Mass Murder And Mental Illness

[MJS]

Thought this was interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/mass-murder-a...interplay-of-stigma--culture-and-disease.html

With recent revelations that alleged movie theater shooter James Holmes had been seeing a psychiatrist prior to carrying out the July 20 massacre in Aurora, Colo., questions about the link between violence and mental illness have risen once again into the media spotlight: What are the root causes of seemingly random violence? Does mental illness provoke it, or predispose people to harm others?

Advocates for the mentally ill are faced with a deep dilemma each time extreme and deadly crimes are perpetrated by those with a mental illness. Obviously, such acts are not “sane” or “normal”; it beggars common sense to suggest that a person who is thinking straight would choose to kill or wound dozens of strangers. And yet most mentally ill people — even those with conditions that have been linked to violence, such as addictions and schizophrenia — are no threat to anyone other than themselves.

IMO, I'd say it would play a part, depending of course, on the seriousness of the illness. Has it been determined to what extent the CO. shooters illness is? Also, touching on something that Bill M. said in another gun thread, in which him and I were talking about the 2nd Amendment, and whether or not people should own certain types of weapons....while I do see his point and agree, should someone with a mental illness be allowed to own weapons?

 

[WC_lun]

If the shooter's mental state has been determined, it hasn't been released yet. Most of it is speculation based upon the short snipits of the suspect being in court.

I think the line drawn on owning weapons and being mentally ill is if you are a danger to yourself and/or others. If there are very reliable means to determine that, I am not so sure.

 

[Wo Fat]

The question begs: should the mentally ill be legally allowed to purchase, possess or have access to guns. Most "sane" people say no. But then, how does a civilized and modern society make that a reality?

For sure, no one should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights, unless convicted felons or insane. In other words, the 2A is already regulated. It's now a matter how efficiently and effectively we regulate.

I don't know of a non-invasive way in which we monitor the mentally ill, but we have to do a better job of being able to keep them away from guns, knives, ammo and the like. A top security database to which only psychiatrists can submit (but not access), and only DHS can access but only for purposes of declining a gun sale at the local level? I really don't know. Ether way you slice it, there is a loss of privacy.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The simple reality is that all murderers are insane. Sane people don't kill without damn good reason. That doesn't mean they're not responsible for their actions, of course.

Holmes' mental status is a tricky question. It probably CANNOT be determined. His side will say he's too crazy to be prosecuted, and produce experts to support this claim. The prosecution will say he's totally sane, and produce experts to support this claim.

As far as gun control goes, I'd like to see you (generic you) define "mental illness" as you'd apply it to gun ownership. Are you going to prohibit anyone who has ever been depressed from buying a gun? Or only those who are actively suicidal/homicidal? Or are you expecting psychologists to predict which currently safe and functional people will become dangerous? Perhaps we could prohibit anyone without a PhD in criminal psychology from selling guns or ammunition, and make an extensive psychological evaluation mandatory before each purchase.

Good luck with that...

 

[Wo Fat]

And then again, Holmes won't be the last. There will seemingly be another "tipping point", followed by another and another after that.

We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people. If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.

But we have to do something beyond the status quo.

 

[Cryozombie]

We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people. If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.

But we have to do something beyond the status quo.

See... I get the intention behind this, and while I agree that the mentally unstable shouldn't have access to weapons, here's the problem with regulation: If you regulate guns and make them harder for you or I to obtain, in order to help protect society from the unstable who might get their hands on them... all you have done is taken them from you or I.

The real, brass tacks truth is that If I were suddenly declared Unstable tonite, and they came and took my guns and my Special Permit to buy them that I need to have here in Illinois, AND blacklisted me on the background check...

I'd still have guns tomorrow. Not only that, but if I had trouble accessing them and wanted to wipe out a theater or mall or whatever full of patrons, I'd just go to Home Depot, or heck, even the corner Gas-Station mini mart, and get what I need to build a bomb.

It's sensible to do background checks. It's sensible to make it illegal for a whackadoo to own a gun... but trying to regulate the weapons themselves is, IMO, futile at best. If nothing else, past precedent proves this... look at all the crime and the mass killings that continued despite the AWB durring Clinton/Bush.

 

[oftheherd1]

The question begs: should the mentally ill be legally allowed to purchase, possess or have access to guns. Most "sane" people say no. But then, how does a civilized and modern society make that a reality?

For sure, no one should be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights, unless convicted felons or insane. In other words, the 2A is already regulated. It's now a matter how efficiently and effectively we regulate.

