Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora

Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

cloudboy -> Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/30/2012 8:40:12 PM)
I read a really good OP-ED piece in USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-29/move-theater-shooting-mental-health/56575432/1 I thought the author made several good points that are thematic to some debates on this board, namely GotSteel's thread and the Aurora threads. As for the shooting, this short article has been the best one I've read related to the subject, and unsurprisingly, its written by a mental health professional. A few highlights are listed below: •The spotlight always focuses on gun control. A possible reason is because people are afraid of seeming sympathetic toward the gunman if they discuss mental illness. But how can we prevent shootings if we don't question why Seung Hui Cho fell through the cracks in Virginia after he was declared "a danger to himself and others," or why Jared Lee Loughner's schizophrenia went untreated in Arizona. We ignore our failed mental health care system at our own peril. •Although science can't tell us the causes of most mental disorders, severe ones, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, are thought to have biological and genetic underpinnings and are not the fault of those who get sick. Even so, having a mental disorder is seen as a personal character flaw and rarely sways public opinion or influences sentencing. Studies show that the insanity defense rarely works and often is seen as a dodge used by killers to avoid prison. We understandably want to hold killers responsible for their actions even when they are mentally unhinged. •Because these mass shootings appear to be unpredictable, we feel helpless to stop them. We shouldn't. The shootings in Tucson and at Virginia Tech could and should have been prevented. Family members and university professors were alarmed by the antics of Loughner and Cho, but they were stymied by the "dangerous to self or others" legal standard for forced intervention, or by a lack of responsive mental health care in their communities.

littlewonder -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/30/2012 9:21:09 PM)
It seems that a lot of these kinds of killers have had warning signs in their lives before they did what they did but everyone, including the parents, just whitewashed it and ignored it. They don't want to be bothered by all the paperwork to commit them, or they love the person too much to commit him. People want to ignore dangers around them thinking it will just magically disappear or get better. This guy in Aurora had warning signs. Peers said he was kinda weird and creepy, his mother was not surprised one tiny bit when the police came to her door so she seemed to know something and he had a psychiatrist who I'm sure had to notice problems. I mean I went to my doc for depression and the first thing she wanted to find out is if she needed to commit me because I might be a danger to myself, let alone others. But yeah, let's just sweep it under the door. Someone else will take care of it.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/31/2012 6:29:13 AM)
quote: It seems that a lot of these kinds of killers have had warning signs in their lives before they did what they did but everyone, including the parents, just whitewashed it and ignored it. They don't want to be bothered by all the paperwork to commit them, or they love the person too much to commit him. People want to ignore dangers around them thinking it will just magically disappear or get better. The author's response to this thinking is: Family members and university professors were alarmed by the antics of Loughner and Cho, but they were stymied by the "dangerous to self or others" legal standard for forced intervention, or by a lack of responsive mental health care in their communities. In order to commit someone to a mental health facility, you have to prove (before a judge, I think) that the person is a danger to himself and others. The conundrum here it that its difficult to prove someone "dangerous" before the fact. You cannot commit someone based upon "signs" that he "might be dangerous." The NYT magazine recently had an article that illustrated how the extension of civil liberties to insane people (for example, suffering from schizophrenia) who deny they have a mental illness makes it nearly impossible to commit them to an institution. The resulting combination is an insane person with easy access to military weapons of mass murder. The author questions why the media and public often knee-jerk reaction into gun control issues while leaving the public mental health issues unexamined. For instance Owner59 started a multi-page issue on gun control. In contrast this thread, looking at the mental health side, may prove something CM readers pass over.

OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/31/2012 7:35:49 AM)
Part of it is our health system. My brother's fiance killed herself. She had been dealing with depression and was addicted to vicodin (which she took for a back injury), when she was laid off. She tried to kill herself with drugs and alcohol. Three times. She was on a 5150 hold three times. She was released because when she was sober, she was deemed as depressed, but not a danger. Kaiser Permanente took 5 weeks to get her an appointment with a psychologist. She killed herself two days before that appointment. The 5150 hold should have labeled her need as urgent. Kaiser did not look outside of it's own ridiculous system to see that.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/31/2012 8:42:07 AM)
It is not easy to get someone help, or to figure out what the best course of treatment should be. I am sorry for your family's loss.

