Yet another school shooting

[Pond James Pond]

The psychologist thinks a patient needs chemical therapy. Psychologist sends patient to psychiatrist, who helpfully writes a prescription. Patient continues working with psychologist, and periodically sees the psychiatrist when it's time to renew the prescription.

Hmmm....

I'm pretty sure there is something in the Hypocratic Oath that might not gel with that practice....

If the case, it certainly empowers a culture of pill-taking over other therapies that may work just as well, if a bit longer, without being pharmaceutical.

 

[Metal god]

This mental health issue has been talked to death . I remember reading somewhere that the vast majority of people on meds do to mental issues have never and will never commit a violent act in there life time . That percentage if I recall is so high it need not have a number here .

So now IMHO we get into a privacy issue similar in some ways to the carry debate . If I'm on meds to regulate my mental stability and have never shown signs of violence . Who's business is it to know what's going on with me . If doctors are required to submit info on everyone on meds . That could easily be turned around to infringe on many rights . Just because a person carry's does not make them dangerous nor does having mental issues .

As far as does a good guy with a gun in a mass shooting cause more injuries . Simple thought experiment . You have a guy holding any number of unarmed hostages ( lets say 50 people ) He has 100rds of ammo with him and starts shooting . How many people can and will likely get killed or injured ? ( In theory all of them ) Same situation but this time one or two of the hostages unknown to the shooter are armed . The shooter starts firing . Now how many people get killed or injured ? ( IMHO not even theory , less then all of them ) regardless of how the shooting ends up .

 

[JohnKSa]

I remember reading somewhere that the vast majority of people on meds do to mental issues have never and will never commit a violent act in there life time .

This is true. But it needs some context to be really useful information.

First of all, one could make the same statement about many different large groups. It's true in general that in most large demographics, the vast majority of the demographic will never commit acts of violence against others.

Second, "mental illness" is a term that casts a wide net. There are many different kinds of mental illnesses and grouping them all together when answering the question obscures the issue.

The real question is:

Do some types of mental illness predispose a person to commit violent crimes at a rate higher than the general population and, if so, what types?

The answer is that there are certainly some types of mental illness that, if not properly treated, predispose people to commit violent crimes at rates FAR higher than what is encountered in the general population, especially if alcohol and illegal drugs are involved.

The links below have a lot of good information; I've provided a few sample quotes, but anyone interested in the topic should read the articles rather than assume the sample quotes are completely representative. This is a complicated topic and it shouldn't be oversimplified.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/resources/consequences-of-lack-of-treatment/violence/1381

Psychosis “was significantly associated with a 49%–68% increase in the odds of violence.”

A study of 961 young adults in New Zealand reported that individuals with schizophrenia and associated disorders were two-and-one-half times more likely than controls to have been violent in the past year.

Men with schizophrenia without alcoholism were 3.6 times more likely to commit a violent crime than men without a psychiatric diagnosis. Men with both schizophrenia and alcoholism were 25.2 times more likely to commit a violent crime.​

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-illness-and-violence

Rates of violence (convicted of at least 1 violent crime over a 30+ yr period)
General population = 4.25%

Schizophrenia without substance abusive disorder = 8.5%
Schizophrenia without substance abusive disorder = 27.6%
Bipolar without substance abuse = 4.9%
Bipolar with substance abuse = 21.3%​

http://www.propublica.org/article/myth-vs-fact-violence-and-mental-health

"People with serious mental illness are 3 to 4 times more likely to be violent than those who aren't. "​

The association of some types of mental illness with violence should not be exaggerated; but it also shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[Metal god]

First of all, one could make the same statement about many different large groups.

I agree and is part of my point . I keep hearing how we need to fix the mental health issue . As long as we have privacy rights ( which we should ) involving medical records . We won't solve the issue . This is way above my pay grade , how ever the Aurora and sandy hook shooters were both being seen by the appropriate doctors . In each of those states there were laws in place for doctors to report possible issues there clients may have and nobody did , at least not adequately .

Second, "mental illness" is a term that casts a wide net. There are many different kinds of mental illnesses and grouping them all together when answering the question obscures the issue.

Again this is my point . If I had any mental disability I would not want anyone to know so I would not get caught up in that wide net . I guess the devils in the details sort of speak as to how or what each person problems are and how it's reported and who has access to that info .

If we had universal health care I'd assume the government would have access to all your records . Since they're footing the bill for your treatment . They will clearly have all your info . Does that sound good to anyone here ?

What about employers that pay for health care . Shouldn't they have the right to know if some employees may be more disruptive then others . What about this new thing going around called unconscious bias training . Which test if you are unconsciously raciest . So now we have employers judging you based on something you don't actual consciously believe .

Or as so many politicians do . They just start changing the definitions of what does and does not constitute a mental illness in order to lump the groups they want into a place they can control them .