I don't know of a non-invasive way in which we monitor the mentally ill, but we have to do a better job of being able to keep them away from guns, knives, ammo and the like. A top security database to which only psychiatrists can submit (but not access), and only DHS can access but only for purposes of declining a gun sale at the local level? I really don't know. Ether way you slice it, there is a loss of privacy.

Why does there have to be a non-invasive way for them but not for 'us?'

And then again, Holmes won't be the last. There will seemingly be another "tipping point", followed by another and another after that.

We have to get to a point where we stop making the excuses and start making a few Americans unhappy for the sake of sound regulation that keeps dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable people. If we can regulate explosives with good reason, then we can somehow regulate how unstable people obtain dangerous weapons. I admit, I don't know what "somehow" entails.

But we have to do something beyond the status quo.

If I am not the problem, why do I have to be the one made uncomfortable? Why not those "unstable people?"

See... I get the intention behind this, and while I agree that the mentally unstable shouldn't have access to weapons, here's the problem with regulation: If you regulate guns and make them harder for you or I to obtain, in order to help protect society from the unstable who might get their hands on them... all you have done is taken them from you or I.

The real, brass tacks truth is that If I were suddenly declared Unstable tonite, and they came and took my guns and my Special Permit to buy them that I need to have here in Illinois, AND blacklisted me on the background check...

I'd still have guns tomorrow. Not only that, but if I had trouble accessing them and wanted to wipe out a theater or mall or whatever full of patrons, I'd just go to Home Depot, or heck, even the corner Gas-Station mini mart, and get what I need to build a bomb.

It's sensible to do background checks. It's sensible to make it illegal for a whackadoo to own a gun... but trying to regulate the weapons themselves is, IMO, futile at best. If nothing else, past precedent proves this... look at all the crime and the mass killings that continued despite the AWB durring Clinton/Bush.

We may be able to come up with a compromise of sorts. In line with my comments above, I think most of the regulation needs to be on the unstable, insane, loonies, whatever you choose to call them. We used to do that until the lawyers went to bat for them. Now we have people wandering the streets who are deficient in taking care of themselves. Some of them become a danger to others since they will commit crimes in their attempts to take care of themselves.

Mind you, some of the past state run mental hospitals were not resorts for the inmates, and the doctors there, wishing to do well or not, weren't given a lot of resources. That would have to be improved. But we would then get a lot of dangerous people off the streets. We would have to try and be sure people weren't just conveniently forgotten there as often happened in the past. Also, that they are treated humanely and treated by best practices for their condition.

Nothing easy about the above, but I think we should really try to find a solution along those lines. Why should those of us who claim, and hopefully demonstrate 'normalness,' be the ones inconvenienced? Why should those in need of help, not get it, even if they don't realize they need it. Again, slippery slopes, but I think that is something that can be done correctly if we think about it and involve the correct people in writing laws.

 

[granfire]

Why does there have to be a non-invasive way for them but not for 'us?'



If I am not the problem, why do I have to be the one made uncomfortable? Why not those "unstable people?"



We may be able to come up with a compromise of sorts. In line with my comments above, I think most of the regulation needs to be on the unstable, insane, loonies, whatever you choose to call them. We used to do that until the lawyers went to bat for them. Now we have people wandering the streets who are deficient in taking care of themselves. Some of them become a danger to others since they will commit crimes in their attempts to take care of themselves.

Mind you, some of the past state run mental hospitals were not resorts for the inmates, and the doctors there, wishing to do well or not, weren't given a lot of resources. That would have to be improved. But we would then get a lot of dangerous people off the streets. We would have to try and be sure people weren't just conveniently forgotten there as often happened in the past. Also, that they are treated humanely and treated by best practices for their condition.

Nothing easy about the above, but I think we should really try to find a solution along those lines. Why should those of us who claim, and hopefully demonstrate 'normalness,' be the ones inconvenienced? Why should those in need of help, not get it, even if they don't realize they need it. Again, slippery slopes, but I think that is something that can be done correctly if we think about it and involve the correct people in writing laws.

I am pretty sure that most 'unstable' people do not consider themselves a problem either....until much later, after the fog has cleared and the victims are counted.

