shot in an altercation over texting. But you already know that.

No I don't see one bit of difference between shooting someone for texting and shooting someone for a minor verbal dispute and some popcorn. Both are 100% insane in my view. And seeing one as somehow more justifiable in any way shape or form shows a monstrous lack of respect for human life. So I guess I'll take you at your word that the shooting was "wrong" but also somehow justified.

Why are you being so obtuse? He's not justifying either, he's simply clarifying what happened.The odds of someone becoming "unhinged" in an altercation is much higher than someone becoming "unhinged" because of texting.

I'm sorry but in terms of an incident that leads to a shooting I see no qualitative difference between shooting someone point blank because you saw them texting and shooting someone because of the argument I have heard described. And it did come across as saying that the shooter was somehow justified by using the term "returned fire" which Rayderr said was not meant in jest. I don't see how the phrase "returned fire" when made in sincerity can not be viewed as a defense of the shooter.

 

[Rayderr]

I'm not using the term insane because I don't mean necessarily in the clinical sense, just someone who is one incident away from doing something potentially violent to themselves and/or others for no apparent reason, like the old man who shot the guy for texting. Not necessarily deranged or demented, just one bad day away from losing it.

ETA: If you feel like it post your vote and your state. Would be interesting to map this by region of the country.

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.that said, I answered less than 5%. In actuality, I suspect it's less than 1%. The US has 314million people. 1% of that is 3.14million people. These instances are rather rare. As it stands right now, less than 1% of that 1% are going off the deepend each year.

Were you trying to be funny in your first paragraph? Honest question.

No, just trying to keep your example accurate. big difference in getting shot because of texting and getting shot in an altercation over texting. But you already know that.

No I don't see one bit of difference between shooting someone for texting and shooting someone for a minor verbal dispute and some popcorn. Both are 100% insane in my view. And seeing one as somehow more justifiable in any way shape or form shows a monstrous lack of respect for human life. So I guess I'll take you at your word that the shooting was "wrong" but also somehow justified.

Why are you being so obtuse? He's not justifying either, he's simply clarifying what happened.The odds of someone becoming "unhinged" in an altercation is much higher than someone becoming "unhinged" because of texting.

I'm sorry but in terms of an incident that leads to a shooting I see no qualitative difference between shooting someone point blank because you saw them texting and shooting someone because of the argument I have heard described. And it did come across as saying that the shooter was somehow justified by using the term "returned fire" which Rayderr said was not meant in jest. I don't see how the phrase "returned fire" when made in sincerity can not be viewed as a defense of the shooter.

You're becoming unhinged.

 

[dgreen]

Easily under 5%. The OP indicates there has to be a "bad day" as the trigger and violent behavior as the result. Every day, tons of people have a bad day and very few of them turn to violence towards others or themselves. So, every day, we have a sample size of probably millions. For every 1,000,000 people that have a bad day, there aren't 50,000 violent acts resulting from that bad day.

 

[Clifford]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

 

[DiStefano]

Have you ever wondered why we have so many school shootings? Anybody associated with our school system becomes unhinged.

 

[glock]

Not a very good pole, Cliff. Talk about everyone pulling numbers out of their azzes...

 

[glock]

Not a very good pole, Cliff. Talk about everyone pulling numbers out of their azzes...

 

[cstu]

Easily under 5%. The OP indicates there has to be a "bad day" as the trigger and violent behavior as the result. Every day, tons of people have a bad day and very few of them turn to violence towards others or themselves. So, every day, we have a sample size of probably millions. For every 1,000,000 people that have a bad day, there aren't 50,000 violent acts resulting from that bad day.

The unhinged don't necessarily have to snap on their first bad day. If they snap on their 100th bad day that's only 500 violent acts a day for every 1,000,000 people.

 

[Spike]

This is easy.

50%

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

All of the women.

 

[matttyl]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?

First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

 

[Rayderr]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

 

[The Commish]

Between women and kids doing stupid crap for youtube fame, I don't see how anyone votes for anything under 20%

 

[SWC]

the problem is this thing about being disrespected and being able to do whatever we want blah blah blah cripes if you go somewhere and someone is texting in a movie just move to another seat if you go to a restaurant and a kid is to loud by you just asked to be moved to another table if you go somewhere and you are trying to park and someone else gets the spot first just go park somewhere else if you are in traffic and someone cuts you off just back off and keep going you are still going to get there over the last ten years or so this attitude of i will get you i will tell you what to do you better respect me is all that matters let me tell you this brohans respect yourself and do the right thing and other people will respect you holding up a gun does mean people respect you it means you are a pile of crap take that to the bank brohans

 

[Mister Martie]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

He threw the popcorn as a result of an altercation about texting in a movie theatre not just because he was asked to stop. But you knew that already.

