|
If a therapist says someone should not have a firearm, I think that is a valid diagnosis.Ok, so do you go to their house and take away the guns they already have?
I think what you're proposing would precipitate more problems than it would solve, first by creating a conflict with gun owners, and secondly with people who might need a little help being afraid to get it because they'd get their guns taken away getting worse until they need more help than there is to give.
Not necessarily, but perhaps. I've executed a court order to remove all firearms from the home based on the recommendations of a therapist in the past. It is ordered regularly in probation cases. But I would suspect if you had a concern that was serious enough you were seizing things from people's homes prior to significant legal involvement, you would likely be seeking that person be committed.
Again, there are the strawmen and there is what I am arguing. If a licensed therapist believes someone should not have access to firearms, in many states they are able to add them to the local state registry to prevent them from purchasing. It exists. But it isn't effective when someone leaves the jurisdiction.
If one was in place, neither Jared Loughner or the Virginia Tech shooter would have been able to purchase guns legally, and if it had been set up intelligently, therapists who had been working with these people would be alerted they were trying to purchase weapons.
In both of those cases, this may have both saved lives in the shooting, but alerted law enforcement that someone with a serious, documented, dangerous mental health condition was attempting to purchase firearms.
What law enforcement and local judges would do with that would vary.
In both of those cases, and in this case, the person squired an significant arsenal in a relatively short amount of time.
Would this stop all problems? No. Would it have prevented this. Can't tell yet, since his mental health history hasn't seemed to emerge. Maybe not.
Would it have prevented Loughner and Cho, both of whom had long documented, severe histories? It is quite possible.
|
|
You're skirting the issue and not answering what I asked. Give examples of such standard diagnoses which would automatically label someone as dangerous.
That isn't how the DSM V works.
Even as you diagnose someone based on criteria, the severity varies widely. It's like saying "Leg Injury" referring to everything between a sprain and an amputation at times.
Loughner and Cho were suffering from schizophrenia, and while I think that probably would be a reasonable exclusionary condition, I don't know if on a case by case basis it would be.
The therapist has the personal experience and training to make that diagnosis just as any other doctor would prescribe treatment.
And as I said, it can be open to a peer reviewed appeal process.
On the one hand you are arguing not to paint mental illness with a broad brush, while at the same time demanding I specify what be excluded on what is a subjective diagnostic scale.
The real question is, if someones therapist is concerned about them purchasing a firearm enough to fill out an submit a form, shouldn't the rest of us be as well?
This is a nice perspective on the tragedy.
That is a nice perspective, TOZ. Sadly, it's so reasonable and level-headed that I doubt it will get much traction with the media. Or rather, the members of the media that find it politically expedient to whip the populace in a paranoid, gun-cuddling frenzy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a nice perspective on the tragedy.
While I agree with part of his message, his wording also strikes me as complacent and accepting of tragedy. That because stuff like this will always happen to some degree, we should just accept it. I agree with the concept of remembering to love one another and not making emotional decisions based on this incident. It isn't the end of the world, or the fall of man. But I believe it is still our responsibility to try and prevent things like this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if this completely counts as a fresh perspective or whatever but...
I live just outside a city of about 150,000 people.
If one person was shot dead deliberately in the county the topic would dominate local politics and news debate for years and quite probably prompt a review of the law. There would be a major inquiry to discover what happened and how to make changes to reduce the likelihood of it happening again.
Whenever there has been a major killing in this country it has prompted legal and political reviews and changes.
Our gun homicide rate is a small fraction of the US rate.
Our murder rate is about 1/4 of the US.
So, is it the guns? Are Americans inherently more violent than us? Is it culture? Social structure? Legal framework? What?
It seems natural to me that such an atrocity should prompt social debate and consideration.
Our gun homicide rate is a small fraction of the US rate.
Our murder rate is about 1/4 of the US.
I believe your population is less than a quarter of ours. So, then, your murder rate--if it's actually a quarter of the US's--would be higher per capita, wouldn't it?
EDIT: It looks to me like your murder rate is closer to 1/25th of the US's, which looks like a quarter, but isn't.
I believe he's British and I also believe he wrote "one quarter" when he meant "one-twenty-fifth."
Or he might not be British.
EDIT: Oh, I get it now. Nevermind my posts!
First of all, my condolences to the families of the victims, and best wishes to all survivors.
It will be interesting to see (if it can be found out) what prompted the guy to turn into a mass murderer. If that might be known at any time, then an analysis of possible countermeasures against similar future crimes is called for. Until then, everything is conjecture.