 

[billc]

Ooh...Ooh, I know the answer to this one. Whenever anyone goes to get counseling, psychological or psychiatric, or with a family counselor or social worker, the Doctor, or social worker should be required to submit the names of the patients to a national data base. This data base of course is not to be abused, and used solely for the purpose of tracking those people who may become a threat in the future. Then, you cross reference this national data base of people with mental problems ( a government term, not mine, I'm sure) with the desired national firearms registry of gun owners and background checks. Then, when a name pops up on both the possible crazy person list and the "I want a gun," list, the federal government can send agents to the medical practice or counselors office and get detailed information on the medical condition of the crazy person trying to get a gun to commit mass murder. The whole, "Doctor, patient," confidentiality could be simply suspended by law so that the federal government can have easier access to the records of dangerous, crazy people trying to get guns. Oh...you say, what if Little Timmy is just having trouble with math and the school guidance counselor is helping his parents deal with his low grades? Well, where there is smoke there is fire, or the potential of little Timmy being a crazy mass murderer so it is a good idea for the feds to ask him some "hard" questions about why he may potentially want a gun and kill a lot of people...Is that the correct answer?

 

[harlan]

1.How about heading off the fireworks by simply continueing health care coverage, complete coverage, to young adults until 25?

There is a known trajectory for the development/onset of schizophrenia. The biggest problem - not identifying and treating it before the person is overwhelmed by delusions.

2. Empower parents and schools to have individuals evaluated/treated against their will.

Just exactly how many mass murders is it going to take for our society to realize that while it's 'not a crime' to be crazy, it IS criminal neglect on the part of institutions to not to respond to warning signals.

 

[elder999]

Ooh...Ooh, I know the answer to this one. Whenever anyone goes to get counseling, psychological or psychiatric, or with a family counselor or social worker, the Doctor, or social worker should be required to submit the names of the patients to a national data base. This data base of course is not to be abused, and used solely for the purpose of tracking those people who may become a threat in the future. Then, you cross reference this national data base of people with mental problems ( a government term, not mine, I'm sure) with the desired national firearms registry of gun owners and background checks. Then, when a name pops up on both the possible crazy person list and the "I want a gun," list, the federal government can send agents to the medical practice or counselors office and get detailed information on the medical condition of the crazy person trying to get a gun to commit mass murder. The whole, "Doctor, patient," confidentiality could be simply suspended by law so that the federal government can have easier access to the records of dangerous, crazy people trying to get guns. Oh...you say, what if Little Timmy is just having trouble with math and the school guidance counselor is helping his parents deal with his low grades? Well, where there is smoke there is fire, or the potential of little Timmy being a crazy mass murderer so it is a good idea for the feds to ask him some "hard" questions about why he may potentially want a gun and kill a lot of people...Is that the correct answer?

No.

I was, for a big chunk of my career, required to have an annual psychological evaluation, along with a more in depth one every five years with my security clearance requalification.

Every time-every time-I was U.S. government certified "sane," and "stable."

I can say-being retired from that kind of work: I am not "sane." I am not "stable."

I don't even know what those words mean. Maybe I'm "stable," but I'm certainly not "sane." Though, of course, you'd be hard-pressed to prove it without some serious revelations on my part-I like white wine with smoked duck, and that's about as "insane" as I'll ever be-on the record. :lol:

It's easy-especially for the more intelligent of us-to fake "sanity." It's relatively easy to know what the "right anwers" are for the battery of questions they throw at individuals to determine their "sanity." I answered those questions honestly, back in 1982, when I hired on at Indian Point #3-and answered them honestly-rather than with "the best answer"-for the first time in my life, and was subjected to a psychological evaluation to detemine if I was worthy and capable of performing my job as a nuclear power plant operator. I learned my lesson, and never answered the damn questionairre honestly again-I gave the "best answer" for each question, and maintained consitency, and I've been certified "sane" for 30 odd years now.

And I'm not. I'm really, f%^&#ing not. As the son of two psychiatric professionals, and the subject of several medical studies, I clearly am not, by anyon'e dfinition of the word, "sane."

I'm nuttier than a wagon load of pralines. :lfao:

Of course, I know-like any sociopath-right from wrong, and understand the consequences of my actions-therefore, I do not act.

Most of the time.

I have no inclination, though, for "mass murder." Not because murder is unattractive for me-far from it. But because I recognize that my actions have consequences, and the consequences of an action such as Mr. Holmes's in Aurora don't have a good prospective outcome. In this respect, I'm maybe a little less crazy than he is.

But just a little: in the end, I don't listen to the voices in my head, (most of the time) because I know better-though, occasionally, we're in complete agreement.

