How to Stop the James Holmes of the world?

[micrometers]

Every time there is a mass shooting in the USA, the gun nuts will say something like "fix mental health" or "enforce existing laws."

Fine.

Would you support a law that allows the police to confiscate the weapons of someone that is referred by a health professional as a risk due to his mental health state?

Because that is what "fix mental health" would amount to.

And the thing about police actions to prevent crime is that you don't always know that the guy might go kill innocent people. So like, if the police raided James Holmes's apartment a week before the shooting and found his little arsenal, the NRA would be up in arms about a police state and tyranny taking away people's guns. The same would apply to just about all of the mass shooters.

 

[JKing106]

Nah, we don't need no sissy screening. Just mandate every citizen carry an AR-15, a Glock .40, and a .380 for backup. Ammo checks twice per day.

'Murica, fuck yeah!

 

[micrometers]

Nah, we don't need no sissy screening. Just mandate every citizen carry an AR-15, a Glock .40, and a .380 for backup. Ammo checks twice per day.

'Murica, fuck yeah!

Gun nut thinks befuddled look is a sign of weakness when really it's just the other guy wondering: why?

 

[Gerle]

Similar laws exist, search for California 5150, I believe there is some federal statute as well.

 

[JKing106]

Gun nut thinks befuddled look is a sign of weakness when really it's just the other guy wondering: why?

No, the befuddled look is mine when trying to decipher the sentence you just posted. Wut? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[micrometers]

No, the befuddled look is mine when trying to decipher the sentence you just posted. Wut? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I was being sarcastic.

I know. I'm not talking about u.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

As difficult as it maybe to grasp for the OP, a madman does not need firearms to kill large amounts of people. All they need is the determination to see their mad "vision" through to the end. John Holmes was a very intelligent guy who would of had no problems going with a plan B, whatever that maybe of been for him. Additionally he obviously understood enough about chemistry (He concocted his home brew of tear gas afterall which he deployed in the theater.) and improvised explosives creation to build his own IED's and booby trap his entire apartment so it makes me believe that his plan B could of been a use of explosives.

If you really want do more to attempt to catch these guys then maybe you should considering the facts of the Colorado shooting first and foremost. The school he was attending was well aware of his condition after his psychiatrist issued a warning to school officials. The ball was then subsequently dropped by the school who failed and possibly law enforcement officials in not checking up on this guy ASAP.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012..._assessment_team_before_aurora_shooting_.html

O

 

[JKing106]

I know. I'm not talking about u.

My apologies, then.

 

[JKing106]

As difficult as it maybe to grasp for the OP, a madman does not need firearms to kill large amounts of people. All they need is the determination to see their mad "vision" through to the end. John Holmes was a very intelligent guy who would of had no problems going with a plan B, whatever that maybe of been for him. Additionally he obviously understood enough about chemistry (He concocted his home brew of tear gas afterall which he deployed in the theater.) and improvised explosives creation to build his own IED's and booby trap his entire apartment so it makes me believe that his plan B could of been a use of explosives.

If you really want do more to attempt to catch these guys then maybe you should considering the facts of the Colorado shooting first and foremost. The school he was attending was well aware of his condition after his psychiatrist issued a warning to school officials. The ball was then subsequently dropped by the school who failed and possibly law enforcement officials in not checking up on this guy ASAP.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012..._assessment_team_before_aurora_shooting_.html

O

Which is irrelevant to the fact that he amassed a small arsenal, legally, with absolutely no background checks or screenings.

 

[PrinceofWands]

If you can accurately diagnose a DEFINITE imminent threat from SPECIFIC and agreed upon mental illness I'd have no problem with that being a temporary suspension of rights. However, there can be no confiscation until it's a completely KNOWN diagnosis, not merely a fear of such a situation. Until there is absolute PROOF of incapacitation rights must remain inviolate.

You must also implement a system for rights restoration that is simple, accessible, and not an economic or emotional burden. You must also ensure the safe return of all confiscated goods, in original condition.

When we say 'fix mental health care' what we mean is begin a program to alter cultural perceptions of mental health, and guarantee absolute access to mental health care for all citizens permanently. That means every American gets access to monthly or weekly counseling, we end social stigmas regarding mental illness, we fund mental health research (NOT pharmaceutical research but theory and treatment), we implement legal safety nets to protect those needing and receiving treatment from prejudiced treatment, etc.

It also requires addressing the causes of acute mental illness...that means changing our food and diets, alleviating stress, providing economic stability, etc. It is these factors which 'drive people crazy' in the sense of many of these incidents. It's not so much mental illness in the classical sense (long term psychosis, sociopathy, chronic dissociative disorder, etc), but temporary 'insanity' brought on by social and systemic failures. In other words, they're not mentally ill, they're angry, sad, and hopeless.

It's been known for about 60 years that the reason other nations have lower crime and violence rates are the cultural, social, and systemic factors that impact these areas, as well as things like national homogeneity, political efficacy, family unit cohesion, lower wealth concentration, and so on. There is no causal relation between crimes or suicides and firearms, as proved in numerous studies. In other words, if you're worried about events like we've been seeing then the first thing you HAVE to do is stop talking about guns completely.