EDIT: Removed stuff that could be construed as flame-bait.
Stefan
Question: The tragedy raises serious concerns about the intersection of gun control and mental health. Is discussing how they interact without trying to score political points acceptable or should it go somewhere else?
You're skirting the issue and not answering what I asked. Give examples of such standard diagnoses which would automatically label someone as dangerous.That isn't how the DSM V works.
Even as you diagnose someone based on criteria, the severity varies widely. It's like saying "Leg Injury" referring to everything between a sprain and an amputation at times.
Loughner and Cho were suffering from schizophrenia, and while I think that probably would be a reasonable exclusionary condition, I don't know if on a case by case basis it would be.
The therapist has the personal experience and training to make that diagnosis just as any other doctor would prescribe treatment.
And as I said, it can be open to a peer reviewed appeal process.
On the one hand you are arguing not to paint mental illness with a broad brush, while at the same time demanding I specify what be excluded on what is a subjective diagnostic scale.
The real question is, if someones therapist is concerned about them purchasing a firearm enough to fill out an submit a form, shouldn't the rest of us be as well?
I KNOW that's not how it works, which is why I've been asking you about it, given this statement you made:
Mental illness and instability are connected.
That is why it is called mental illness.
Not all diagnosis mean someone is dangerous, but some do.
To me, that sounds as if you're saying that certain diagnoses automatically qualifies you as being "dangerous."
Also, please make sure you specify something as schizophrenia. There's no such thing as "just schizophrenia" - what you're most likely referring to would be paranoid schizophrenia. That isn't the only type of schizophrenia-classed diagnosis.Yes, it's a sticking point for me, since I'm diagnosed with simple schizophrenia, which has none of the symptoms paranoid schizophrenia is usually known by (and incredibly stigmatized by), namely the positive symptoms.
I would also like to clarify that my questioning regarding this aspect isn't about the qualifications of a psychiatrist to deem whether someone is fit to purchase weapons and the system of how to regulate that (which you and others have discussed).
|
|
To me, that sounds as if you're saying that certain diagnoses automatically qualifies you as being "dangerous."
If you are diagnosed as "potentially dangerous" then yes they would qualify you as being "potentially dangerous".
My exact quote is "Not all diagnosis mean someone is dangerous, but some do."
I read about one new psychological a week for my job, so I very much understand the various diagnostic nuances, which is exactly why I am saying it should be therapist (or evaluators) discretion. Don't even get me started on the vague nature and wide variance of "Conduct Disorder"...
At the same time, therapists know their clients better than anyone, and if they think someone should not be able to buy a gun, and are willing to fill out a form to that effect, I think that person should not be able to buy a gun.
I specifically said schizophrenia would not have to be a condition that required it, despite it being a condition that Loughner, Cho, and other spree killers because I would prefer for the therapist to have the discretion rather than having a list of forbidden conditions, as I share the broad brush concerns you raised. The diagnostic tools have not kept pace with the variance within mental health conditions.
But if someone is deemed by a therapist or evaluator to be unsafe with firearms, why would you not put them on a do not sell registry pending further evaluation?
If your therapist thinks you shouldn't have a gun, I would say 99% of the time they are probably right and the other 1% you can go for a further review from another therapist to get removed from the list.
|
|
Question: The tragedy raises serious concerns about the intersection of gun control and mental health. Is discussing how they interact without trying to score political points acceptable or should it go somewhere else?
Unless something appeared while I was gone, I actually thought the conversation was pretty civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The parent of the shooter says that the press misrepresented her statement, "You have the right person." She says that she was awoken by a reporter who asked if she was the mother of James Holmes from Aurora. And she said, "You have the right person" in reference to herself. They then mentioned the shooting asked for a comment and the mother says that she told them she couldn't respond because she didn't know what happened and needed to contact the police to see if it was really her son that was involved.
Just found this...
Following is a preliminary, raw transcript of the first 30 minutes of the call log from Aurora Police Department dispatch tapes after the fatal shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
** spoiler omitted **...
You did nothing wrong posting the media links. My ire is directed at what passes for reporting. I hope it didn't seem to be directed at you.
They have specific definitions in training and specific legal definition. The ATFE's legal definitions are often vague and convoluted, but if you ask any novice fire arms instructor what semi auto and full auto mean they should be able to tell you.Right, but do you see how you're trying to say that they should go to a firearms instructor as the legitimate source of information rather than something thats written down in a book? It might be a good idea, but its not the only idea. Its also very problematic in terms of journalism because its hard to verify something that the individual (aka, just some guy) you call up is saying or how widely known his credentials are. Citing book or a legal definition is a better form of cover thine rear , which takes far more precedence than getting things technically right.