 

[Wo Fat]

Ooh...Ooh, I know the answer to this one. Whenever anyone goes to get counseling, psychological or psychiatric, or with a family counselor or social worker, the Doctor, or social worker should be required to submit the names of the patients to a national data base. This data base of course is not to be abused, and used solely for the purpose of tracking those people who may become a threat in the future. Then, you cross reference this national data base of people with mental problems ( a government term, not mine, I'm sure) with the desired national firearms registry of gun owners and background checks. Then, when a name pops up on both the possible crazy person list and the "I want a gun," list, the federal government can send agents to the medical practice or counselors office and get detailed information on the medical condition of the crazy person trying to get a gun to commit mass murder. The whole, "Doctor, patient," confidentiality could be simply suspended by law so that the federal government can have easier access to the records of dangerous, crazy people trying to get guns. Oh...you say, what if Little Timmy is just having trouble with math and the school guidance counselor is helping his parents deal with his low grades? Well, where there is smoke there is fire, or the potential of little Timmy being a crazy mass murderer so it is a good idea for the feds to ask him some "hard" questions about why he may potentially want a gun and kill a lot of people...Is that the correct answer?

Sounds a lot like the No Fly List.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/california-professor-described

Read this.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

IMO..."sanity" is a bell curve situation. Its not a "you are sane or you are not" situation, its an average of acceptable behavior. YMMV.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[Razor]

No.

I can say-being retired from that kind of work: I am not "sane." I am not "stable."

I thought this post by Elder hit the nail on the head with regard to discussing limiting those with mental disorders. Even the scientific community have not agreed on what "sane" and "insane" are and who fits in to which category. Certainly just having a mental illness does not classify somebody as one or the other. I don't think there is any meaningful discrimination that can be made yet for mental disorder, as it is extremely difficult to classify and we're not even close yet.

 

[Steve]

We may be able to come up with a compromise of sorts. In line with my comments above, I think most of the regulation needs to be on the unstable, insane, loonies, whatever you choose to call them. We used to do that until the lawyers went to bat for them. Now we have people wandering the streets who are deficient in taking care of themselves. Some of them become a danger to others since they will commit crimes in their attempts to take care of themselves.

Mind you, some of the past state run mental hospitals were not resorts for the inmates, and the doctors there, wishing to do well or not, weren't given a lot of resources. That would have to be improved. But we would then get a lot of dangerous people off the streets. We would have to try and be sure people weren't just conveniently forgotten there as often happened in the past. Also, that they are treated humanely and treated by best practices for their condition.

Nothing easy about the above, but I think we should really try to find a solution along those lines. Why should those of us who claim, and hopefully demonstrate 'normalness,' be the ones inconvenienced? Why should those in need of help, not get it, even if they don't realize they need it. Again, slippery slopes, but I think that is something that can be done correctly if we think about it and involve the correct people in writing laws.

Historically, a lot of these changes are rooted in many of the sweeping reforms that occurred under Reagan in the 80s. Funding cuts, legal reforms and changes to the definition of disability allowing drug addicts and alcoholics to receive "disability" benefits led to a reduction in the number of people committed in mental health facilities, funding cuts to the facilities that remained, a flood of homelessness as mentally ill individuals were summarily dumped on the streets and subsequently "funded" through welfare, causing a sharp spike in the number of people receiving State and Federal needs based assistance.

In order to address the issue, we're going to have to start dealing with mental illness for what it is: illness. If someone has cancer, we would all expect that person to get help, to potentially struggle, to experience set backs and if needed, to get help through charitable foundations. People who have a mental illness, particularly something like bipolar disorder or depression, are typically not seen as being legitimately ill. They should buck up, get over it, stop malingering and get on with it.

The struggle, as has already been noted, is one of personal liberties. Involuntarily committing someone who has yet to commit a crime is serious business. Arbitrarily deciding that someone who hasn't yet done something illegal should be detained indefinitely because they could is a big deal.

No easy answers on this one, but I'm enjoying the conversation.

 

[oftheherd1]

I am pretty sure that most 'unstable' people do not consider themselves a problem either....until much later, after the fog has cleared and the victims are counted.

Is that the solution you propose?

 

[oftheherd1]

Historically, a lot of these changes are rooted in many of the sweeping reforms that occurred under Reagan in the 80s. Funding cuts, legal reforms and changes to the definition of disability allowing drug addicts and alcoholics to receive "disability" benefits led to a reduction in the number of people committed in mental health facilities, funding cuts to the facilities that remained, a flood of homelessness as mentally ill individuals were summarily dumped on the streets and subsequently "funded" through welfare, causing a sharp spike in the number of people receiving State and Federal needs based assistance.

