The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

On the mental health issue, ROXRAN, while you are big on constitutional rights not to be eroded, not even semi automatic assault rifles and magazines that facilitate them, why are you so quick to institutionalize the mentally ill? You mean 1930 type of wards that were used to institutionalize the mentally ill including certain autistic people. I find it ridiculous that You are so willing to put stigama on mentally ill and take extreme measures on them, and yet telling me guns should not be controlled because of individual rights.

 

No not a harsh 1930s type...I think in certain cases, there needs to be an outlet on safeguarding citizens from the mentally ill which requires boarding, but there should also be non-boarding scenarios which help people better than we do now. Btw, just read an entry in your blog about the USC grad kids. That was heartfelt.

 

Yeah, but how the line might be drawn for those cases? Take Adam Lanza for example, he was in the mainstream setting until Nancy Lanza pulled him out two years ago. From his classmates accounts of Adam Lanza's behaviors at school, there werent any marked indications indicating he would commit a horrific rampage on unspeakable terms like that. Are we going to stigmatize all socially awkward people like Adam Lanza, and somehow isolate them?

Wayne LaPerrie was saying there are Lunatics everyone knows in any town and some extreme measures should be taken towards them by the Sheriffs. Great, let the Sheriffs draw the line take actions based on percevied danger of someone's mental state before the danger actualizes. How is that consistent with the position that individual rights are not to be pooped by the government? How is that not a giant step backwards in terms of civility of a society?

Thank you for the comments on my blog entry. They were killed by LA gang members and I was around in the area where they were shot at the time they were shot. But those were probablly illegal guns and they are the enemies of us all. I realize I should not stigmatize gun owners under permits with stuff like gun nuts, etc. That, i realize, serves no purpose in the current discussion. I will restrian from doing that.

 

I agree it is problematic to just start institutionalizing individuals who show a degree of social awkwardness or particular idiosyncrasies.At what point would you stop or diagnosis someone as being unfit for society.

 

BTW, the guy that ambushed firefighters used a Bushmaster .223 with flash suppression.

 

What is the rationale behind making Flash Suppressors and Silencers legal?

Rocket River

 

we have a right to defend ourselves in silence

 

YallMean raises a good point. If you are arguing that we need to be institutionalizing the mentally ill and calling upon law enforcement to do that is a potential violation of due process. In that case you are undermining the 5th and 6th Amendments because of a tangential concern to protect the 2nd Amendment.

 

I have concerns as well.
Maybe I watch too much TV or something
but
I don't want MENTAL ILLNESS to be a default assumption
or one that allows people to "be handled differently" and
unfairly.

Rocket River

 

I think you'd appreciate this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/13/mass-killers-psychopaths_n_1773450.html

 

Wrong. Well, depending specifically on what you mean by "institutionalizing." The cops bring patients to my hospital all the time on what is called a Peace Officer Emergency Commitment, or POEC. Also, a judge can can issue an Order or Protective Commitment, or an OPC. Both of these are technically "commitments," but there are a zillion rules with regard to the frame of time in which a patient can be held. For example, a patient cannot be on a POEC longer than 3 days. At the 3-day point, a patient must sign in voluntarily. If the patient refuses to do so, then a judge has to issue an OPC. If the OPC is denied, then a patient can discharge against medical advice. The judges rarely go against the docs, though it does happen. An OPC has to be renewed every 48 hours (I think; might be 72 hours), and generally speaking, an OPC rarely lasts longer than a week, and the only criteria for the OPC (and the initial POEC) is specifically whether the patient is considered to be a danger to themselves or others.

It used to be a hell of a lot easier to have a patient committed, but the laws changed some time ago. My understanding is that a segment of society basically took issue with what they perceived as "locking up" the mentally ill, many of whom were members of the homeless community, and got the laws changed, making commitment a very difficult process. Whether the laws changed for good or ill is up to a given individual's perception and/or interpretation, but factor all of that in with common misconceptions about mental health ("Depressed? It's all in your head!! Just eat right and exercise!!"), the lack of both beds and funding, particularly in Texas (where we rank dead last at #51....DC counts as its own region), and the result is a bunch of people on the streets who have no business being on the streets.

