CNN Commentator says Don’t Blame the NRA

B

BarryLee

New member
CNN Commentator Mel Robbins has written an article titled, “The Real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA”. She makes some excellent points, but also touches on some issues that many of us might find problematic. She points out that the recent shooter in California had been reported to authorities, but the police took no real action. She suggests that, “If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation”. Also, she notes that many States do not consistently report mental health data to federal authorities so it isn’t available for NICS.

Obviously there are some legitimate civil rights issues here and when she touches on gun registration it got my attention. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting article. So, what do you folks think about expanding involuntary commitment? What is the threshold and who gets to decide when it’s been met?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/robbins-mental-health/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
 
To be fair, the example used is problematic. Police interviewed the guy, and thought he was normal. Do you think police should be required to take everyone reported to them as nuts to a doctor for an evaluation and possible psych hold even if they seem normal?
 
Florida has "the Baker act". It might not be perfect but it is a definate step in the right direction. It provides for a 3-day lockup/evaluation period if a family member/law enforcement/etc. can demonstrate to a judge that a person is unstable enough to be a danger.
 
BarryLee said:
So, what do you folks think about expanding involuntary commitment? What is the threshold and who gets to decide when it’s been met?
Click to expand...

I guess my answer to the question is another question...Meaning how much are we willing to expand involuntary commitments? Most places if one is in a mental state such as they are an imminent danger to his/herself or another, they can be held for a certain time period in order to be checked by a Dr. When they are just a bit off base mentally, but no imminent threat, there is usually little one can do beyond suggest seeing a Dr and getting checked. What constitutes being off base mentally, and how far? That could be interesting and doubtful people would ever agree. Even if a person is involuntarily committed and then cleared by the Dr, there is still a possibility of the issue remaining. As far as who gets to decide? Here its generally family, LE or a Dr can go to a magistrate/court and show sufficient cause.

Another issue more to the point is, who is at fault when one slips through the cracks or is there a person to fault?
 
Still busy here rolling my tongue up from off the floor.

Standard for denial of fundamental right: "Adjudicated mentally incompetent"... By a judge/court. After notice and opportunity for a full and fair hearing. That should NOT change at all - should NOT be diminished or softened in any way, or it's a slippery slope to abuse of the worst kind.

We can improve our psych healthcare system and help society withOUT the need to change this standard.
 
I agree with her. Look at those responsible and not gunowners or guns. Second, one issue she didn't address is psychotropic medications which seem to be another common factor in these mass shootings.

The trouble with psychiatry is that is is so imprecise. It's too easy for one expert to state that a person is nuts and another to say that it is normal. For me, it's all witchcraft and sorcery.
 
While the article mentioned a number of good, and valid points (including how we don't have a system that can handle what is currently needed, let alone more), one big point was left out.

That that point is the huge potential for abuse, and failure of the system. There needs to be checks & balances in the system.

Simply putting in place a law/rule/regulation making it easier, or even mandatory for an evaluation is a blanket solution that makes some folk warm and comfortably, but will smother others.

Remember that when you are talking about having someone "held for 3 days" and evaluated, or even just interviewed at home, there are 3 different sides in play.

1) The person/people who turned in the report of the "dangerous" person.
2) The "dangerous/unstable" person themselves, and
3) The people doing the evaluating.

ANY (or all) of them could be lying, to suit their own agendas. The potential for abuse is HUGE.
#1, people reporting their "concerns" about someone might not be doing it for altruistic motives. They might be doing it for some personal advantage.
#2 The individual being interviewed might lie, and convince the interviewer that they are safe, sane, and rational, even when they are not.
#3 The person doing the interview, and making the decisions might have their own personal agenda.

The only way I could support something that eases the process, or requires an evaluation, would be if ALL parties involved face the risk of civil or criminal penalties for false statements. NO ANYNONYMOUS tips. If you falsely accuse, you should be held liable.

Sadly, any system which does try to do this is going to discourage some well meaning folks, and that will mean some people who should be looked at, won't be.

It also means that it will be a rare individual evaluator who will render anything other than a "no guns" judgment. Simply because while they might be held responsible for violating someone's rights, they (rightly?) believe that they would be held responsible if they approved someone who later went on a killing rampage.

And the above doesn't consider the "false positives" potentially overwhelming available resources.

keeping Dr. Jekyll under observation for three days may not tell you anything about the existence of Mr. Hyde.

Henry is a charming fellow, fully sane and rational, and not in the least bit violent. You can't keep him locked up simply because his nasty, suspicious nephew (who wants Henry's house) wants you to.

Mr. Hyde, on the other hand is a danger, but you cannot catch him, if you don't see him. Fact is, you can't really prove he exists, if you never see him.

A true Jekyll & Hyde person doesn't "fall through the cracks" in the system, because the system never sees Hyde, only his victims do.

As much as we all want someone to be at fault, beyond Hyde the killer, sometimes no one else really is. Hindsight is 20/20. Foresight is often "legally blind".
 
The problem is in the prediction. Bad measures lead to false positives, vindictive reports and the removal of rights.

Any removal needs some hearing mechanism with counsel unless there is a direct and active threat.

We have no predictors that work except history of past violence, direct threats and hidden arsenals (that's a nasty term but it seems to indicate folks who stash guns without anyone else knowing). The last one (hidden) is problematic but it seems to occur in folks who are planning a rampage. That's why you might need all three.

An interview at your door by police is meaningless unless you go nuts in front of them.

There is no good psychiatric technology to predict in an easy manner that does not violate rights.
 
