I am of the opinion that far too many mental health professionals are dropping the ball because they are afraid of being sued.
That's quite possible. Though I think a more charitable description might be that they aren't charging ahead to (further) screw up someone's life, without actual, actionable proof.
And that's a problem. Always has been, always will be, simply due to the nature of man, and the inescapable fact that all "mental health" counseling and evaluation relies on an arbitrary frame of reference (that which is considered "normal") and the honesty of the person being evaluated in answering questions used to judge them.
Hindsight is always 20/20 but seeing the future is murky, and not something reliable.
And this, to me, is the flaw in "predictive behavior". It's JUST an opinion. It may SEEM to work, when someone does behave in the predicted manner, but what happens when they don't? We NEVER hear about it.
Red Flag laws? What a wonderful way to violate someone's rights, including the right to due process....because
someone thought someone
might be a threat....
Laws must have set limits and conditions, otherwise we get chaos (more than we currently have). If a person meets the legal standard for X, then the law can act. If not, it can't. NOR should it act if there is no evidence a crime has been, or is planned to be committed.
The Virginia Tech shooter had been in the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist (don't remember which), and the Parklands shooter was also known to have had behavioral issues for several years. And then, of course, there's the Sandy Hook shooter ... who murdered his own mother before proceeding to the school. Yet they were all allowed to have access to firearms.
You can go back farther, and see similar situations. Purdy, who's mass murder at Stockton in 86 (and started the whole "assault weapon" hysteria) was not only under "care" he was receiving money from the govt each month, because he was "mentally disabled" and unable to work.
At the time, this information (which probably would have disqualified him) was NOT ALLOWED to be reported to other govt agencies due to it being part of his private medical records. He passed the CA background check and 15day waiting period, TWICE, legally buying two different handguns, on separate occassions. He bought the AK clone he used in OR, and met all the legal requirements in place at the time.
Later on, he killed a bunch of kids, some teachers, and then, himself.
There was an incident a few years back now, I forget the names, but a CA guy was reported to the police as possibly dangerous. They went to his house and did a "health & safety check". Talked to him for a while, then left, pronouncing him, sane, stable, and "safe".
the very next day, he stabbed several people, shot a few and ran over some more with his car. According to reports, he did all that because he was upset that he couldn't get a girlfriend...
The mind of man can be as trackless as a bog at midnight, and the ONLY thing any "evaluator" (with a psych degree or without) has to go on is what the person being evaluated tells them. And, you know what? sometimes, people LIE......
Why is it that we are expected to accept background checks and psych evals as holy writ, but we are constantly told "past behavior is not a guarantee of future performance" if you're looking at buying stock, or otherwise investing money???
Also, I have a bit of an issue with this phrase...
Yet they were all allowed to have access to firearms.
They were not ALLOWED access to firearms. Anymore than the rest of us are ALLOWED access to any of our natural rights.
What happened was that they were not placed in the prohibited person class. And, for the good reason that they had not done anything to put them there, BEFORE they went on a killing rampage.
Remember what we champion as the basis for our system, that you aren't guilty of something you haven't done. Until, and unless you do something that DOES break some legal rule, you have exactly the same rights as everyone else.
I'm not trying to defend the killers, or the system, only to point out that "bad guys" aren't "bad guys" until they DO some bad thing. Until then, they are law abiding citizens with ALL the legal rights we have.
To be a bit more pedantic, they were not
allowed access to firearms, they were
entitled access to firearms, just like all the rest of us, who are not prohibited by law.
In hindsight, sure, it was not a good idea, but it was the only LEGAL choice at the time, when they had done no wrong at that point. We have a system for legally adjudicating people to determine if they are mentally competent enough to retain the right to arms (and other things). Its, slow, cumbersome, and entirely individual specific, but it allows for due process and both sided to present their evidence in court. Not quick and easy like a red flag law, where the govt is allowed to take your guns NOW, and figure out if you are actually a threat later sometime in the coming year...
I'll say it again, regarding this, if a person is actually a danger to the public, taking their gun(s) and leaving them their money and their freedom to get other weapons, is just barking STUPID, to me. IF they are that dangerous, then they (the PERSON) needs to be locked up. Not inanimate objects they own, leaving them free to obtain others if they choose...
The system is literally custom built for abuse, and personally, I don't care to face "the question" because my snotty neighbor thinks I'm a witch.....
And, yes, if I'm ever falsely accused, after I'm cleared, I'm going to sic every ambulance chaser I can find on the person/people who did it to me.
with pleasure
