Dont they realize its a mental health issue

[Alexp08]

the title says it all

 

[MDFF2008]

Seriously why are they continuing to go after "sane" people. The Navy yard gunman said he was hearing voices, soo hes schizophrenic. Adam fro Newton was (if i remember correctly, as i cant find the article anymore) autistic. A psychiatrist told police a month before aurora that James was a danger, but no one did anything. Hell you can even go back to one of the first BIG shooting at Texas university. The shooter had a tumor in his brain that was affecting rage and judgement. Im all for gun control when its revolved around keeping guns out of the mentally ill's hands.

Because sane people are easy. Law abiding citizens are easy.

 

[JasonB]

Everyone is too worried about offending any particular group of people. (Except for gun owners clearly).

No solutions will be proposed because it is not politically correct to "discriminate" or "profile" those with mental illness. It's the same reason nobody wants to tackle urban crime - they'll be accused of being racist.

 

[Mr H]

They don't care.

Agenda comes before reality. I checked the dictionary, just to be sure...

 

[gamer_jim]

Was he diagnosed by a medical professional or is this hearsay?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cad68m_m]

"court documents revealed that the mass shooting in Aurora that killed 12 and injured 70 more could have been prevented by law enforcement. The psychiatrist for suspect, James Holmes, had warned campus police that Holmes was dangerous and homicidal a month before the shooting took place"

"Newtown killer Adam Lanza was "obsessed" with Anders Breivik, the Norwegian murderer who attacked a youth camp in July 2011"

"Aaron Alexis was a walking alarm bell. He called the police to a Rhode Island hotel room where he was staying in August to say that mysterious people connected to an argument he’d had at an airport were “harassing him with a microwave machine and ‘speaking to him through the wall.’ ” He’d been investigated by police in Texas for shooting through his ceiling into his neighbor’s apartment and by police in Seattle for shooting out a car’s tires"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-navy-shooter-20130919,0,4030934.story For details on Alexis mental state


http://www.fixnics.org/ check out which states are doing the right thing

 

[Mr H]

Heard the best commentary of all this morning...

It centered around Political Correctness being to blame for both Ft. Hood, and Navy Yard.

"Can't point out the Muslim aspect," and "He's black, so he'll play the race card," were the main themes around why these guys were allowed to keep walking among us unchecked.

 

[occbrian]

It appears that the conversation has quickly turned to mental health. Finally.

I couldn't be happier and hope they pass something about mental health. It is the ONE thing that could actually prevent these shootings. If it works, they will decrease and give the antis fewer soap boxes for their gun control agenda.

 

[Mr H]

It appears that the conversation has quickly turned to mental health. Finally.

I couldn't be happier and hope they pass something about mental health. It is the ONE thing that could actually prevent these shootings. If it works, they will decrease and give the antis fewer soap boxes for their gun control agenda.

Details, and where the lines get drawn, will be critical.

 

[teratos]

We tried doing this in Annapolis. Of course, our positions are a little schizophrenic. On one hand, we point out that the common theme among the mass shooters is that they are all mentally ill. Most significantly so. If we just go through the bit ones:

Columbine - One, if not both already plugged into the mental health system
VA Tech - Already adjudicated to be mentally ill
Aurora - Seeing a psychiatrist, and IIRC was reported to the campus police as a danger at least a month before the shooting.
Newtown - Long history of mental illness. Mother looking to get him committed.
Navy Yard - History of violence, and hearing voices. Discharged from Navy reserves because of issues. Ball was dropped because instead of dealing with the issue, they washed their hands of him.

None of their mental health backgrounds are subtle. In defense of the mental health professionals, you only know what a patient will tell you. In some cases, they saw potential for violence and the authorities dropped the ball by not following up. We recognize this is an issue.