This is a complicated topic and it shouldn't be oversimplified.

Correct , WAY to complex an issue to think keeping track of the people on prozaq will help anything . As soon as we let the government into are heads . They will never leave . IMHO this is a privacy issue not a gun or mental health issue .

 

[44 AMP]

how ever the Aurora and sandy hook shooters were both being seen by the appropriate doctors . In each of those states there were laws in place for doctors to report possible issues there clients may have and nobody did , at least not adequately .

Turn the clock WAY back to 1986, and look at Patrick Purdy, who's mass murder in a Stockton schoolyard (with a semi AK) kicked off the whole "assault weapon" hysteria.

He was on prescribed meds for mental issues (from at least one doc, maybe more), he was also doing "street drugs". He was receiving monthly disability checks from the govt, because he was "mentally disabled and unable to work."

And yet, he went through California's 14 day waiting period and background checks to purchase a handgun. TWICE!!! (he bought his AK in Oregon)

Why was he able to pass background checks, twice??? (and buy two handguns)

Because the law didn't ALLOW his mental condition to be reported to the people doing the background checks, it was a PRIVACY issue.

Supposedly this has been fixed, but has it really???

The Sandy Hook shooter was "under care", but that didn't stop him. MAYBE his condition would have prevented him from legally buying a gun, but that point is moot, considering that he MURDERED HIS MOTHER AND STOLE THE GUNS he used to shoot up the school murdering many others.

Sweeping the issue under the rug of "mental illness" does us all a huge disservice.

 

[armoredman]

I do remember on leftist group that wanted to have coffee drinking labeled a mental illness several years ago. If you let the Left control what diagnosis count and what they can diagnose, you could end up with the desire to own a firearm is a sign of mental illness.
The scumbag who shot Rep Giffords up the street from me was a known loopie and yet passed all of his background checks with ease.
Also, I have EXTREMELY dangerous mental health cases at work who manufacture weapons out of nothing.If they can't buy it, like the Sandy Hook murderer, they will kill without a second thought to get what they need/want. To some of them it's the same as turning off a light switch. We know their medical/mental health issues, and they are the extreme case, but, as posited above, what about the guy who took Welbutrin or Chantrix to help stop smoking? Welbutrin is a mental health medication. Now it's on his medical history that he was prescribed a mental health related medication...does this flag?

 

[Metal god]

Im not saying monitoring of persons with some mental illnesses is a bad thing . I just don't trust the government having that info or even able to access it . At this time the government regardless of party can't be trusted with private damaging information on its citizens . What we do about that I'm not really sure . As stated above by much smarter people then I . This is a complex issue , but giving the government more power is not where I'd start . FISA court , what a joke . At times they went before that court , lied and got what they want and nothing happen when it was found out they lied to get the warrant.

I'm very unhappy with how the patriot act has been used since 911 including the recent unmasking . I can feel my self getting worked up so i think I'll leave it there for now

As far as the sandy hook shooter goes . Yes it is know he stole the firearms from his mother . How ever we don't know how they were stolen . Did he crowbar a safe open or did he have the key or combo ? I don't believe that was ever disclosed as to how specifically he got his hands on those firearms .

"If" he actually had access to the firearms then the term "stole them" IMO is not quite accurate in the context of keep prohibited persons from accessing firearms . Sure in the legal since they were stolen because he was not the owner . How ever if mom did not properly secure them from a known prohibited person then I feel the " he stole the guns " is only partly accurate .

 

[JohnKSa]

There's not an answer that I can think of that gives me a warm fuzzy.

The best solution from the standpoint of preventing violence is to have the government monitor all mental health records. To say that I think that would be a horrendous idea is an understatement.

The best solution from the standpoint of freedom is to keep the government out of people's health records entirely. I like that idea, but I can also see that there are some situations where it makes sense to allow the government to have some access to some mental health records.

I think I could get along with the idea of the government monitoring the mental health records of persons who have been involuntarily committed due to a mental illness which has been shown to be strongly linked to violence. It wouldn't be something that would make me happy, and I can see how it could be abused, but I don't think I would strongly oppose a measure like that.

What would make me happiest is for people to understand that freedom comes with risk and accept that part of the right to privacy from the government includes the fact that some dangerous people will slip through the cracks and end up killing innocent people. It is, in effect, part of the price we pay for freedom.

 

[armoredman]

I think you hit the nail on the head there, JohnKSa. Background checks on mental health records should be limited to those who have been involuntarily committed or incarcerated, where the government can show a compelling interest in monitoring those individuals who have a demonstrated inability to follow societal rules/norms. If you have NOT done anything to warrant inclusion, then welcome to dangerous freedom, where you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

 

[44 AMP]

As far as the sandy hook shooter goes . Yes it is know he stole the firearms from his mother . How ever we don't know how they were stolen . Did he crowbar a safe open or did he have the key or combo ? I don't believe that was ever disclosed as to how specifically he got his hands on those firearms .