 

[Drako]

The answer is obvious to the most casual observer.

1) Screen everybody for sanity.
2) Kill all those deemed insane.

Happy now OP?

 

[schneiderguy]

Which is irrelevant to the fact that he amassed a small arsenal, legally, with absolutely no background checks or screenings.

Three guns is not a "small arsenal"

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Which is irrelevant to the fact that he amassed a small arsenal, legally, with absolutely no background checks or screenings.

Your point falls flat when you realize this guy had been planning this killing spree for months. All the way down to the last minute details of his actions leading up this his killing spree.. All of it was planned will in advance. Oh and he was also amassing large amounts of home made explosives which he used to completely bobby trap his apartment in addition to concocting his own special brew of tear gas. This was madman on mission to kill people and short of catching him on the spot (which might of occurred had his school not dropped the ball on the issue once it was reported to them by his psychiatrist.) nothing would of stopped him period even with him being denied access to firearms.

 

[Carmen813]

Every time there is a mass shooting in the USA, the gun nuts will say something like "fix mental health" or "enforce existing laws."

Fine.

Would you support a law that allows the police to confiscate the weapons of someone that is referred by a health professional as a risk due to his mental health state?

Because that is what "fix mental health" would amount to.

And the thing about police actions to prevent crime is that you don't always know that the guy might go kill innocent people. So like, if the police raided James Holmes's apartment a week before the shooting and found his little arsenal, the NRA would be up in arms about a police state and tyranny taking away people's guns. The same would apply to just about all of the mass shooters.

This is already allowed and required by law. If I, as a mental health professional, determine that a person is at serious risk for killing themselves or someone else we are required to report it to the police. It varies from state to state, in Florida this is known as the Baker Act. The laws are referred to as "duty to warn."

There was also a federal case you can read about that details where these laws arose from: Tarasoff vs. Regents of UC .

For rescue scenarios the rules for initiating them are very strict: there must be clear suicidal/homicidal intent, a firm plan in place, access to means to implement the plan, and an unwillingness to safety plan with us. If the person is willing to work with us to keep themselves and others safe we do not take these steps. Rescue is an absolute last resort and it's important to be able to justify why the actions have been taken. There have been countless people I have worked with who have had access to guns and were thinking about shooting themselves or others where we did not need to send rescue (i.e., police).

Obviously a lot of power is in my hands when a person calls us. We undergo a lot of training before being given that power, and there are a lot of legal and ethical codes in place that mental health professionals must follow when using it. Abusing it would completely implode a persons career in mental health, they would never work in the field again.

Princeofwands, I appreciate the position you are coming from but it's important to know that mental health diagnosis is at best a flawed process. The DSM-IV (used to diagnose mental illness) is rift with flaws since most of the research is biased. It's a very substantial debate in the field of mental health if diagnosis is even appropriate given how it feeds into societal stereotypes. That debate aside, there are issues with diagnosis related to culture, gender, and how symptoms are defined. Relying on a diagnosis in order to intervene in life threatening situations would be a tremendous mistake. I agree that systemic influences are a factor for many mental illnesses.

 

[Carmen813]

Your point falls flat when you realize this guy had been planning this killing spree for months. All the way down to the last minute details of his actions leading up this his killing spree.. All of it was planned will in advance. Oh and he was also amassing large amounts of home made explosives which he used to completely bobby trap his apartment in addition to concocting his own special brew of tear gas. This was madman on mission to kill people and short of catching him on the spot (which might of occurred had his school not dropped the ball on the issue once it was reported to them by his psychiatrist.) nothing would of stopped him period even with him being denied access to firearms.

I agree. Most reports I've read suggest he has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. It's worth noting that episodes of violence for people living with schizophrenia are incredibly rare. My concern with this case is that he is clearly a very intelligent individual who is familiar with neuroscience and mental illness. That doesn't mean a person with schizophrenia could not successfully do what he did, but the elaborateness of the plan feels off to me. More or less I am taking his diagnosis with a hefty serving of salt. I'd be carefully perusing the personality disorders.

 

[xj0hnx]

Karmy, you want to stop the James Holmes of the world? Get rid of humans. The problem isn't guns, it's people, there are bad ones, and they do evil shit, get over it cupcake.

 

[OCGuy]

Another gun-grabbing thread? Meh...

If you wan't the government to be able to legislate away all the boggie-men in the world, find a nanny state (Australia?).

Or you can go through life knowing that it is a bunch of land-mines that we dodge every single day, between disease, car accidents, natural disasters, financial ruin, etc.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Princeofwands, I appreciate the position you are coming from but it's important to know that mental health diagnosis is at best a flawed process. The DSM-IV (used to diagnose mental illness) is rift with flaws since most of the research is biased. It's a very substantial debate in the field of mental health if diagnosis is even appropriate given how it feeds into societal stereotypes. That debate aside, there are issues with diagnosis related to culture, gender, and how symptoms are defined. Relying on a diagnosis in order to intervene in life threatening situations would be a tremendous mistake. I agree that systemic influences are a factor for many mental illnesses.

