Gun rights

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

There is a big difference between shooting your husband in a spur of the moment fit of rage because you found out he had an affair (just an example), and spending several months, maybe even years, planning a mass massacre.

I hate to Godwin a thread, but it's apt. The genocides in Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Syria were/are all carried out by completely sane, power hungry men. We don't give them a pass for their carnage because of mental illness. I think the amount of gruesome death far surpasses any of the mass shootings we'd discuss on this thread, but every bit was due to what humans term "evil." You can't decide everything is because of mental illness because you can't imagine a sane person doing it. Sane people do HORRIBLE things every single day, like abusing children, raping women, murdering each other, etc. The mentally ill are not the cause of all this anguish.

[Elephant Walk]

The Obama administration has murdered many more children than Adam Lanza did. The administration should look into gun control for itself first.

[ADPi95]

After working many years in law enforcement and teaching criminal justice/forensic psychology, my take on it is that it's not so much mental health (i.e. individuals that suffer from mental illness) as it is mental health LAWS.

Take AOII Angel's example saying that unless a person says "I'm going to hurt myself or others...it's a crapshoot". Believe it or not, that doesn't necessarily mean that the system can do anything about it. I have worked so many cases where these individuals DO say things like that and the legal systems hands are tied for one reason or another and cannot make an arrest/prosecute and a crime still occurs. The FBI has come out to say that the majority of mass shooters will tell someone their intentions, nothing is done about it, and thus, the events occur anyway.

The media and proponents of either side of the gun debate tend to muddle the message. It's not that having a mental health issue is a risk factor for violence or that guns in the hands of citizens are a red flag. The focus should be on the laws that protect us should there be a threat of violence in either respect. Even if it is a sane individual that makes a threat.

I am a strong advocate for changing mental health reporting laws, not because all those that suffer from mental illness are an immediate threat, but for the reasons that we need to respond to threats made by those individuals without having to be blocked by laws that protect them versus the overall safety of others.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by ADPi95

After working many years in law enforcement and teaching criminal justice/forensic psychology, my take on it is that it's not so much mental health (i.e. individuals that suffer from mental illness) as it is mental health LAWS.

Take AOII Angel's example saying that unless a person says "I'm going to hurt myself or others...it's a crapshoot". Believe it or not, that doesn't necessarily mean that the system can do anything about it. I have worked so many cases where these individuals DO say things like that and the legal systems hands are tied for one reason or another and cannot make an arrest/prosecute and a crime still occurs. The FBI has come out to say that the majority of mass shooters will tell someone their intentions, nothing is done about it, and thus, the events occur anyway.

The media and proponents of either side of the gun debate tend to muddle the message. It's not that having a mental health issue is a risk factor for violence or that guns in the hands of citizens are a red flag. The focus should be on the laws that protect us should there be a threat of violence in either respect. Even if it is a sane individual that makes a threat.

I am a strong advocate for changing mental health reporting laws, not because all those that suffer from mental illness are an immediate threat, but for the reasons that we need to respond to threats made by those individuals without having to be blocked by laws that protect them versus the overall safety of others.

I agree that the laws should not tie your hands on people that are a threat, but making a law that practitioners have to inform the police every time one of their patients says they are having suicidal or homicidal ideation is too much. The VAST majority of these patients are depressed and working through private issues with their therapists that may stop expressing these thoughts if they know that they will be reported to police. The likelihood that this will stop a future mass shooting is unlikely as well since the vast majority of mass shooters are NOT undergoing treatment for mental illness. The people that do commit mass shooting may tell people, but they tell friends, family, etc. That is different than my example of how a therapist knows when a patient will become violent. You can mandate all you want that family turn in their own, but it won't make a difference.

[ADPi95]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I agree that the laws should not tie your hands on people that are a threat, but making a law that practitioners have to inform the police every time one of their patients says they are having suicidal or homicidal ideation is too much. The VAST majority of these patients are depressed and working through private issues with their therapists that may stop expressing these thoughts if they know that they will be reported to police. The likelihood that this will stop a future mass shooting is unlikely as well since the vast majority of mass shooters are NOT undergoing treatment for mental illness. The people that do commit mass shooting may tell people, but they tell friends, family, etc. That is different than my example of how a therapist knows when a patient will become violent. You can mandate all you want that family turn in their own, but it won't make a difference.

Great points and general threats are very difficult to much of anything, as well as those that are not already being observed by counselors/therapists. And you're right, most wouldn't be honest if they knew they would be reported. This is why it's a frustrating debate/argument. Do we protect the privacy of those that make threats (and by that, I mean those that name specific victims and have a history of violent behavior, which is VERY common in my experience) or do we protect those we know are in danger?

There was one case I worked on where this individual had already been arrested and convicted several times for assault. He had also been arrested/convicted for stalking harassment of a teacher. While on probation, he told his court mandated therapist that as soon as he got off probation, he was going to get a gun and kill his former teacher. The therapist alerted us out of courtesy, but refused to write a report (which the judge needed). Because of that, I had the unfortunate job of telling the victim that she had been threatened (again), but there was nothing we could do. We couldn't get a probation violation, nor a threat charge, nothing... This happens more than people care to think.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by ADPi95

Great points and general threats are very difficult to much of anything, as well as those that are not already being observed by counselors/therapists. And you're right, most wouldn't be honest if they knew they would be reported. This is why it's a frustrating debate/argument. Do we protect the privacy of those that make threats (and by that, I mean those that name specific victims and have a history of violent behavior, which is VERY common in my experience) or do we protect those we know are in danger?

