• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hell freezes over: CNN posts a quality article on gun control

irishScott

irishScott

Lifer
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/robbins-mental-health/index.html

Actually it's more about mental health laws, but I agree completely! :thumbsup:

Editor's note: Mel Robbins is a CNN commentator and legal analyst. Robbins is the founder of Inspire52.com, a positive news website, and author of "Stop Saying You're Fine," about managing change. She speaks on leadership around the world and in 2014 was named outstanding news talk radio host by the Gracie Awards. Follow her on Twitter @melrobbins. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Next time there's a mass shooting, don't jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.

Strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.
Mel Robbins
Mel Robbins

Take the case of the recent mass shooting incident in Isla Vista, California. Police say Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara, shooting and stabbing victims, killing six and wounding 13 before he killed himself.

He had legally purchased three guns, passed a federal background check and met several other requirements in one of the most liberal states with the toughest gun control laws in the country. California was one of eight states that passed major gun reforms in the wake of 2012's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a lone gunman killed 20 children and six adults.

In fact California's gun control laws received an "A-" grade from both The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In this climate, how did Rodger succeed in his lethal plan? It wasn't the gun laws, it was the lack of common sense mental commitment laws.

A 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit aimed at removing the stigma of mental illness and barriers to treatment, analyzed the state of mental commitment laws state by state, looking at both the "quality of involuntary treatment (civil commitment) laws which facilitate emergency hospitalization during a psychiatric emergency and the availability of court orders mandating continued treatment as a condition of living in a community."

On virtually all counts, California received an "F" (it got a "C" on emergency evaluation). In Rodger's case, a friend concerned about alarming videos he'd posted on YouTube had alerted a county mental health staff member, and police had conferred with his mother, but this was not enough to get him committed.
View my Flipboard Magazine.

Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

Indeed, the Treatment Advocacy Center's report describes the exact situation police found themselves in when they conducted that "well-being" check on Rodger:

"But what if the person is neither threatening violence against anyone nor at any apparent imminent risk of injuring himself? What if the concern spurring the family member to seek help is simply that the person is suffering, tormented by terrifying delusions, yet somehow unaware that he is ill? Do we as a society have reason to intervene? To answer 'yes,' we must believe there is a compelling societal imperative beyond preventing imminent injury or death -- an imperative to liberate a person from a hellish existence he would never -- in his 'right mind' -- choose."
Some of the worst mass shootings in U.S. Some of the worst mass shootings in U.S.
Could UCSB shooting have been prevented?
Rep: Don't be in denial of mental illness

The truth is that commitment laws shouldn't be a stopgap to prevent imminent harm, but rather seen as an essential tool to help a loved one needing treatment before things reach the imminent harm stage.

Next, we've got to connect the dots between mental health records and National Instant Background Check. In 2014, Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report calling for states to close this gap. It found that 11 states and the District of Columbia have no reporting laws, and another 12 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the national background check system.

But connecting the dots won't help unless every gun sale is subject to an instant background check imposed on all licensed gun retailers.

And finally, the police need tools as well. They need training and the discretion to ask about and remove guns from any household where there is a domestic dispute, a call for a "well-being check," or a person who exhibits violent or unstable behavior. They also need a mental health professional on call for such checks.

Connecticut, Indiana and, yes, even Texas have firearms seizure statutes aimed at dangerous persons. Laws like these enable the police to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior until a judge can make a final determination on fitness for gun ownership based on evidence presented at a hearing.

I know what you're thinking. "This will only penalize gun owners. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens." You're right. And most gun owners believe in responsible ownership and agree that these mental health measures make sense

You may also be thinking: "But most people suffering from serious mental illness are nonviolent." You're right about that, too. Indeed, mentally ill people only account for a small fraction of the gun deaths in America every year and the vast majority of those are suicide, not homicide. Violence by the mentally ill is usually a symptom of the untreated mental illness -- that's why access to treatment, not gun control, is the answer.

Overhauling mental health laws would give family members and professionals more responsibility and authority in care decisions. And in some cases, medications and therapies should not be optional.

We've got a major problem on our hands. And since guns aren't going anywhere, the discussion about solutions needs to place the focus somewhere else.

Even the NRA agrees that the seriously mentally ill should never own a gun. So let's finally do something about it.
Click to expand...
 
So, to set off real bomb, do you think setting up a Federal Health Care System, that perhaps would start cutting out the fraud that is a daily thing in the real world like charging $200 for a bottle of $3 saline, and would set up a database where you could possible track things like this, is a bad idea?