They could use the truth to describe an AR15. It's normally a semiautomatic rifle chambered for 5.56MM with a detachable magazine.That describes it, but it doesn't say what it IS.
Most of that description is useless to the general public (or at least the very dim view the media and entertainment industry means to the public). I thought semi-automatic meant something other than what it apparently does, and i have no idea what a 5.56mm is or where it falls on the scale of BB's to hand cannons.
It also doesn't evoke any emotion, and more than a political slant the media is trying to sell a STORY.
I disagree with the exception of the last sentence, but I'd rather not argue this at length here.
@Bignorsewolf - The saying "You could indict a ham sandwich" is damn close to true in my experience. Particularly a black or latino ham sandwich. Don't fool yourself about the "high burden of proof".
As someone who gets writs signed regularly, it ain't a hard thing to do.
The police can take you to a hospital if you are acting in a manner they believe makes you a risk to yourself and those around you. I've never met a judge who wouldn't sign the extension request if anyone with at least an LCSW indicated it was needed (which is the standard minimum for a person doing evaluations in most hospitals in my experience).
While I feel confident red flags were out there due to the lack of surprise from the family, we need only look to Virginia Tech (and others that didn't get the press...) to realize some people who have serious mental health conditions need not to be allowed to legally purchase or possess fire arms.
My experience (2nd hand) with the mental health industry and courts leads me to conclude that it's far too easy to violate the rights of individuals in the interests of "public safety" already.
I also feel compelled to note that the VT shooter was a prohibited purchaser by law. Laws and bureaucracies were in place that made it unlawful for the VT shooter to purchase any firearm. The bureaucracies failed to communicate and the system failed as a result.
The parent of the shooter says that the press misrepresented her statement, "You have the right person." She says that she was awoken by a reporter who asked if she was the mother of James Holmes from Aurora. And she said, "You have the right person" in reference to herself. They then mentioned the shooting asked for a comment and the mother says that she told them she couldn't respond because she didn't know what happened and needed to contact the police to see if it was really her son that was involved.
I had a feeling that was the case (the mother being misrepresented) in the exact manner you described.
Of course, if you killed a dozen people with your car, even accidentally and through no fault of your own, they'd probably take away your license.
In order to own a car you have to get a license, which requires testing for renewal in some states, pay insurance and have your car inspected every year or two. Does it strike anyone else as odd that a form of transportation is more regulated than a fire arm in this day and age?
That's incorrect.
I can own as many cars as I want without ever meeting any of those requirements.
Someone can't legally operate a car on a government owned roadway without meeting those requirement. The courts have basically held that the government can deny anybody the privilege of driving on a government road because driving is a privilege not a right.
Of course I don't agree.
I think self defense is a fundamental human right. I don't think it's a privilege for the lucky or wealthy few.
A gunstore could simply arrange for you to sign a consent to suitability check that (along with satisfactory primary identification) could be submitted from them to a Police database and then they would be simply returned a yes/no answer.
This in no way infringes your privacy. Not one iota.
Yes it does. It's a background check. It by definition infringes on privacy. Hell, existing background checks to keep criminals from buying guns infringe on privacy. It's just for a good reason, and it only disenfranchises criminals. I don't oppose criminal background checks for gun purchases.
I'm not taking a hardline position here that infringing on privacy is always bad. I'm just saying that this is a step too far, to add damaging information that isn't the person's fault to a publicly-available system, especially when the potential for harm if that system is used for anything else is great. Plus, I just don't believe that such a system wouldn't be leaked (do not fly lists) or used for other purposes (credit checks).
This is on top of the fact that I feel the resources that such a system would take are better spent treating mental health, and that I don't trust the police with a register of mentally ill people in the first place given their history of dealing with stigmatized people in every other context, and that I don't think spree killings are common enough to require a system that exists only to prevent spree killings by mentally ill people.
Your 'potential employer' has no way of getting any information UNLESS they are sending you to go buy a gun, in which case all they MIGHT know is you didn't get one. Protip, if you KNOW you are a problem, don't apply for gun-centric occupations. And if you did, your privacy went out the window because they will do a psych evaluation anyhow.Your potential employer has no business finding out your eligibility for a loan, either.
I find myself agreeing almost entirely with MIB. Wow.
I think self defense is a tool, and like all tools, often misused.
Do you agree that self defense is a fundamental human right?