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

[DCal430]

Do you have a link that James Holmes did not have autism? I've seen a lot of reports that say he has not been diagnosed. Love to see some official information. You're right that there are no recognized links between autism and violence.

The aspeger suggestion came solely from jim scarborough, who decide he would be an arm chair expert and diagnose him based off a photo. No one connected with the case has ever suggested he had asperger. Those who knew him however have said he was diagnosed with dysphoric mania.

 

[IGBT]

Rant
Blaming Autism for Connecticut School Shootings Just Adds to the Tragedy
Posted by Julie Ryan Evans on December 17, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Comments (43)| Likes (11) .
One of the first things we learned in the wake of the horrifying Connecticut school shooting last week was that the assailant, Adam Lanza, likely had autism. His brother, Ryan, told reporters Adam "is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a 'personality disorder.'"


And with those words, thousands of parents of children with autism everywhere braced for what was to come -- an onslaught of finger pointing, stereotypes reinforced, and more misunderstanding of what's already a misunderstood disorder. And come it has.

Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg, who describes herself as a writer and photographer, a disabled woman, and an activist passionate about disability rights, wrote this weekend about how she's heard from people that Lanza's act could have been an autistic meltdown.


She passionately and eloquently rebuffs this on her blog, saying:

People in the midst of a meltdown do not take the time and the forethought to arm themselves with a bullet-proof vest and several weapons, make their way to an elementary school, and consciously target two particular classrooms of children and the school office. In fact, most people in the midst of a meltdown just want to withdraw and get away from people and the stressors that cause overload.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Autism is not a predisposing factor to premeditated violence. Autistic people are far, far more likely to be the victims of crime than its perpetrators.

Other moms of autistic children have taken to their blogs to try and debunk the myths as well. Emily Willingham talks about empathy and how children with autism do experience it, and how her son with Asperger's reacted to the shooting. A mom of a 5-year-old daughter with autism writes on the blog ProfMomEsq about her fury at the reports trying to link autism to the shootings: "I am furiously angry, because what I hear these 'experts' saying over and over again is that my daughter -- my beautiful, sweet, loving, funny little girl -- has more in common with a cold-hearted killer than the 20 beautiful souls who perished and the hundreds more he scarred."

And there are more. Liz Ditz has compiled a list of plenty of arguments and rebuttals on her blog I Speak of Dreams that contains lots of good facts and solid information. On Facebook this weekend, Autism Speaks posted the following message:

Several media outlets are reporting that the shooter might have had an autism spectrum disorder. Some have also inaccurately reported that there is a linkage between autism and planned violence. We ask that blame not be placed on people with disabilities or disorders in the midst of these types of tragedies and that everyone keep the families of Newtown in their prayers.

Sadly, none of it will likely be enough to undo the damage that has already been done.

I think of all of the moms of young children who have recently gotten the autism diagnosis for their beloved children, and I ache. There are so many unknowns and so many hurdles ahead of them that to add even more fear -- that autism could make their child do what Adam Lanza did -- is unbearable. I think of the children with autism and their parents who have dealt with the challenges and misguided public opinions for years, and fear this case is going to make their lives even more difficult.

It's not to say that autism isn't challenging and the frustrations of the disease do not contribute to other problems. But to blame autism for the Sandy Hook school shooting is too easy, and it's wrong.

What did you think when you heard that Adam Lanza may have autism?

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.

 

[Cerb]

If you're nutty in the head, no gun for you. Criteria would have to be by a mental health professional (preferably MD), and could be appealed, but what percentage of these gunman doing massacres aren't fuckin' nuts? 0%?

If you discount sane workers driven mad, such as the streak of people, "going postal," you will basically be left with 0.

Have any of them done it and family/friends been like "Wow, he was just a normal happy guy, great dad, never any issues, everybody liked him."...not really, most are "yeah, he was batshit insane, I'm not surprised by this".

And, it seems a substantial portion have had some kind of treatment for their ills, too, so the MDs are there, and the records are there. Some will always manage to slip through the cracks, but when there is that obvious history, why weren't we doing anything? In many cases, because nobody was allowed to but the patient, and the patient is allowed to do whatever until he kills people.

Do note that there has been a little beneficial work going on. Virginia closed the loophole that made it so easy for the Virginia Tech shooter to get his firearms, as an example. A small step, but at least it's the right kind of thing to do.

But, there's even more reason to make it easier to remove such people's rights, at least on a non-permanent basis (yes, there's more polite wording, but if you've got a problem with it, that'll be it, so there you go). Most of these people are not going on rampages, but may still be dangerous to themselves and others, and cause significant stress for their families, as they try to force them to get care because they care about them (as opposed to trying to hide their craziness). Google is your friend, and I'm lazy, but mental health treatment advocacy groups are out there, and easy to Google for, with plenty of their own stats, suggestions, criticisms, and anecdotes.