Yeah it would be nice to have a system like that up where you could have mentally ill people actually watched, instead of just thrown out of a prison cell like a lot are these days to wander around.

OMG, the hate will follow.
 
Last edited:
i am really unhappy that statists now want mental health control. mandatory treatment could be worse than the crap given now, especially with even more State involvement in mental health than we already have.

how about the State just leaves everyone alone?
 
the only thing i'll say about the mental health aspect is that committing someone against their will is a huge deal.

in the case of the guy at Santa Barbara, officers checked up on him, but they found him to be pleasant. so how to do reconcile that with the video(s) he posted online? it's certainly not easy. do we err on the side of caution? what happens when someone posts a video that is meant to be facetious rather than serious?

i think something like 30% of the population takes medication for depression? how do you determine which among those 30% do and don't get to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

certainly we need to improve access to mental health treatment and the stigma associated with it. beyond that, though, it becomes a really, really tough call.
 
Anarchist420 said:
i am really unhappy that statists now want mental health control. mandatory treatment could be worse than the crap given now, especially with even more State involvement in mental health than we already have.

how about the State just leaves everyone alone?
Click to expand...

State HAS to get involved because citizens won't take care of the mental health needs on their own. This has been proven in enough blood.

American's don't' give a shit about that crazy guy who wants to shoot people, so we have to force ourselves to.
 
Fenixgoon said:
the only thing i'll say about the mental health aspect is that committing someone against their will is a huge deal.

in the case of the guy at Santa Barbara, officers checked up on him, but they found him to be pleasant. so how to do reconcile that with the video(s) he posted online? it's certainly not easy. do we err on the side of caution? what happens when someone posts a video that is meant to be facetious rather than serious?

i think something like 30% of the population takes medication for depression? how do you determine which among those 30% do and don't get to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

certainly we need to improve access to mental health treatment and the stigma associated with it. beyond that, though, it becomes a really, really tough call.
Click to expand...

If you HAVE to take medication because you suffer from a pschyological problem that is that severe, you should have your 2nd amendment right evaluated...

The fact that we look at pill popping prozac nation as normal is such a huge problem is unbelievable.
 
Anarchist420 said:
i am really unhappy that statists now want mental health control. mandatory treatment could be worse than the crap given now, especially with even more State involvement in mental health than we already have.

how about the State just leaves everyone alone?
Click to expand...



Some people are a danger to themselves and others. That's when it's the State's job to step in to protect society.
 
feralkid said:
Some people are a danger to themselves and others. That's when it's the State's job to step in to protect society.
Click to expand...
i disagree. it should not take preventive measures. and if someone wants to commit suicide, then the State has no business interfering. i mean, if it werent for the State, i would've gotten physician assisted suicide by now
 
mizzou said:
If you HAVE to take medication because you suffer from a pschyological problem that is that severe, you should have your 2nd amendment right evaluated...

The fact that we look at pill popping prozac nation as normal is such a huge problem is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

i personally think that stems from errant diagnostics. i.e. people feeling like shit because life sucks get anti-depressants, not because they're actually clinically depressed.

but that's a whole different ballgame.
 
Fenixgoon said:
the only thing i'll say about the mental health aspect is that committing someone against their will is a huge deal.

in the case of the guy at Santa Barbara, officers checked up on him, but they found him to be pleasant. so how to do reconcile that with the video(s) he posted online? it's certainly not easy. do we err on the side of caution? what happens when someone posts a video that is meant to be facetious rather than serious?

i think something like 30% of the population takes medication for depression? how do you determine which among those 30% do and don't get to exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

certainly we need to improve access to mental health treatment and the stigma associated with it. beyond that, though, it becomes a really, really tough call.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but there's a difference between forcing someone to undergo a 72 hour examination and forcing someone to undergo treatment.

It's no joke, and there would definitely need to be some sort of appeals system in place; but ultimately I see the slippery slope of mental healthcare as less slippery than the slippery slope of gun control. If someone is wrongfully committed or harassed there's outrage. If someone wrongfully loses their 2nd amendment rights, the NRA's outraged and no one else really cares.

I'm confident that we can develop a rational system to preemptively identify the violently mentally ill; not so much that we can develop a rational system of gun control.
 
I was watching a documentary about the (actually pretty terrible) state of mental institutions in the not-that-distant past in this country and around the world.

Nutshell: getting someone committed used to be way too easy, and people used to use it as a way to sweep "troublesome" people out of their lives.

Kid acting out just a little too much for comfort? No problem. Have them committed.

