What should we do about the Mental Health thing regarding Gun Laws?

[Agent11]

Where have I ever hinted any such thing?

There is legislation being proposed that would restrict the rights of normal mentally stable people.

But no legislation to open new state mental hospitals. No legislation that would help people get counseling, diagnoses and treatment.

Your peoples priorities are all jacked up.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What are the chances that anything will be done to stop anyone taking a SSRI from buying a gun?

Or consumes alcohol. I doubt Johnny Walker will be jumping on that either.

 

[Genx87]

I think this is the 60,000 dollar question. What role does the mental health community play in trying to prevent these tragedies? And how far are we goign to allow the state to pry into our medical history in an attempt to head off this kind of stuff? And what safeguards would citizens have against the state deeming them not capable of posessing a weapon?

 

[airdata]

9/10 MK Ultra test subjects test in the autistic spectrum.

 

[werepossum]

So on one hand, you want more attention to be paid to the issue of mental health, whatever that entails. On the other hand, you do not trust the drugs or the professionals that treat patients with mental illness. So I guess what you want is to just institutionalize all of these people. Oh wait, I'm guessing you wouldn't want the government to pay for the healthcare and research that would help these people in the first place.

It's amazing how people who couldn't give a shit about mental health a couple months ago now chant it as their slogan without any thought to what actually tackling this issue entails.

Man, you're a bad guesser. It's not a matter of trusting the drugs or the professionals, it's a matter of admitting that these drugs, while they might be the best available treatment at the moment, can have severe side affects that substantially increase the rates of violence to others and to self. Look at the side effects listed and you'll see some very scary things. I don't think it's unreasonable that if one is on medication with known side affects of potential violence, or if one is being treated for something that includes violent episodes, one should not automatically be allowed to purchase a gun.

Holy crap dude. Do you know what the incidence of depression is? Now people who are perfectly responsible but aren't miserable because they have options will be discriminated against because of that? Yeah, we need more stigma for millions who never caused trouble and drive them away from seeking treatment. You know racial situations are incredibly complicated and blacks are more likely to shoot you. Lets keep guns out of their hands too.

Egads.

Is depression likely to get one's doctor to enter one's name in a government database as a potential risk? There's no reason to have every possible mental condition or treatment trigger a loss of rights, but surely medical professionals can make an educated guess if a patient needs to be restricted either because of the syndrome or because of the drugs used to treat. It's like epilepsy; I don't think it's unreasonable that someone who is epileptic needs a doctor's release to get a driver's license.

Will such a system be abused? Of course - it relies on humans. The popular alternative at the moment is to disarm every law-abiding citizen.

 

[werepossum]

I think this is the 60,000 dollar question. What role does the mental health community play in trying to prevent these tragedies? And how far are we goign to allow the state to pry into our medical history in an attempt to head off this kind of stuff? And what safeguards would citizens have against the state deeming them not capable of posessing a weapon?

Those are excellent questions. I'll add one: How far will we go to indemnify medical professionals if they do not place a patient on a prohibited list and that patient kills? Unless we formally accept that except for gross negligence no liability for a misjudgment accrues, all patients will be reported as a matter of course.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Crazy people are already not allowed firearms. The trick is getting them on file and accurately diagnosed
.

That's not the biggest problem as most people who exhibit symptoms of mental illness are usually reported (especially by family members). The larger and real issue is that once they are diagnosed no real action occurs by mental health services agencies or institutions even when the parents of said crazy person are admittedly afraid of what their off-spring will do next. So their attempts to warn officials to get them to do something/anything about these people is often rendered useless until it is to late.

 

[Ausm]

I suggest we take the arms away from 3/4 of the Rightists in here who would fall into this category.

 

[TheVrolok]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-asks-doctors-help-deal-guns_696121.html

Obama Asks Doctors to Help Deal With Guns

Hopefully laws prohibiting the asking of questions by physicians regarding firearms to be overturned (I'm looking at you fucking Florida).

 

[TheVrolok]

you can dance around it all you want but in the end if they are taking prescribed psychiatric drugs they are under the influence and subject to side effects and primary effects of the psychopharmaceutical psychotropic drugs and all that that entails.

I agree with you that SSRI's can be horrible. FWIW SSRI's are not FDA approved for autism, though MD's often prescribed fthem anyway.

What are the chances that anything will be done to stop anyone taking a SSRI from buying a gun? Can't see the pharmaceutical industry jumping on this.

Should anything be done? What about people taking steroids for example, ban guns from them as well? Or seizure/cancer patients on anticonvulsants? etc. etc.