Here is where it gets a little tough. We CANNOT let government start putting huge restrictions on people because of mental illness. The vast majority of those with mental illness do OK in society and are not a threat. Does there need to be a mechanism where we make certain people prohibited because of mental illness? Absolutely we do. There are some bat shit crazy people out there. The process needs to have multiple layers to it, and cannot be made too easy. Can you imagine of the O'Malley administration were able to make broad recommendations on who should be prohibited? It is very difficult to come up with a process where you can restrict a fundamental Right in a fair manner.

 

[Mr H]

Another factor in the Navy Yard incident...

There is a possibility that he was let slide (at least in part) because he's made a racial stink in the past, so no one acted for fear of racism charges.

 

[teratos]

Another factor in the Navy Yard incident...

There is a possibility that he was let slide (at least in part) because he's made a racial stink in the past, so no one acted for fear of racism charges.

The race card is getting quite out of hand. As America becomes less racist, it is encouraged by particular Black "leaders".

 

[press1280]

We tried doing this in Annapolis. Of course, our positions are a little schizophrenic. On one hand, we point out that the common theme among the mass shooters is that they are all mentally ill. Most significantly so. If we just go through the bit ones:

Columbine - One, if not both already plugged into the mental health system
VA Tech - Already adjudicated to be mentally ill
Aurora - Seeing a psychiatrist, and IIRC was reported to the campus police as a danger at least a month before the shooting.
Newtown - Long history of mental illness. Mother looking to get him committed.
Navy Yard - History of violence, and hearing voices. Discharged from Navy reserves because of issues. Ball was dropped because instead of dealing with the issue, they washed their hands of him.

None of their mental health backgrounds are subtle. In defense of the mental health professionals, you only know what a patient will tell you. In some cases, they saw potential for violence and the authorities dropped the ball by not following up. We recognize this is an issue.

Here is where it gets a little tough. We CANNOT let government start putting huge restrictions on people because of mental illness. The vast majority of those with mental illness do OK in society and are not a threat. Does there need to be a mechanism where we make certain people prohibited because of mental illness? Absolutely we do. There are some bat shit crazy people out there. The process needs to have multiple layers to it, and cannot be made too easy. Can you imagine of the O'Malley administration were able to make broad recommendations on who should be prohibited? It is very difficult to come up with a process where you can restrict a fundamental Right in a fair manner.

This is one reason these "lawmakers" just want to pass blanket gun bans. Do they make it to where anyone receiving mental health care is on the prohibited list? That won't fly because in addition to some pushback from the firearms industry, they'll have the ACLU and other privacy groups to deal with. Many of which are big supporters of the Democratic Party.
Another problem is that it's extremely difficult to have someone involuntarily committed. The person almost HAS to blow up to get committed. If a court deems someone as a danger to himself and others, that person should be off the streets immediately, and not allowed to continue in society like Cho was.

Then, of course, there are probably some anti-2A people that don't want to do this because they believe the whackos that do these, along with the gang bangers killing each other every night are useful idiots who can help them accomplish their goal of total disarmament.

 

[alucard0822]

It appears that the conversation has quickly turned to mental health. Finally.

I couldn't be happier and hope they pass something about mental health. It is the ONE thing that could actually prevent these shootings. If it works, they will decrease and give the antis fewer soap boxes for their gun control agenda.

I'm not that hopeful, you don't get rational laws from irrational lawmakers, especially those hell bent on turning every civilian gun owner into a criminal. While in theory an improved check system that has greater access to mental health data might help stop a shooting or two, the reality of it is a slap in the face to any idea of "reasonable gun control" in any form. States don't reliably report committals and adjudications now, the line of "prohibited person" being judicial, not medical. Our 2a rights are not to be taken lightly, and to restrict them there needs to be due process, not a doctor's recommendation, or worse yet a burocrat combing through our private medical records determining who can have a gun, and who cant. Current statistics estimate about 10% of the population receives some form of mental health treatment, with 25% of the population having a diagnosable illness, this isn't a handful of people with their rights in the crosshairs, it is millions who overwhelmingly are responsible people that appear mostly "normal", and have every right to own firearms and protect themselves. Of course there are some who cannot be responsible with weapons, driving, or living unsupervised, there are current mechanisms to prohibit them from owning firearms, getting a license, or going out in public without a caretaker the best of which is supervision, not forcing an arduous system or infringement on everyone else.