ARIES83 -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/31/2012 2:34:31 PM)
Hey, a lot of people have called me creepy and weird, but i'm one of the most mature sensible people I know... Can't always judge a book by the vibe, sometimes the vibe is just plain wrong! -ARIES

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/31/2012 4:30:09 PM)
It's an interesting piece. The parts you quoted match my opinions fairly well, without elaborating. For perspective of sorts, this has long been one of the most neglected parts of the Norwegian universal health system, which is kind of illustrative of the status of mental health when one of the most progressive countries out there is neglecting it. By comparison, we have had a guy that killed people with a chainsaw doing time in an open facility, working with a chainsaw in the woods most days of the week, as part of the maintenance done to ensure prisoners will be ready to enter rehabilitative training before they're released (at which point there's an aftercare system in place to make sure they don't relapse, and instead stay productive taxpayers). In a society like ours, it's crazy that mental health is still a stigmatized thing and a low priority in the health care system. Yet, that's how it is. So, yeah, mental health is probably an overall weak point for humanity around the world. IWYW, — Aswad.

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (7/31/2012 10:26:08 PM)
I'm confused: His first bulleted* point is about Gun Control and then proceeds to not mention it again. Nor do the articles linked mention it. All it talks about is mental illness. It's like: Roses Are Red, Violets are Blue. Poems are Hard, Bacon. The writing is disjointed and raises no questions nor provides answers. It's like Pete Earley is just stringing enough sentences together to get him his column inches without regard to readability or coherence. *Pun not intended.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/1/2012 7:55:36 PM)
The thesis was that a better, more attuned, mental health system might better prevent mass killings than gun control. The idea is that an intervention is better targeted at the source of trouble (the insane person) than it is at weapons that might be used. The Washington Post had a recent article about mass murderers, and one thesis statement from an expert who has written a book on the subject is that: gun control won't stop an individual bent on committing a mass murder. A determined, deranged, insane individual will find his weapons of mass destruction. “Mass killers are extremely deliberate and determined and, no pun intended, dead set on murders,” said Fox, whose books include “Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder.” Both of these points are valid, which is not to say that smarter gun control lacks all merit in promoting public safety.

OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/2/2012 7:49:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The Washington Post had a recent article about mass murderers, and one thesis statement from an expert who has written a book on the subject is that: gun control won't stop an individual bent on committing a mass murder. A determined, deranged, insane individual will find his weapons of mass destruction. I absolutely agree with this. I've said all along that someone who is determined to do harm will find a way. I sincerely doubt that if guns were outlawed the Aurora shooter would have said, "Guess I can't plan that mass destruction since guns are illegal...." ***** On a separate note, I think part of the issue is that the people around the shooter don't speak up when they see things aren't right. A possible mass murder was thwarted in Irvine. The guy's son had killed himself after being accused of stealing by his High School. The father set a series of small fires and sent emails to his wife fantasizing about buying guns and killing everyone. His wife never said anything. The emails were found when he was arrested for the fires. No doubt she was trying to protect him, but the reality is by turning a blind eye, it could have allowed him to just continue. quote: Reinscheid fantasized about buying a dozen machine guns, killing 200 University High School students, raping a school counselor and killing the assistant principal who disciplined his 14-year-old son, Claas Stubbe.

OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/2/2012 8:56:08 AM)
The news just reported that the University of Colorado psychiatrist that James Holmes was seeing was concerned about his behavior. She referred the issue to the "Threat Assessment" team, she and the team spoke for a week, but the Threat Assessment team dropped the issue because James Holmes had filed to drop out of school. So, basically they decided it wasn't their problem, rather than going to the authorities.

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/2/2012 8:58:32 PM)
I like the way you are staying on this.

DarkSteven -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 2:57:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl The news just reported that the University of Colorado psychiatrist that James Holmes was seeing was concerned about his behavior. She referred the issue to the "Threat Assessment" team, she and the team spoke for a week, but the Threat Assessment team dropped the issue because James Holmes had filed to drop out of school. So, basically they decided it wasn't their problem, rather than going to the authorities. Dumbshits. They set up a team specifically to counter exactly this kind of situation, and then rigidly follow the rules and do nothing. And don't alert other authorities when he drops out. The University's gonna get sued. The lawyers have been looking for deep pockets in this.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 3:53:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl I absolutely agree with this. I've said all along that someone who is determined to do harm will find a way. I sincerely doubt that if guns were outlawed the Aurora shooter would have said, "Guess I can't plan that mass destruction since guns are illegal...." Nope, but he might have been caught trying to buy guns, if it's very easy for them to legally get them you're making it easier for the shooters. What I don't get is, certain guns, why isn't there a red flag if somebody is buying lots of automatic firearms and tons of ammunition? I mean if you want to defend yourself, you don't need thousands and thousands of bullets. In case you are a hunter and you need that many bullets, chances is that you're a shit hunter who will only injure animals. So them buying ammunition and and lots of guns could be a warning sign to have them checked out and potentially stop them from killing a lot of innocent people.

OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 7:31:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl I absolutely agree with this. I've said all along that someone who is determined to do harm will find a way. I sincerely doubt that if guns were outlawed the Aurora shooter would have said, "Guess I can't plan that mass destruction since guns are illegal...." Nope, but he might have been caught trying to buy guns, if it's very easy for them to legally get them you're making it easier for the shooters. What I don't get is, certain guns, why isn't there a red flag if somebody is buying lots of automatic firearms and tons of ammunition? Automatic weapons are banned in Colorado and in most states. quote: I mean if you want to defend yourself, you don't need thousands and thousands of bullets. In case you are a hunter and you need that many bullets, chances is that you're a shit hunter who will only injure animals. So them buying ammunition and and lots of guns could be a warning sign to have them checked out and potentially stop them from killing a lot of innocent people. Incorrect. Just like just about anything else in life, buying bulk is cheaper. In most cases about 50% cheaper. Pretty much anybody that spends a lot of time at the range will be buying by the case. (Keep in mind that when I go to the range to practice, I routinely put about 300 rounds through my gun in an afternoon.) A case of .22LR is 5500 rounds. A case of most handgun ammunition is 500. We have about 7500 rounds in the house as we speak, simply because it was half the cost to buy by the case.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 7:47:50 AM)
I'm quite happy to be in Europe most of the time, I recall being out on the inliners and some guys in a truck with prison tattoos were yelling suggestive stuff at a traffic light (not the polite kind) and I flashed them the finger and yelled something like "Nice teeth, crackers" back, when I came back and told my friend he almost fainted and said "Don't do that, you never know if anybody has a gun!" This is just nothing you have to worry about here

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 8:38:55 AM)
quote: Dumbshits. They set up a team specifically to counter exactly this kind of situation, and then rigidly follow the rules and do nothing. And don't alert other authorities when he drops out. The University's gonna get sued. The lawyers have been looking for deep pockets in this. I think you've hit the nail on the head, assuming that's what happened. I don't envy mental health professionals trying to determine what are real or imaginary threats from a disturbed person. Anyone working at that university probably did not have much to go upon, b/c the shooter was a withdrawn, secretive person by nature. But if there is some kind of risk, one would think there's a professional obligation to follow up somehow. I do know that the mental health system in the US has gone backwards in regards to treating the severely mentally ill. There is a lack of bed space in facilities, its difficult to get people into treatment, and the standards for committal make it difficult to take someone off the street. So, a great number of patients in need of care and medication are not being treated at all.

GotSteel -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 8:42:26 AM)
Personally I'd like there to be a higher standard of mental competence for those our society entrusts to decide who lives and dies by pulling a trigger than: well.....we don't see that they've actually been locked up.

OsideGirl -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 8:45:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Anyone working at that university probably did not have much to go upon, b/c the shooter was a withdrawn, secretive person by nature. Yeah, but it wasn't dropped because they didn't have enough to go on. It was dropped because he was no longer a student at the school. It's like they said, "Not our problem anymore, let someone else deal with him".

Winterapple -> RE: Gun Control - Mental Illness - Aurora (8/3/2012 9:49:14 AM)
FR At one time it was very easy to get people committed and families often stuck inconvenient family members often females into asylums. Asylums were once plentiful. It's swung the other way and it's very hard to get someone committed and there aren't plentiful places to house them if you could. Someone deemed a suicide risk can be kept in the hospital for observation and if a schizophrenic acted out in a disturbing way they might be hospitalized and brought back to a lucid state with medication. But once lucid they would be released and how long they would remain lucid would depend on them take their meds. You can't commit someone because they might be a danger they have to have done something, a threat if nothing else. A family friend has an adult niece with severe mental problems. She's the nieces guardian but is afraid of her as the niece hates her . She's trying to find a group home situation for the niece but the local ones are filled. That the university thought their obligation ceased when he withdrew from school is outrageous and very stupid. They have an obligation to society and they have indeed left themselves wide open for a lawsuit.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875