Banning gun ownership for people with mental illness carte blanche is a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[Agent11]

Pretty sure paranoid schizophrenics shouldn't have firearms, other afflictions that seriously alter your perception of reality should disqualify you as well.

Other than that it should be on a per case basis requiring sworn testimony recounting threats of violence, history of violence, and psychiatric evaluation that deems the individual a threat to others.

There should also be a mechanism for regaining your rights, it should involve some serious review and face time with a professional though.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Does anyone here have any suggestions that will actually help the situation?

Not allowing people of unsound mind to touch guns. I don't mean just own, I mean fucking touch.

You go to a gun range and are already deemed unsound in mind, you get a misdemeanor.

And unsound to me means: depression, prone to seizures (in WA, you cannot drive for a YEAR after your last seizure. I'd say apply that to guns, too) on hormone therapy, having documented attempts of suicide, known to have threatened someone, known to have a drinking or other drug problem, on anti-depressants. When buying a gun, you are asked if any of the above problems have affected you. If you answer yes, it's an automatic denial, and a record is made you were denied a gun sale and WHY so you can't just go to another store and buy.

And if you are a gun owner and have someone in the home who fits the above criteria, the guns must ALL be locked up, or in your direct possession.

The above would have stopped CT. Except that stupid mother took her little boy to the range and taught him to use the guns and did not correctly secure them. Who do I blame for CT? The kid...he was messed in the head. But more than the kid, I blame the stupid mother.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not YOUR rights, but we should at least think about whether or not a dangerouos person has the rights to a gun.

Isn't it true felons aren't allowed to buy weapons legally?

Correct, felons can not buy firearms. IMO simply saying someone has a mental illness so they shouldn't be allowed a firearm is wrong. There should be an evaluation involved on a case by case basis. For instance, if a soldier comes back from serving, and has mild PTSD, but later has dealt with it, and is fine, there no reason they should be denied a firearm. Or if someone goes through a bout of depression. Hell, if you look for it, you could find a neurosis, or "mental" issue with just about anyone. And then there's studies, like the ones moonbeam always likes to site, that claim political leanings are indications of mental defect, there's those for left, and right. There needs to be very clear, and concise guidelines, lest it ends up a tool for blanket denial of certain people.

Also, privacy issues are going to need some serious addressing.

 

[xj0hnx]

I suggest we take the arms away from 3/4 of the Rightists in here who would fall into this category.

Right on cue. This is the kind of idiocy that the mental health issue could devolve into.

Banning gun ownership for people with mental illness carte blanche is a terrible, terrible idea.

Yes, it is.

Pretty sure paranoid schizophrenics shouldn't have firearms, other afflictions that seriously alter your perception of reality should disqualify you as well.

Other than that it should be on a per case basis requiring sworn testimony recounting threats of violence, history of violence, and psychiatric evaluation that deems the individual a threat to others.

There should also be a mechanism for regaining your rights, it should involve some serious review and face time with a professional though.

This.

 

[RampantAndroid]

This.

No, not this. You blanket hit people who are on drugs that will alter their moods, and make it a crime for them to even handle guns, and a crime to provide them with guns (and you'd have to work out how private sales work, here...)

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Where have I ever hinted any such thing?

There is legislation being proposed that would restrict the rights of normal mentally stable people.

But no legislation to open new state mental hospitals. No legislation that would help people get counseling, diagnoses and treatment.

Your peoples priorities are all jacked up.

I agree with your sentiments but......

There is no need to open state run mental hospitals. In fact they were closed for a very good reason in the past and that had to do with these institutions eventually turning into horrible places for the mentally ill. One the major reasons why they were such terrible places was that eventually over time these institutions had no real incentive to keep up the quality of care for those who were permanently committed in these institutions. Moreover families who relied on these hospitals had no means or ability to shop around for the best care options so as to force these public institutions to compete with each other over their tax dollars.

Thus if we must provide US tax dollars to help the mentally ill in our society than it would be best to give away vouchers to the family members of the mentally ill to be strictly used to find a privately run hospital which these family members can then judge/shop around on their own as to which one would best provide the needed services and care for their loved ones who are mentally ill.

Doing so would ensure these institutions are forced compete for their vouchers and strive to provide quality care. In addition this would help to prevent many of these institutions from degrading the quality of care over time like their previous public institution counterparts as they have a profit motive to ensure quality care for their patients. Again this is especially true if families have the ability to take their vouchers and their loved ones elsewhere to find better treatment if they feel that their family member is not being treated well.