With the present system they can present their case to a judge, get a hearing, and try for a comittal which will prohibit someone. Ownership prohibitions are usually lifelong, and how many people can no longer own a firearm, with the reason no longer being relevant, a middle aged family man who might have had issues as a teen, a vet who had to come to terms with his role in war, even someone that pled guilty to a non-violent felony and received probation decades ago, and hasn't broken the law since, there is no clear avenue to restore rights. Of course all of this also flies in the face of our arguments against banning private sales and establishing mandatory background checks, the errors, the cost, the registry needed for it to work, and so on.

There is also the fallacy that making it harder for mentally ill people to get firearms will stop them from harming others despite other readily available means, arson, explosives, intentionally crashing a vehicle, and every other way imaginable including illegally obtained firearms. The problem isn't firearms, it's the trap of gun control that is pushed front and center every time something bad happens, some don't think it through enough, and fall for it, others jump at their chance to be relevant and push their agenda, and every other idea, weather it is better security, a mental health system free of stigma and easier to access, or expanded opportunities for citizen training and carry, they all get brushed aside.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

One of the concerns I see with mental health restrictions is the topic of veterans and PTSD. Veterans are already considered to be "ticking time bombs" by Napalitano, the NY Times, and just plain people who don't know any better. Factor in that the VA's mental health system is broken (Navy Yard shooter being a prime example) and that sets the path for a blanket restriction on any combat veteran.

Teratos and Alucard nailed it. There's no easy way to set fair restrictions and lawmakers cannot be trusted to do so. Do we have any 2A-friendly professional headshrinkers to consult on this? Because it WILL come up in the GA next year.

 

[PhoenixRizing]

We tried doing this in Annapolis. Of course, our positions are a little schizophrenic. On one hand, we point out that the common theme among the mass shooters is that they are all mentally ill. Most significantly so. If we just go through the bit ones:

Columbine - One, if not both already plugged into the mental health system
VA Tech - Already adjudicated to be mentally ill
Aurora - Seeing a psychiatrist, and IIRC was reported to the campus police as a danger at least a month before the shooting.
Newtown - Long history of mental illness. Mother looking to get him committed.
Navy Yard - History of violence, and hearing voices. Discharged from Navy reserves because of issues. Ball was dropped because instead of dealing with the issue, they washed their hands of him.

None of their mental health backgrounds are subtle. In defense of the mental health professionals, you only know what a patient will tell you. In some cases, they saw potential for violence and the authorities dropped the ball by not following up. We recognize this is an issue.

Here is where it gets a little tough. We CANNOT let government start putting huge restrictions on people because of mental illness. The vast majority of those with mental illness do OK in society and are not a threat. Does there need to be a mechanism where we make certain people prohibited because of mental illness? Absolutely we do. There are some bat shit crazy people out there. The process needs to have multiple layers to it, and cannot be made too easy. Can you imagine of the O'Malley administration were able to make broad recommendations on who should be prohibited? It is very difficult to come up with a process where you can restrict a fundamental Right in a fair manner.

This!

The mental illness issue needs to be handled delicately which is something I believe our law makers collectively are incapable of doing. Even under the best circumstances with unbiased mental health professionals making objective evaluations of whether someone is fit for firearms ownership the process can in cases be very subjective. People will always slip through. Law makers would use the "nuclear option" to stop anyone even remotely associated with having any kind of illness "just to be sure" because its "for the children." With the way the antis are, the mental health angle will be used not to determine if someone is fit for firearms ownership, but rather for determining if there is anything in this persons history that could be used to strip them of their right to bear arms.

If the antis had it there way I think we would see the following:
Have you ever seen a psychologist? Right denied
Have you ever seen a psychiatrist? Right denied
Have you ever taken an anti-depressant or other mood altering medication? Right denied
Do you feel the need to protect yourself? You are paranoid and must be mentally ill, right denied

 

[occbrian]

It is a very, very delicate subject. I completely agree. I also don't want people to refuse the help they need for fear of losing their rights.