Wife not as pretty as she used to be, and the girl across the street lookin' finer than ever? No problem, have her committed.

Uncle Joe a little bit embarrassing to the family? No problem, have him committed.

And so on and so forth.


So... I'm wondering if in the process of locking away a hell of a lot of people who were even slightly "not normal" and/or just inconvenient for otherwise 'decent' society to have around, in the past there was less a problem with violent nutbags because sweeping the debris with such a broad brush probably locked up most of them?

Which makes me wonder... is dealing with some of the violence we see the price to pay for swinging the pendulum so far in the opposite direction? In order not to condemn people who may just be a little "odd" (but ultimately harmless) we may just have to live with not being able to lock up people that will eventually become violent mass-murdering psychos?

Where exactly is the line drawn.

I have no idea what the answers are, I'm just wondering what is the right balance between it being too easy to wrongly commit people that don't deserve it vs. it being too hard to commit people that really do need it?

Okay fine, a 72 hour exam- what *really* can that tell anyone? People could still abuse that process (or virtually any other) to wrongly-accuse and commit people that don't deserve it.

Like I say, I have no idea the answers, just that it does seem like a hell of a problem, because it can swing so far either way- too permissive allowing psychos to slip through, or too draconian, allowing undeserving people to be railroaded.
 
If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
Click to expand...

Nope nope nope nope nope. The standard to remove\infringe someone's rights must be very high. I would rather be shot by a crazed gunman than to lower the standards required for involuntary confinement.
 
Exterous said:
Nope nope nope nope nope. The standard to remove\infringe someone's rights must be very high. I would rather be shot by a crazed gunman than to lower the standards required for involuntary confinement.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. It is almost too easy to imagine scenarios for abuse. About the only way I could see anything like this being implemented is if the government isn't involved. Even then the abuse could be bad. This would also mean that your health records would essentially be public information.
 
Well... in the case cited, we can see clear and deep mental illness. A narcissism that failed to let the gunman function. Should someone under that stress be allowed to arm themselves, given their greater propensity for feeling miserable and drawing onto hatred to survive?

Picture this... even if he couldn't get a weapon himself, surely he could find a friend or family member who could be stolen from. You may just be adding an additional step before he walks out the door armed to the teeth.

How effective would that be?
 
Exterous said:
Nope nope nope nope nope. The standard to remove\infringe someone's rights must be very high. I would rather be shot by a crazed gunman than to lower the standards required for involuntary confinement.
Click to expand...

"Evaluation" and "confinement" are two very different things. Technically the police can detain you for 24 hours without charge, why not mental health clinics?

Granted there should be an appeals process and some sort of "boy who cried wolf" clause where the same person can't repeatably call the guys in white coats.
 
Someone at CNN must have finally looked at this:

DO-YOU-REALLLY-THINK-THEY-HAD-A-GUN-PROBLEM.jpg
 
irishScott said:
Agreed, but there's a difference between forcing someone to undergo a 72 hour examination and forcing someone to undergo treatment.
Click to expand...

Maybe the government should treat mental patients like how TB patients are treated.

If you do not take your medicine, you are arrested, sent to a facility and held there until you do take your medicine.
 
Anarchist420 said:
i disagree. it should not take preventive measures. and if someone wants to commit suicide, then the State has no business interfering. i mean, if it werent for the State, i would've gotten physician assisted suicide by now
Click to expand...

If you cant commit suicide without physician assistance you don't want it bad enough. Dwell on that thought.

This crosses a real life line. Please be more careful.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am in complete agreement with this article. However, so many hospitals for the mentally ill have taken huge federal cuts and budget slashes that many have shut down in most states. Bed availability is very difficult to acquire, and I speak from experience with my own loved one who I help care for who is mentally disabled. We need to have more hospitals, and better trained staff to house the mentally ill. Right now as it stands we are shuffling our mentally ill to jails and prisons and they only get worse in those places, not better. George W. Bush cut most federal funding for these hospitals and many states had to shut down their psychiatric hospitals. If something happens and my family and I need to involuntarily commit our family member we sometimes look at a week sometimes more before a bed becomes available. In addition, the laws are written in such a way that he has to show that he is a danger to himself or others, and that means he has to have done something, like try to commit suicide, or attack someone in the family, etc. Honestly I don't want to wait till it gets to that point. If I sense he is deteriorating then I want to get him incarcerated now. We have to try to talk him into going in voluntarily and that is very difficult to do. One other thing I might like to add, I don't want to see our country go back to the days of the horror stories of the old Asylums in this country.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top