 

[micrometers]

Not allowing people of unsound mind to touch guns. I don't mean just own, I mean fucking touch.

You go to a gun range and are already deemed unsound in mind, you get a misdemeanor.

And unsound to me means: depression, prone to seizures (in WA, you cannot drive for a YEAR after your last seizure. I'd say apply that to guns, too) on hormone therapy, having documented attempts of suicide, known to have threatened someone, known to have a drinking or other drug problem, on anti-depressants. When buying a gun, you are asked if any of the above problems have affected you. If you answer yes, it's an automatic denial, and a record is made you were denied a gun sale and WHY so you can't just go to another store and buy.

And if you are a gun owner and have someone in the home who fits the above criteria, the guns must ALL be locked up, or in your direct possession.

The above would have stopped CT. Except that stupid mother took her little boy to the range and taught him to use the guns and did not correctly secure them. Who do I blame for CT? The kid...he was messed in the head. But more than the kid, I blame the stupid mother.

I agree.

Beyond that, the stupid mother would have been a poster child for the NRA just before teh shooting. I mean, she's wealthy, she's white, and she has multiple high power firearms.

Imagine how the world would have been a better place if instead of taking her son shooting, she'd taken him to volunteer at an animal shelter.

 

[Ausm]

Right on cue. This is the kind of idiocy that the mental health issue could devolve into.



Yes, it is.



This.

Your're one of them.

 

[randomrogue]

Where I live (not the USA) if you have a mental disorder of some kind (Severe Depression, Suicidal thoughts, Bipolar, Rage, something that's keeping you from functioning normally, etc) you are monitored and visited at your home twice (or more) a week. The distinction though is that we have free health care so treatment is available to everyone. If you have Autism or Asberger's you get help as well but it's not monitored in the same way. The goal of all these programs is to make people function at their maximum capacity. Job training, internships, education, counseling, treatment, medication monitoring, etc. When someone is deemed unable to be a productive member of society they are put on early retirement and treated for the rest of their lives. You can be a teenager and retired if you're fucked up enough. You might work to keep busy but never as a fully functioning adult. Maybe just a soup kitchen a couple hours a week or folding laundry at a retirement community. With any luck treatment will get you functioning.

There's very little chance of someone with a mental disorder being able to stockpile a bunch of weapons and build up a plan for mass murder. They have someone in their home twice a week and they don't just sit on the couch and talk. They cook together, talk, read, do dishes and laundry together. They work on whatever problems the person is struggling with. Boomerang's sister would be monitored regularly. Inherited weapons would never stay in her possession.

In the USA people are often just left at home and their family takes care of them. If you want something done you need the courts involved as far as I know. You can't just say that someone's crazy and have the state come and help them. The state isn't interested until the courts have been involved. So if you want to force someone to get help because you think they're a danger to themselves or others you have to call the police, have them arrested/taken to a hospital, get a *limited number of* hours hold on them, and then go to court. Imagine doing that to someone in your family.

Nothing is fool proof though. That lunatic in Norway probably had a system for help at his disposal but he killed 77 people. I know that was more of a political far right attack and he was deemed not insane but lets face it, there was something wrong with him.

Another thing that does complicate things is that guns are a RIGHT and not a privilege unlike getting a driver's license. So our culture has to come to grips that some people (convicts) forfeit their RIGHT to bear arms.

 

[Whiskey16]

a public listing of anybody under the influence of prescribed psychiatric medication including all SSRI's. Read the MSDS of any of those drugs and you will understand why a public listing will eventually happen.

Yes public listings to help enforce wide-reaching discrimination and re-enforce long held stigmatisations upon any who may have a degree of mental health treatment. :'(

The realities are that those more likely to commit firearm offenses are less likely to be those who are receiving mental care, let alone those who have already been diagnosed.

This is a smokescreen issue to divert and deflect from the core problem in the USA -- and that is of relatively unregulated and far too easy access to firearms for all. Background checks and waiting periods for all is constitutionally legal and reasonable to contribute control for the excessive proliferation of firearms to those who are more likely do harm. No one requires a rush to attain such a weapon. Those that do are more likely to be a threat.

Every reasonable and legal hoop to jump through to attain a firearms should be implemented. Despite hyperbolic and false rhetoric, in the USA these are legally controllable goods and must be treated as such across all districts.

A public registry for any who are subjectively declared to be potential threats due to any treatment for a mental illness is not reasonable -- it is excessively offensive and dangerous to a civil society.