I agree. One needs look no further than the earlier classification of homosexuality as an illness to know that it's not an entirely valid system. However, it's as close a compromise as I can make to the OPs suggestion. That's why I caveated it heavily with talking about 'agreed upon' diagnoses and such.

 

[boomerang]

Similar laws exist, search for California 5150, I believe there is some federal statute as well.

We have laws for this in Michigan too. I had a co-worker who had his taken from him. It was a good call as this guy was quite obviously mentally ill. The confiscation swirled around divorce proceedings filed against him by his wife. There were kids involved too. This was many years ago.

 

[Doppel]

I don't think there is a way without changing society massively, more surveillance, more predictive logic from computers (aka pre-crime). Truly. This kind of thing is the price we pay to live among others. Most people, strangers are "normal" in their own way. They won't do this, but the bad apples can only be divined by running all of us through a better strainer. So, is that worth it?

It's beyond deniability that tech is going to result in more of our lives in a computer somewhere, with a picture of who we are. As this kinds of things grow law enforcement will have more tools to pick out criminals as they act, or sooner after they act, or perhaps before they act at all. It doesn't seem preposterous to me to think that eventually all of our public movement, statements, etc. will paint a picture of our lives and habits and when we deviate we'll receive more attention. John Holmes from 6 months ago wasn't the same one as from a year ago or 2 months ago. This delta from regular behavior could ultimately be tracked and analyzed. If it seems more alarming, throwing up more red flags, it would receive yet more attention.

We will all be indexed and analyzed. This is what technology will do and it will be patently unavoidable.

 

[boomerang]

Every time there is a mass shooting in the USA, the gun nuts will say something like "fix mental health" or "enforce existing laws."

Fine.

Would you support a law that allows the police to confiscate the weapons of someone that is referred by a health professional as a risk due to his mental health state?

Because that is what "fix mental health" would amount to.

And the thing about police actions to prevent crime is that you don't always know that the guy might go kill innocent people. So like, if the police raided James Holmes's apartment a week before the shooting and found his little arsenal, the NRA would be up in arms about a police state and tyranny taking away people's guns. The same would apply to just about all of the mass shooters.

Your first point about confiscation due to mental health issues is moot because our system of laws already allows that.

As to your second point about raiding a home. You're creating an issue where none exists IMO. What do you have to back up the assertion that the NRA would be up in arms? A feeling? Under the scenario you lay out, why would his apartment be raided? For shits and giggles? If a legal process was followed to raid his apartment, weapons were found and there was a legal basis to confiscate those weapons, if the NRA got their panties in a big knot - so what? Ignore them.

The progressive vision of creating a perfect world where everyone is equal, everyone lives in harmony with each other as well as the earth, etc. is not inherently bad. What is bad about it is that they want it NOW! They want it now and they don't much care what rights they trample on or what lengths have to be gone to in order to achieve it. The flaw in the thinking is that although we create very modern and sometimes futuristic devices, put men on the moon and land devices on distant planets, we still possess a tribal mentality. We are thousands if not tens of thousands of years away from being where the progressive mind of today wishes us to be. Patience is not coveted in the world of the progressive.

You're projecting your fears on the rest of us. I read an article recently that I'll never find again unfortunately that talked of those that wanted control of weapons the most fervently were actually afraid that the capacity for murder existed deep inside of them and they were afraid it would at some point be unleashed. They saw the actions of mass murderers and felt that the capacity existed in everyone and even in themselves. A weaponless society appeared to be the only solution. Very interesting article and I know I haven't described it well. A couple of posters in this thread already have debunked this line of thinking and more succinctly than I have.

 

[JKing106]

Three guns is not a "small arsenal"

4 guns, actually, and yes, it is a small arsenal. Especially when one of them is the civilian version of our military's primary infantry weapon with a 100 round drum magazine. What did he need that for? The zombie apocalypse?

 

[Exterous]

If you wan't the government to be able to legislate away all the boggie-men in the world, find a nanny state (Australia?).

Or you can go through life knowing that it is a bunch of land-mines that we dodge every single day, between disease, car accidents, natural disasters, financial ruin, etc.

Agreed. I am glad I am not the only one that thinks the risk of death is the price we pay for living

This goes back to my point in the Buckeyball magnet thread. How much time and effort should be expended legislating restrictions on freedoms (ie what we buy and what we are allowed to have) because an odd occurance affected 0.0001% of the population?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Dude, nobody cares. They tried to take the guns right after Holmes but they found out America is never going to be cool with that so they backed off. What could prevent this from happening again? A transparent government that is more interested in making this a great country instead of a nanny-state of inequality.

 

[PokerGuy]

Unless you're willing to do away with any and all personal freedom as well as create a personal monitoring system like nothing the world has ever seen, you will never be able to really prevent / stop some insane crazy guy from killing other people.

OP, stop being such a wuss and realize that the nanny state government isn't going make the world perfectly safe.