I don't see that it matters. Taking something that does not belong to you, without the owner's permission is stealing! (unless you are the govt., but that's a different matter )

How much work he had to do to steal the guns does not matter. Whether he had to crowbar open the safe, or just take the keys off his mother's corpse, the effort he had to expend to steal the guns doesn't matter.

"If" he actually had access to the firearms then the term "stole them" IMO is not quite accurate in the context of keep prohibited persons from accessing firearms . Sure in the legal since they were stolen because he was not the owner . How ever if mom did not properly secure them from a known prohibited person then I feel the " he stole the guns " is only partly accurate .

First, again, if he took them without permission, he STOLE them. I don't see where any other description is accurate. He certainly didn't "borrow" them...

Second, I don't think he actually was a prohibited person, at the time. IT takes a COURT judgment to make you a prohibited person. Either a conviction, or a adjudication by a court. NOT a doctor, or panel of doctors. Doctors can recommend, but cannot rule anyone a prohibited person. Even those locked up as a danger to themselves and others do not become prohibited persons UNTIL a court so rules. (it may be a "slam dunk" ruling for those committed for violence, but until the ruling is made, they are not prohibited persons)

I have never agreed with the commonly held idea today, that the owner is some how at fault because their property was "too easy to steal". To me, that is an idea thought up by insurance companies who want to save money by denying claims. They won't pay, because you "helped" the theft, by "allowing" your property to be stolen.

You might as well say that the murdered children were guilty for being so easy to kill...

its not right, and never will be.

 

[Metal god]

When it's your child who you are reponsible for it does matter how well you keep your firearms secure . Especially if there's a reasonable expectation keeping firearms away from your child is a good idea . Point was this case specifically and not in the context of a stanger taking something that's not theres .

I agree he was not legally a prohibited person . In his case I'm not sure he would have been . Asperger's syndrome does not appear to commonly manifest it self into violent actions so not sure it would be one of those mental illnesses that prompts the prohibited persons action in the law .

 

[P5 Guy]

Would Nancy Lanza be a straw purchaser if she bought the firearms for her son knowing his mental state?

 

[RaySendero]

This "Mental Health" issue!?

This "Mental Health" issue is just another reason for
the "Government" to gain more control in we the people lives!

If your looking for a common reason,
Look at the parental up bringing!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

When it's your child who you are reponsible for it does matter how well you keep your firearms secure . Especially if there's a reasonable expectation keeping firearms away from your child is a good idea . Point was this case specifically and not in the context of a stanger taking something that's not theres .

The Sandy Hook shooting was in Connecticut. Connecticut state law requires that firearms not be stored in a way that they are accessible to children. That law defines (for the purpose of that particular law) a child as being under the age of 16. The shooter was 20 years old at the time, so he was not subject to the Connecticut "safe storage" law, and I would argue that since he was old enough to enlist in the military and be trained to carry and use weapons, he was not a "child."

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Would Nancy Lanza be a straw purchaser if she bought the firearms for her son knowing his mental state?

First, she was his mother, so she obviously DID know his mental state. And she obviously didn't think his mental state was severe enough that he posed a danger. Unfortunately, she was wrong. How would that become a straw purchase?

A straw purchase is when someone purchases a firearm for someone else, typically using the other person's money. Nancy Lanza was a shooter. She bought the guns using her money. The fact that she allowed her son to shoot them doesn't make that into a straw purchase. The guns were in her house, in her safe. As has been noted, the son murdered his own mother to steal the guns.

Not a straw purchase. Just a tragic misjudgment on the part of both the mother and the shrink.

 

[P5 Guy]

Aguila Blanca, Thanks for clearing this up for me. I'm foggy on straw buyers.

 

[ROCK6]

I don't buy the "mental health" perspective. All adolescents have hormonal, irrational, and undisciplined behavior without much regard for consequences. What we have is a cultural issue. Labeling someone with a mental health problem just creates the same negative stereotype that has affected diagnosis within the military.

Guns aren't the issue, just the tool. Violence is the action where the root cause is a non-empathetic society, media-highlighted violent culture, politically polarized, and often violence-driven rhetoric from popular talking heads. Young men/teens these days are marginalized, stigmatized, and left with few outlets to vent. Even in anti-gun cultures, the end result is often suicide...the root cause isn't the tool, it's the culture.

Analyzing risk in the work place can result in solutions to mitigate many of these incidents, but you're just applying a reactive measure and you will never address the root cause. Our society is unwilling to focus on the real problems, with a much easier target of the tool or method...until that is addressed it's quite appropriate to have gun-related measures to counter violence in our schools and workplace. Just my opinion.

ROCK6