Tricky thing about not allowing mentally ill own a firearm.

[Phillyfan]

All of these mass shootings have me thinking. I really do believe the real issue is finding a way to help these people (the shooters) before they reach that breaking point. In many of these cases the shooter is not what we would term a criminal, until he carries out these acts. In other words, it isn't a bunch of street thugs, or gang bangers, or crackheads. These are people who, after the fact, people recall as being "off." Something not quite right. Didn't fit in. Or someone who was going through a very emotional time (divorce, loss, etc).

I was a student, in fact student vice president, at Thurston High School (I graduated a few years before the shooting). I knew the Kinkels. I took their daughter out camping with us. Kinkel senior was my Spanish teacher. Even then, we knew something was not right with Kip. Friends I have spoken with recall Mr. Kinkel talking about trying to get him help.

What I worry about now is people not getting the help they need because they are worried about being labeled as dangerous, and losing the freedoms we all have. There was a time when I was having some trouble with stress. I won't go into details, but it got pretty dark for a while. Eventually, I had to admit to myself that I couldn't handle it alone and went to someone to talk about it. Turned out I had a simple chemical imbalance that was easily fixed with a daily supplement. Been great since.

But would I do it now, knowing that they might take all my guns away because they think I am a risk?

I am just worried that through all of this trying to stop these attacks we may end up creating more monsters because they are afraid to come forward.

Read More

 

[speeddemon94]

No. Don't let it go there. If you can admit that you have had dark times in your life, that means you are okay. It's the ones that cant. I went military in 1994, and have seen dark. People go through some dark times. I'll not go into detail, but you're okay. I am up far too late on Christmas eve and am going to bed. Have a good one.

 

[duldej]

The law is lenient with those that voluntarily check-in to a mental hospital, and in the same breath, it is fierce with those that are admitted against their will.

Also the laws around CHL ownership, for example, mostly seem to focus on patterns of past behavior, although there is a questionable area for those that have a "dangerous" psychological state.

I reckon that a Sherrif's office CHL officer would have to prove, in court, that it would be reasonable to adduce a person to be of such a "dangerous," psychological state to be such, based on the same or similar past patterns of dangerous behavior.

I see two problems here:

1). the law is redundant,

2). who do they propose is suited to diagnose "dangerous" persons, as such,

also 3). what due process is in place for those that are so determined, in court, to be "dangerous," so that s/he can get his/her rights back?

I think that the laws are too vague, which is a little bit scary because that vagueness invites the wrong, liberal, element to attempt to intercede.

I mean this last part as sort-of a heads-up.

California law, by contrast, is well-rounded, with mental health courts, welfare and institutions codes 5150, 5250, etc, and offshoot firearm prohibitive codes that are also under (wic). years of liberal litigation and liberal legislation went into those laws that resulted in the majority of California counties being very prohibitive concerning CCW licenses, and California being a "may-issue" state.

it is good to examine those lacunae in the law before they are exploited by liberal policy makers, although to be honest all I can think of to do is to exercise your rights to the best of your ability, and to handle it on a case-law level.

 

[mrblond]

The main problem with trying to deal with mental health is nothing can really be done until they do something to hurt someone else. Gone are the days when you could send someone off to the nut house just by saying they were crazy.
The real bad part about this is that it could go the way of child abuse where a teacher sees a mark on a child and calls child services and next think you know your kids are gone. No one wants that or the government prying into our loves more then they already do.
I honestly think we should be treating these shootings like lightning strikes, they are going to happen no matter what we do to try and prevent it. This whole fiasco is going to waste alot of yours and my money to make a bunch of leftists feel better about them selves

 

[duldej]

The main problem with trying to deal with mental health is nothing can really be done until they do something to hurt someone else. Gone are the days when you could send someone off to the nut house just by saying they were crazy.
The real bad part about this is that it could go the way of child abuse where a teacher sees a mark on a child and calls child services and next think you know your kids are gone. No one wants that or the government prying into our loves more then they already do.
I honestly think we should be treating these shootings like lightning strikes, they are going to happen no matter what we do to try and prevent it. This whole fiasco is going to waste alot of yours and my money to make a bunch of leftists feel better about them selves

that's a good point, and I agree with you.

politicians, however, seem to prey upon chance shootings to perpetuate their political agendas simply by the rationale that anybody with a conscience would and should hate just such an occurrence, and, in fact, be offended. that means that pro-gunners need to prepare for the worst because, after all, this is a legal battle.

if somebody with a mental condition did, in fact,
"do something to hurt someone," like, for example, committing a personal crime like battery, which could be indicative that s/he might use a firearm in an unlawful way, then what do we do?

heck, the more I examine mental health provisions in firearm laws, it strikes me that the mentally ill should be treated just like ordinary people. if they batter somebody, then that's a 10-year prohibition, etc, just like the next guy.

in other words, why connect any incident that is suspect, like personal crimes, to somebody, and then add, "has a mental condition," too, for that is just adding insult to injury. the injury, in this case, being the ten-year sanction that is put on the convicted batterer.

additionally, I sometimes wonder if all criminals are not crazy, the proof being that they are mortgaging their futures, or hurting themselves, by committing crimes. is there any difference? I think psychologists should examine this issue b/c "criminality" and, for example, "drug addiction," are both forms of injuring oneself.

I do wonder, however, which professionals are best suited to handle the problem of crime, criminal justice officers or psychologists.

 

[1stklass]

What are the effects of mood altering drugs? How do you know who might snap when a drug that doesnt affect 99.9 percent of people, makes someone that isnt psychotic snap and start shooting up a bunch of people? Do you then ban 20 million people in the US from owning a firearm because they are taking some sort of prescribed medicine to balance out their mood?

 

[duldej]

What are the effects of mood altering drugs? How do you know who might snap when a drug that doesnt affect 99.9 percent of people, makes someone that isnt psychotic snap and start shooting up a bunch of people? Do you then ban 20 million people in the US from owning a firearm because they are taking some sort of prescribed medicine to balance out their mood?

Having studied Psychology in college, back when Mood Disorders were better known as Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, etc, it was easier to isolate people with diseases that are now referred to as mood disorders, and to classify them as being potentially dangerous.

Whether these people ever were specially subject to prohibitive sanctions is now questionable.

The diagnosis of Schizophrenia is seldom used anymore because it was too hard to treat it with known drug alternatives. Mood Stabilizers of today, eg Abilify, Risperdal, are developments on old anti-psychotic drugs like Haldol, Thorazine, etc that make serious mental disorders like Schizophrenia into something that can be managed, like a person is in a Schizophrenic mood today, and bearing thst in mind, lots of people today are willing to try to balance out their moods that way without confessing to being Schizophrenic.

Also, it being the case that psychiatric didorders like these can be so managed, hallucinations, delusions, catatonia, etc are cases that are few and far between.

I do, therefore, doubt that there is a contemporary basis for fears around the psychoactive, mood stabilizing drugs, mostly because the conditions, eg Schizophrenia, that were once so loaded with public concern, are becoming eliminated.

I firmly believe that the fear is based on psychiatric disorders from yesterday, and are not found in society anymore, in any form. especially not due, simply, to the drugs.

the Schizophrenic scapegoat is on the loose, in other words, but that is no cause for alarm, because it is merely a chimera.

some people might be afraid to label themselves to a psychiatrist as needing mood stabilizers because they are concerned about their 2A rights, and that could invokve a fight, depending on what BS the liberal media is espousing these days. At any rate, I am sure that whatever lies the TV is spewing about it these days is advantageous to the pharmaceutical industry, although, like you, it strikes me as an odd way to present it.