There are already laws that can have your guns taken at a moments notice. Let your wife, ex-wife or any juvenile even hint to LE that there is any possibility of domestic violence and you will be separated from your guns within hours.

That can and has happened to innocent folks. But for the most part is a rare thing. I'm glad to see the emphasis finally being placed on the real problem and welcome a discussion on how to best do this.

As gun owners this is our chance to be proactive. It is us who need to propose a solution that will quickly remove mentally incompetents from weapons and still find a way to protect lawful, competent individuals. It can be done.
 
Fishing Cabin said:
I guess my answer to the question is another question...Meaning how much are we willing to expand involuntary commitments?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that a 3-day evaluation does not count as a commitment -- voluntary or involuntary. Also, typically a 3-day hold is not ordered by a court pursuant to a full hearing with the patient represented by counsel. In theory, therefore, a 3-day evaluation should not be reported to NICS. The patient would be reported only if the evaluation indicated that the person is a danger, and there was a hearing to impose an involuntary commitment.

However, we have 50 states plus the District of Columbia, so the laws of some states may address this otherwise.
 
As Glenn said, the problem is in the (accurate if not precise) prediction. And we can't or shouldn't lockup everyone who loves guns /hates guns /Obama /Reagan or other like litmus test.
This is a very difficult issue, where I would bet a steak dinner that most at TFL have a relative that they at least privately question their sanity, but hopefully never acted poorly on it.

Texas circa 1986: A relative who was 'a little weird some of time' was at his parents home. A decision had been made by family members to have him committed for a psychiatric evaluation and get him help. He didn't like that idea. This cousin decided otherwise, went and got his dad's shotgun, and we lost an aunt and uncle that day.

I don't know how you could predict that, and I'm not sure a 3 day evaluation would have helped. Everyone knew he was a little different. It wasn't the gun / manufacturer / aunt or uncles fault, it was Cuz's fault. Too bad there isn't a sure-fire equivalent of a metal detector for mental illness. Even with some mental test, there are sites on the internet that tell anyone the "get out of jail" answers to those questions.
 
Last edited:
Read this one from Minn. Almost a classic - we see the worship of Columbine. If you saw that - and planning - it would be an indicator.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/cr...rderous-plans-in-police-interview-5577875.php

But the scary thing is the father:

The teen said he had been planning the attack for more than a year and jotted it down in a notebook that he kept locked in his room.

However, his father told reporters last week that he does not believe his son would have carried out the plan and that there were no signs the teen was troubled.
Click to expand...

There might be more to it and the father might be covering his own rear but it's almost unbelievable.
 
As someone mentioned earlier, a problem is that much of this isn't predictable. If we institutionalize or limit rights based on a standard under which some of these mass killers would have been classified, we'd probably have a good 10 to 20 percent of the U.S. population in the class. No evidence, just a guess. A bunch of weirdos but relatively few seem to be dangerous.
 
“The Real gun problem is mental health..."

No. The real problem is that people have forgotten that there are many risks to living. And, no amount of government is going to eliminate all of the risks of random bad things happening. Sometimes, the cure is far worse than the ill it is trying to eliminate.
 
.. propose a solution that will quickly remove mentally incompetents from weapons and still find a way to protect lawful, competent individuals.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. But we already do that, and pretty well. Because, mental incompetents are not the problem. The problem is people who are mentally competent (meaning functional in society, if not in social skills), who are twisted/evil/sick/flip out, call it what you will.

These people are competent enough, generally, they can drive cars, make change, some have jobs and families, etc. Normal enough on the surface. Its what lies beneath that causes the killings.

The obvious ones, the ones who clearly fixate on evil, brood on it keep journals about it, some tell the world what they plan to do. Those, when discovered, we deal with as the system allows. Yes, that could be, and should be improved.

But the ones who keep it all hidden from friends, family, and the world in general, NO ONE can stop, before they begin their rampage. No system can catch those people, because, until they snap, there is nothing to catch.

Don't fall into the mental trap of thinking that "doing a better job" with the mental health system will stop all of them. It just isn't possible.

And when someone does not come to the attention of our "improved" system, (what ever we wind up with), snaps, and goes on a rampage, at work, at home, in the mall, or a school, etc., the usual suspects are going to scream how the system didn't work, and we need to ban guns.

Again.

yes, we can, and should do better identifying people with problems, getting them help, of whatever kind is needed. But we can't lock everyone in a rubber room, nor should we.
 
you have to remember we are all human and a human is one of the most deadly animals on this planet, we have laws and rules that allow us to live together in society but there is a monster just below the surface in all of us, those bent on evil just let their monster out for all to see, the rest of us keep our monster chained up and ignore all our base instincts to covet and take that which belongs to others and we do our best to live peacefully with our neighbors but even really nice people will turn loose their monster to protect their children and loved ones and will fight until they drop, win or are killed to do so and once they are done they will lock their monster back away and pray that they never need it again. People are what is dangerous weapons are just the tools we use to multiply the force that we can inflect on others. Live in peace but be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones and do not give others a reason to view you as a threat to their safety.
 
Does not matter if they are adjudged nuts or not most of the time. There isn't anywhere to put them. In my state the number of public beds for the mentally ill is in the hundreds with the population being around 5,000,000. If you get locked up by the judge you can end up in jail without ever committing a crime because they don't have anywhere else to put you.

Nobody wants to pay for it so the crazies get booted out at the first opportunity and gets free happy pills. Our mental health system nationwide is a nightmare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top