Why don't we exploit the recent tragedies to prevent future ones, and also prevent the smaller-scale ones you don't read about every day? Seems to me like a much better way to make use of it than banning comfortable grips (I can't even think of a silly scary thing about pistol grips, really), light hiking/camping-friendly stocks (oh, I mean, "scary military-style tactical stocks"), hearing preservation equipment (we all know a suppressor makes a 308 sound like a bouncing tennis ball, after all), magazines of decent size (well, that'll be good for aftermarket magazine manufacturers, I guess), etc., to no meaningful result.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Agreed. I'd be much more worried about the effects of the prescribed psychiatric drugs than the autism or Asperger's. Brain chemistry is incredibly complicated and individualistic, and pubescent children (which includes males up to mid twenties) probably the most complicated of all.

 

[werepossum]

The Aurora dude was supposedly diagnosed with Asberger's but as far as I know, there are some questions about Adam Lanza' I think there are multiple diagnoses.

Actually the term autism is being revised for the new diagnostic manual DMSV due probably in Sept 2013 none too soon.

Glad to hear that. When I was young the term autistic was reserved for severely dysfunctional individuals; now I find the term being used for people indistinguishable from anyone else. I think medical professionals are far too eager to diagnose autism, and while such a diagnosis can have legal benefits it also puts the child in a niche from which it may prove difficult to grow. Low expectations tend to yield low results, and a lot of what is now labeled as mental or developmental problems used to just be called being boys. I find that a good smack across the butt has a lot fewer complications than do most pharmaceuticals, although they can be a Godsend for those who truly need them. (Um, I actually meant pharmaceuticals can be a Godsend for those who truly need them, but now that I think about it . . .)

I also think too many are diagnosed with autism or Asperger's Syndrome when they have far more serious problems. A diagnosis of autism or Asberger's Syndrome on someone with homicidal rage or schizophrenia is like a diagnosis of Herpes on someone with colon cancer - it might get a disproportionate amount of attention without having much impact on what follows.

 

[Moonbeam]

Glad to hear that. When I was young the term autistic was reserved for severely dysfunctional individuals; now I find the term being used for people indistinguishable from anyone else. I think medical professionals are far too eager to diagnose autism, and while such a diagnosis can have legal benefits it also puts the child in a niche from which it may prove difficult to grow. Low expectations tend to yield low results, and a lot of what is now labeled as mental or developmental problems used to just be called being boys. I find that a good smack across the butt has a lot fewer complications than do most pharmaceuticals, although they can be a Godsend for those who truly need them. (Um, I actually meant pharmaceuticals can be a Godsend for those who truly need them, but now that I think about it . . .)

I also think too many are diagnosed with autism or Asperger's Syndrome when they have far more serious problems. A diagnosis of autism or Asberger's Syndrome on someone with homicidal rage or schizophrenia is like a diagnosis of Herpes on someone with colon cancer - it might get a disproportionate amount of attention without having much impact on what follows.

Careful, you may talk yourself into thinking you know something. Why not leave these things to experts. I don't know much, but enough to know I don't know what you think you do.

 

[werepossum]

Careful, you may talk yourself into thinking you know something. Why not leave these things to experts. I don't know much, but enough to know I don't know what you think you do.

I have broadband Internet; I am therefore automatically an expert on all things. It's like living in a Holiday Inn Express, only cheaper and I can have cats.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Agreed. I'd be much more worried about the effects of the prescribed psychiatric drugs than the autism or Asperger's. Brain chemistry is incredibly complicated and individualistic, and pubescent children (which includes males up to mid twenties) probably the most complicated of all.

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.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Agreed. I'd be much more worried about the effects of the prescribed psychiatric drugs than the autism or Asperger's. Brain chemistry is incredibly complicated and individualistic, and pubescent children (which includes males up to mid twenties) probably the most complicated of all.

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.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

Thanks, Hay. You keep me from feeling so lonely.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks, Hay. You keep me from feeling so lonely.

On one hand I see the need for intelligently implemented legislation, but then again I see Cuomo and his ill considered bludgeoning of the state assembly here. I feel like Diogenes.

There's more to this than guns as I'm sure you understand. When good intents are implemented in haste to satisfy an emotional need, the Law of Unintended Consequences often is the real result. That's not to say that emotional responses are wrong, but they ought to be channeled for true constructive purpose.

BTW, thanks, I'm not lonely right now.

 

[Retro Rob]

The other problem is you now have a system which gives individuals the ability to dictate the rights of others. Do you rely on someone who may have a personal agenda and puts mentally ill folks on a "no-sale" list? Or maybe the MD is now too scared to black-list anyone because of lawsuits for civil-rights violations.

I don't have a solution, but mental illness that is open and not stigmatized would go a long way to helping people, irrelevant of the gun issue.

What else can be done, then?

We have people against everything from limiting magazine capacity, military-style weapons, to the extent of backgroud checks, to pre-screening potential gun owners all the way up to those who back-door every solution with the "well, they'd just get them illegally and we can't stop them".

I won't pretend to know anything about guns because I don't, but it's clear that if people aren't going to police themselves properly, then be ready to forfiet your rights to the Government. If we really want smaller government and our rights protected, find ways to prevent them from having to intervene.