 

[Apple Jack]

Fighting with your hands is sooo antiquated. And so much work. Pulling a gun out is totes the play. If somebody gets shot? Oh well, collateral damage. The cost of doing business. Second Amendment baby!

 

[Apple Jack]

Also, I would posit that much of the population additionally never had a hinge to detach from. Just a knob on a wall, as it were and such as.

 

[matttyl]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

He threw the popcorn as a result of an altercation about texting in a movie theatre not just because he was asked to stop. But you knew that already.

Would causing an "altercation" because you were asked to stop texting be considered unhinged?

 

[Mister Martie]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

He threw the popcorn as a result of an altercation about texting in a movie theatre not just because he was asked to stop. But you knew that already.

Would causing an "altercation" because you were asked to stop texting be considered unhinged?

It's probably impossible to know without any context. Who knows how this thing escalated and who was the cause?

 

[Clifford]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

Neither. Murdering someone would be. Punching someone for acting like an ### is probably violent and unnecessary. Killing someone for throwing popcorn is a good example. Shooting someone for letting their dog pee on your lawn is a good example. Shooting a family member over a football game is a good example. Shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic is a good example. Ganging up on a family because you didn't like the way they merged into your biking group is a good example. Keep going?

 

[matttyl]

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

He threw the popcorn as a result of an altercation about texting in a movie theatre not just because he was asked to stop. But you knew that already.

Would causing an "altercation" because you were asked to stop texting be considered unhinged?

It's probably impossible to know without any context. Who knows how this thing escalated and who was the cause?

I'm trying to keep the recent shooting situation out of it, but I realize that's where this started. I'm trying to determine what's considered "unhinged" for the purpose of the question.

 

[matttyl]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

Neither. Murdering someone would be. Punching someone for acting like an ### is probably violent and unnecessary. Killing someone for throwing popcorn is a good example. Shooting someone for letting their dog pee on your lawn is a good example. Shooting a family member over a football game is a good example. Shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic is a good example. Ganging up on a family because you didn't like the way they merged into your biking group is a good example. Keep going?

I would think that's an extreme example. So unhinged has to deal with guns/shooting? So you're going from "something violent" all the way to shooting someone? Man, that escalated quickly.

 

[ntz08]

i probably would have said 10% or less, but I've seen enough insanity on this board alone to easily bump it in the 12-15% range.

 

[soothsayer]

I used to believe that at least 10% of our society is some form of "nuts". Now I'm pretty sure it's ~20%. I think that despite being unhinged, most are able to keep it together to get through daily routines...but it's a balancing act they perform on a daily basis.

 

[Rayderr]

To clarify the poll is not asking how many people snap and do something violent. The poll is asking what percent of the US population has the mental makeup of someone who could snap and do something violent, with little provocation.

I bet if we could peer into a crystal ball and know, it would be above 10%. But I'm from Alabama where the mentally unhinged are lauded as "straight shooters", pun intended.

So you mean what % of the US population would react to getting popcorn purposefully thrown at them to returning the gesture with fists? Is that a good example of your question? I'm not saying punching multiple people, just the guy who threw the popcorn?First off, I don't think that returning that gesture with fists would constitute someone being "unhinged". Do you? If someone were that rude to my wife, or my child (I don't have a child, just making an example), I couldn't say that I wouldn't punch the guy. Am I "unhinged"?

Even better question, would responding to being asked to stop texting a movie theater by throwing a bag of popcorn at a senior citizen be considered unhinged?

Neither. Murdering someone would be. Punching someone for acting like an ### is probably violent and unnecessary. Killing someone for throwing popcorn is a good example. Shooting someone for letting their dog pee on your lawn is a good example. Shooting a family member over a football game is a good example. Shooting someone because they cut you off in traffic is a good example. Ganging up on a family because you didn't like the way they merged into your biking group is a good example. Keep going?

ok, so murder or attempted murder appears to be your definition of "unhinged." Then definetely below 1%. Out of every 100,000 people, only 4.7 are murdered. Assuming that each of those 4.7 are murdered by 4.7 different people, and that the reason why they decided to murder was because they became "unhinged", then that works out to .0047% of the US population becomes "unhinged" each year.