In order to address the issue, we're going to have to start dealing with mental illness for what it is: illness. If someone has cancer, we would all expect that person to get help, to potentially struggle, to experience set backs and if needed, to get help through charitable foundations. People who have a mental illness, particularly something like bipolar disorder or depression, are typically not seen as being legitimately ill. They should buck up, get over it, stop malingering and get on with it.

The struggle, as has already been noted, is one of personal liberties. Involuntarily committing someone who has yet to commit a crime is serious business. Arbitrarily deciding that someone who hasn't yet done something illegal should be detained indefinitely because they could is a big deal.

No easy answers on this one, but I'm enjoying the conversation.

I agree mental illness is just that, an illness. But I don't think it can be compared to cancer or other non-mental illnesses. We generally presume the cancer patient can make a well reasoned choice to get medical help or not. That choice is often given to prostate cancer patients who can reasonably be expected to die from other causes before dying of prostate cancer. I don't know that what you say about people with mental illness being expected to just buck up and get on with it. I haven't found that to be a prevalent attitude in my circles. Especially bipolar and depression. Some can be helped with treatments that allow them to function pretty normally. But again, we generally presume a person with a mental illness has a diminished capacity to make rational decisions.

I don't think people should be committed simply because they might commit a crime. That would be all of us. But we can commit a person who not only does not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions, but in fact has demonstrated, or who has an illness that has been demonstrated, to cause dangerously irrational decisions, that are dangerous to the patient or those with whom the patient may come into contact with.

And I agree it is fraught with chances for abuse. They must be guarded against by law, and punished severly if violations found to be committed.

Still, we have no problem with committing criminals to prison to protect society, why should it be different with persons who have dangerous mental illnesses?

Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are no easy answers, but I think it is worthy of discussion. We do need a solution. I just don't agree with the idea that I need to be inconvenienced rather than seeking a solution that tackles or treats the problem. Guns aren't the problem. Dangerously mentaly ill persons are.

 

[granfire]

Is that the solution you propose?

I did not think I suggested a solution.

I did not know I supposed to come up with one.

I actually do have a solution: Nobody owns guns. Then at least you can't shoot people when you flip your lid.

but that is not a popular idea now, is it.

Also, can you make it mandatory that people seeking treatment will be reported?
Looks nice on paper, right?
but here is the thing: we all have our dark thoughts now and then. How we express them I suppose depends on our surroundings. Can we freely tell somebody that we are having dark moments likely nothing much will come off it.
If we have to fear repercussions, will we even share our thoughts? And I am not talking about me, myself and I either....

And, to close the circle, maybe we need to fill in some of the gaping holes in our health care system. For one make programs for mental health more accessable, and last, when it is more accessable you can find the really dangerous people before they run amok.

And of course you will always have the 'normal' person who wakes up one morning with the urge to kill....

 

[Steve]

I agree mental illness is just that, an illness. But I don't think it can be compared to cancer or other non-mental illnesses. We generally presume the cancer patient can make a well reasoned choice to get medical help or not.

The point I was driving at is when people have a mental illness, because we can't see it, we presume that it's pseudo-science or what have you. This goes for people who have mental illness. Because our country ALSO has a tendency to treat symptoms, a person with a mental illness will take medication that helps, feel better and pronounce themselves cured, stop taking their medication and end the cycle with an inevitable psychotic break that lands them in a hospital for a few days (at least) until they can get their meds stabilized.

That choice is often given to prostate cancer patients who can reasonably be expected to die from other causes before dying of prostate cancer. I don't know that what you say about people with mental illness being expected to just buck up and get on with it. I haven't found that to be a prevalent attitude in my circles. Especially bipolar and depression. Some can be helped with treatments that allow them to function pretty normally. But again, we generally presume a person with a mental illness has a diminished capacity to make rational decisions.

I don't think people should be committed simply because they might commit a crime. That would be all of us. But we can commit a person who not only does not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions, but in fact has demonstrated, or who has an illness that has been demonstrated, to cause dangerously irrational decisions, that are dangerous to the patient or those with whom the patient may come into contact with.

And I agree it is fraught with chances for abuse. They must be guarded against by law, and punished severly if violations found to be committed.

Still, we have no problem with committing criminals to prison to protect society, why should it be different with persons who have dangerous mental illnesses?

Committing people with a dangerous mental illness to prison? Because they have committed no crimes. Again, the quandary here is that our country, at least in principle, espouses personal liberty as a default position. I shouldn't go to prison because I might break a law. I go to prison because I broke a law and was convicted in a court of law.