If only the nation could have an open dialogue about mental health. There is too much stigma.

 

[johnnyb2]

Heard the best commentary of all this morning...

It centered around Political Correctness being to blame for both Ft. Hood, and Navy Yard.

"Can't point out the Muslim aspect," and "He's black, so he'll play the race card," were the main themes around why these guys were allowed to keep walking among us unchecked.


IMHO, this would only be a very small part of the issue, if any at all. Not to say those thoughts didn't cross people's minds, I just do not believe that it was that big a part of the equation.

It appears that the conversation has quickly turned to mental health. Finally.

I couldn't be happier and hope they pass something about mental health. It is the ONE thing that could actually prevent these shootings. If it works, they will decrease and give the antis fewer soap boxes for their gun control agenda.


I feel you on this one. It is very frustrating to watch all of these political knuckleheads talking about all the WRONG THINGS.....over and over again. But, some who live in darkness, will never see the light of day, even if it SHINES right into their eyes :-(.

None of their mental health backgrounds are subtle. In defense of the mental health professionals, you only know what a patient will tell you. In some cases, they saw potential for violence and the authorities dropped the ball by not following up. We recognize this is an issue.

Here is where it gets a little tough. We CANNOT let government start putting huge restrictions on people because of mental illness. The vast majority of those with mental illness do OK in society and are not a threat. Does there need to be a mechanism where we make certain people prohibited because of mental illness? Absolutely we do. There are some bat shit crazy people out there. The process needs to have multiple layers to it, and cannot be made too easy. Can you imagine of the O'Malley administration were able to make broad recommendations on who should be prohibited? It is very difficult to come up with a process where you can restrict a fundamental Right in a fair manner.


Here is where in lies the BIGGEST problem of all, again, IMHO :-). First, I guess with the way the media reports things, or rather, DOESN'T report the truth, we are lucky that even a little of this is making it into print or the news. Second You have hit the nail on the head with your last paragraph. It appears that several, if not most of these guys have had issues that WERE reported to one authority or another, but, within our legal system, not much can really be done UNTIL, they COMMITT the crime. It is like a woman who reports her EX as being violent, and wants a restraining order. Yes, if they can get one, still does not do any good until he actually does something, and then, it is TOO LATE.
Third How much power do we WANT to give our government, in having the authority, and power to lock us up prior to committing crimes. I think that this will would be such a HUGE mistake, that this would be the final straw in turning our government into a dictatorship, that only a violent revolution would be able to stop it. And this would not occur right away, but maybe 10-20 years down the road. We, can not even trust them to do the right thing now, clearly when there is even a majority that wants something. The power lies within the elite, who with money, and sometimes religion, controls what they want to. They control the media, which plays a HUGE role in our frustrations to get the truth out and makes them able to manipulate the majority of the people who do not know the truth about the majority of issues. It would allow them to lock us up, and eventually, throw away the key when they want to . And what rights would we have....NONE....otherwise, we would be back to where we are now.

Right now, a large part of the issue, is the Constitutional rights that protect us from being locked up arbitrarily. One of the reasons that nothing has been done, discussed or proposed is that POLITICIANS KNOW that they cannot address this, as there is very little if anything that can be proposed as a solution, that would stand any chance of being passed, so, the easiest and safest way is to just go after the pro-gun associates because....they can.

These are just some thoughts I wanted to share...what are some other opinions on these issue?

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Many prescription drugs these days have a disturbing side effect...."May cause homicidal or suicidal thoughts or actions."

 

[teratos]

Many prescription drugs these days have a disturbing side effect...."May cause homicidal or suicidal thoughts or actions."

I have been practicing medicine for 13 years, and have yet to see that happen. Not to say it doesn't. I would bet if you look at the people it DOES happen to, the vast majority have a history of mental illness.