The recent violent tragedies have caused a lot of people to freak out and look for a scapegoat. That is understandable, but look what has happened and continues to happen: The anti-gun crowd is screaming about guns when the focus in this debate should be on care for the often forgotten, frequently maligned and misunderstood mentally ill population, and education to an uninformed, generally very ignorant public.

One thing that would help immensely with regard to the enforcement of existing gun laws would get the Right's collective panties in a bunch: a national healthcare database. Any mentally ill person deemed as unqualified to possess a firearm could be flagged, so that the FBI is alerted to any attempts to purchase a firearm during any routine background check an FFL dealer performs. Currently, the only thing verified is whether or not the potential buyer has a criminal history. It doesn't do squat with regard to mental health history and/or issues, unless of course a criminal record exists. A national database would also help fight pharmaceutical farming, for example, and is, in my opinion as a healthcare worker, generally a very good idea.

I cannot stress enough the poor state of care of the mentally ill, particularly in Texas, and that is where the focus needs to be.

FWIW, I support the 2nd Amendment 100%.

 

They reduce muzzle flash and noise. If you are a frequent shooter then you will understand the benefits. Suppressors are legal in many European countries and it is considered impolite to shoot without one.

 

... to shoot where? on a gun range?

 

Yes, even with ear protection it is loud and painful on the ears.

 

I have a hard time believing this.

Not that it is hard on the ears, moreso that 1) it's considered impolite to shoot without a suppressor at a range (or anywhere, for that matter) and 2) wearing ear protection isn't sufficient to protect you from the noise.

 

It sounds like the current law basically agrees with me. By "institutionalizing" I mean holding someone who is mentally ill against their will indefinitely in an institution, be it a mental health ward or jail. While police and judges can temporarily commit someone mentally ill to institutionalize them though they have to voluntarily agree or go through a much more difficult process to detain them.

I doubt most people though would want to make the process easier for the justice system to seize and hold people indefinitely on the basis of mental health issues. That is a situation that is very open to abuse as seen in places like the PRC where political prisoners are sometimes held with the argument that they are ill.

I am not surprised at all that the laws have changed. As noted there is potentially a lot of possibility for abuse if it becomes easier to take people into custody on the basis of mental health.

As many of us have said repeatedly this isn't an either /or situation. We should be looking at addressing mental health better while also looking at the availability and lethality of guns.

Also if we are going to talk about addressing mental health why hasn't the NRA and pro-gun rights politicians come forward with proposals to address that such as insurance parity for mental health and also increased funding for mental health care?

I agree a national database that took into account mental health when purchasing a firearm should be part of background checks. As I've noted Cho, Holmes and Loughner all bought their guns legally even though all had a known history of mental illness.

it sounds like you are basically

 

Thanks for sharing your experiences and insights. I agree that background check on mental illness should be done when guns are sold.

However, on the involuntary commitment point, I am not with you. Laws around the country basically allows cops to commit mentally ill invlountarily based on their assessment of reasonable cause of harm the mentally ill might inflict on others and/or themselves. I am not sure if Teaxs requires psychiatrist evaluation for a commitment . Most states do. Last year, I had one case to help a patient out of involuntary commitment, and I found the discretion of the physician very unreasonable in that case.

Based on my experiences, cases like Adam Lanza, James Holmes would not have been picked up by cops under the process you describe. Health care, funding of resources are needed for those who meet the criteria of involuntary commitment, but that would not solve the problem at issue debated here. What else do you suugest to do other than reducing gun availability to Adam Lanza or James Holmes? Giving even more discretion to law enforcement and physicians in identifying the Adam Lanza's and the James Holmes? How does that square with civil rights? I think you are conflating two different issues. In my mind, one's freedom is much more important than the right to have semi automatic rifle. That's just me and maybe I shouldnt have said that.

 

What is this?

Rocket River

 

Nothing wrong with speaking your mind Yallmean. I have gained a lot more respect because of how you are coming across. You are showing consideration, and that means a lot even if we disagree. Even my own wife doesn't agree with my political views or even totally on my gun views but she still puts up with me for some reason.

 

Fixed, seriously, to better conform to the majority view.

It is not "protecting the 2nd Amendment," because it is not in danger. We will always be able to keep and bear arms. The line of war of weapons will be debated, whether it's tanks, ICBM's, or assault rifles.