I think this is where personal rights come back to bite America. When change is needed, it's pretty darn hard or nearly impossible to make any real change.

America: Land of the Free, and the home of the selfish.

 

[michal1980]

What else can be done, then?

We have people against everything from limiting magazine capacity, military-style weapons, to the extent of backgroud checks, to pre-screening potential gun owners all the way up to those who back-door every solution with the "well, they'd just get them illegally and we can't stop them".

I won't pretend to know anything about guns because I don't, but it's clear that if people aren't going to police themselves properly, then be ready to forfiet your rights to the Government. If we really want smaller government and our rights protected, find ways to prevent them from having to intervene.

I think this is where personal rights come back to bite America. When change is needed, it's pretty darn hard or nearly impossible to make any real change.

America: Land of the Free, and the home of the selfish.

Ahh fighting to keep basic freedoms is now selfish.

 

[Tom]

I recall seeing a possible mandate that all metally ill people (no matter the illness) are to be reported by their doctors PERIOD and should be excluded from purchasing a gun at all, under any circumstances.

I would be in favor of that if that were on the table.

Reported to who ?

There's more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment.

One of the arguments I frequently hear from gun rights advocates is they oppose the government keeping a database of gun owners.

But the NRA seems to advocate keeping a government database of everyone with any kind of mental health issue.

How would that be constitutional ?

Why does the NRA oppose government regulation of gun owners but supports regulation of the mentally ill ?

Gun owners kill more people, why not regulate them ?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Reported to who ?

There's more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment.

One of the arguments I frequently hear from gun rights advocates is they oppose the government keeping a database of gun owners.

But the NRA seems to advocate keeping a government database of everyone with any kind of mental health issue.

How would that be constitutional ?

Why does the NRA oppose government regulation of gun owners but supports regulation of the mentally ill ?

Gun owners kill more people, why not regulate them ?

Perhaps we could regulate both, for the Greater Good. Gun owners may harm someone, and so might the mentally ill. All we need to do is give people like Cuomo a little more power and Eden just might happen in NY. I've been told that not listening to people is the idea of representative democracy. We can have gun owners and the mentally ill wear yellow badges.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ahh fighting to keep basic freedoms is now selfish.

No - fighting for basic rights isn't selfish. Demanding your righs be upheld despite the FACT that compromise is needed on both sides of the debate, is.

Imagine you and your spouse are debating over which store to shop at. If you both refuse to compromise and insist on getting your way, then no shopping gets done and the problem still exist.

 

[Retro Rob]

Reported to who ?

There's more to the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment.

One of the arguments I frequently hear from gun rights advocates is they oppose the government keeping a database of gun owners.

But the NRA seems to advocate keeping a government database of everyone with any kind of mental health issue.

How would that be constitutional ?

Why does the NRA oppose government regulation of gun owners but supports regulation of the mentally ill ?

Gun owners kill more people, why not regulate them ?

That's the thing, they didn't make it clear how to report the mentally ill. I would assume that keeping an updated database would suffice.

The NRA wants to protect their interests. I am actually in agreement with the idea of keeping a database.

Sometimes the constitution seems to tie people's hands when it comes to making needed changes (short of removing any amendment). It's imperfect, and needs some new interpretation/updates.

We need to look into that.

 

[Agent11]

Except infringing our rights isn't going to solve anything.

The problem is the mental healthcare system, not gun control.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except infringing our rights isn't going to solve anything.

The problem is the mental healthcare system, not gun control.

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?

 

[Puddle Jumper]

No - fighting for basic rights isn't selfish. Demanding your righs be upheld despite the FACT that compromise is needed on both sides of the debate, is.

Imagine you and your spouse are debating over which store to shop at. If you both refuse to compromise and insist on getting your way, then no shopping gets done and the problem still exist.

For compromise both sides have to offer concessions. What have the gun grabbers offered in exchange for more restrictions?

Several of us on this forum offered an option for a compromise, repeal the NFA in exchange for closing the gun show loophole.

 

[Phanuel]

For compromise both sides have to offer concessions. What have the gun grabbers offered in exchange for more restrictions?

Several of us on this forum offered an option for a compromise, repeal the NFA in exchange for closing the gun show loophole.

Precisely. We cannot give up anything to you because we've yet to ever get anything in return.

 

[Retro Rob]

For compromise both sides have to offer concessions. What have the gun grabbers offered in exchange for more restrictions?

Several of us on this forum offered an option for a compromise, repeal the NFA in exchange for closing the gun show loophole.

Ah I see.

 

[monovillage]

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

Obama Asks Doctors to Help Deal With Guns

According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here's the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

 Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

 Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

 

[HomerJS]

Except infringing our rights isn't going to solve anything.

The problem is the mental healthcare system, not gun control.

elaborate on "the problem is the mental health system"

you are hinting keeping guns away from people who are mentally incapable of handling them is off the table.

There are some people who you wouldn't necessarily institutionalize but should not be given access to guns.

 

[nanette1985]

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.