There was one case I worked on where this individual had already been arrested and convicted several times for assault. He had also been arrested/convicted for stalking harassment of a teacher. While on probation, he told his court mandated therapist that as soon as he got off probation, he was going to get a gun and kill his former teacher. The therapist alerted us out of courtesy, but refused to write a report (which the judge needed). Because of that, I had the unfortunate job of telling the victim that she had been threatened (again), but there was nothing we could do. We couldn't get a probation violation, nor a threat charge, nothing... This happens more than people care to think.

That is the exact example of a change that should be made. Unfortunately as I said, many therapists are poorly trained. Most have little to no training in forensic psychology so deciding when someone is at risk for violence is not something they are educated to deal with. The prior history of violence is a red flag and should have been the discriminator to put this patient back. That is one most important things in determining risk...a history of violence. I know you have a very hard job. It must be very frustrating. I know NY means well, but their new law will make it very difficult for mental health practitioners, especially as they are a huge talk therapy area. Can you imagine the sheer number of calls they'll get just on the suicidal ideation threats?

[ADPi95]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

That is the exact example of a change that should be made. Unfortunately as I said, many therapists are poorly trained. Most have little to no training in forensic psychology so deciding when someone is at risk for violence is not something they are educated to deal with. The prior history of violence is a red flag and should have been the discriminator to put this patient back. That is one most important things in determining risk...a history of violence. I know you have a very hard job. It must be very frustrating. I know NY means well, but their new law will make it very difficult for mental health practitioners, especially as they are a huge talk therapy area. Can you imagine the sheer number of calls they'll get just on the suicidal ideation threats?

Couldn't agree more And yes, past history of violent behavior is the biggest risk factor.

And I actually left the field in order to teach. Too many sleepless nights and stress!

[AGDee]

I agree with AOII Angel's comments. Mental illness is so complex. Where do you draw a line? How do you analyze whether someone who has had the thought (or even said!) "I wish you were dead" will take that to the point of murdering that person? What about people with mild anxiety disorder who take Xanax?

Bad things are still going to happen. The mentally ill are not always recognized and do not always seek treatment. Not all who do bad things are mentally ill. Mental illness usually presents itself in the early 20s at the earliest, but may not show until much later.

The vast majority of the mentally ill do not commit heinous acts. The vast majority of gun owners don't either.

I think the biggest issue is that everybody wants something fixed which is not fixable.

[ADPi95]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I agree with AOII Angel's comments. Mental illness is so complex. Where do you draw a line? How do you analyze whether someone who has had the thought (or even said!) "I wish you were dead" will take that to the point of murdering that person? What about people with mild anxiety disorder who take Xanax?

Bad things are still going to happen. The mentally ill are not always recognized and do not always seek treatment. Not all who do bad things are mentally ill. Mental illness usually presents itself in the early 20s at the earliest, but may not show until much later.

The vast majority of the mentally ill do not commit heinous acts. The vast majority of gun owners don't either.

I think the biggest issue is that everybody wants something fixed which is not fixable.

I think you nailed it in your last two statements.

[amIblue?]

Oh, you mean the drone attacks that were started by the CIA in 2004, when Bush was president?

I don't disagree that those are nasty, but if you're going to start playing the blame game, let's make sure everyone gets his fair share.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

Oh, you mean the drone attacks that were started by the CIA in 2004, when Bush was president?

I don't disagree that those are nasty, but if you're going to start playing the blame game, let's make sure everyone gets his fair share.

I'm not sure why you brought that up...

It doesn't damage my case. I'm not a Republican whatsoever. Now, if you give a shit which bureaucrat murdered a bunch of children, be my guest. It doesn't give any of them the right to take away my guns as they murder people. No moral high ground.

The current administration has plans to limit my guns and its based on hypocrisy. This administration loves using guns just as much as the prior administration.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm not sure why you brought that up...

It doesn't damage my case. I'm not a Republican whatsoever. Now, if you give a shit which bureaucrat murdered a bunch of children, be my guest. It doesn't give any of them the right to take away my guns as they murder people. No moral high ground.

The current administration has plans to limit my guns and its based on hypocrisy. This administration loves using guns just as much as the prior administration.

Technically, they aren't using guns. It's apples and oranges. I'd agree that we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the gun issue in the US.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by I Phi 1963

This doesn't make any sense dude. If we get rid of the country's weapons, how do you expect the country to defend itself from other countries?

What countries do we need to be protected from? We haven't been in a war to protect our borders in a little over 200 years.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Technically, they aren't using guns. It's apples and oranges. I'd agree that we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan, but that has nothing to do whatsoever with the gun issue in the US.

Yes, it does.

The point is that the government uses guns and regularly murders people, not only in war but in every day life. Every law requires force of guns. Any banning of weapons to prevent force is inherently hypocritical by the government. The government is force incarnate.

[AGDee]

Was Pearl Harbor more than 200 years ago? Time flies? And the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Cuban Missile Crisis? Iran hostage crisis? War of 1812? (lasted longer than just that year and was still going 200 years ago).

Is it about protecting borders or protecting citizens? "Provide for the common defense" are the words I recall.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Was Pearl Harbor more than 200 years ago? Time flies? And the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Cuban Missile Crisis? Iran hostage crisis? War of 1812? (lasted longer than just that year and was still going 200 years ago).

Is it about protecting borders or protecting citizens? "Provide for the common defense" are the words I recall.

And every single one of those (besides 1812) was a result of having an army that was too big where it didn't belong.

Actually, 1812 was a result of that as well. The federal government attempting to monopolize force on others.