You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sandy Hook shooting report released
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
johnelmore
New member
Should someone be able to walk around free although their medical condition may effect others negatively? Lets say I had a deadly strain of some new contagious disease. Would you defend my rights to walk around in public?
I know the issues are complex, but I dont think a society can throw up their hands and simply not address it. First responders every day see the obvious issue of mental illness. In fact, if mental illness were not an issue in society then there would be a lot less first responders on the job. That is the reality.
I know the issues are complex, but I dont think a society can throw up their hands and simply not address it. First responders every day see the obvious issue of mental illness. In fact, if mental illness were not an issue in society then there would be a lot less first responders on the job. That is the reality.
johnelmore said:Should someone be able to walk around free although their medical condition may effect others negatively? Lets say I had a deadly strain of some new contagious disease. Would you defend my rights to walk around in public?
Apples are red, Bananas are yellow.
You are comparing the behavior of a biological contagion (typically of the single celled bacterial variety) with the complexities of human behavior.
Glenn nailed it earlier:
As far as predicting violence - that is a terrible problem as no known measures can do so except for a history of past violence. The risk of false positives is tremendous.
What you have been suggesting is that we institutionalize people who may be a danger, but with no hard evidence. Bacteria are simple organisms that act much more predictably than humans. We know how bacteria act in the human body, and how they spread. We know a lot of triggers that can cause someone to become violent, but the number of false positives would be unacceptable.
johnelmore said:I know the issues are complex, but I dont think a society can throw up their hands and simply not address it.
I agree, but a response without regard for the rights of all persons involved is just as reprehensible as doing nothing.
This is not the first time we have run into this dilemma. During WWII, the US Government decided to intern 100,000+ people of Japanese decent, many of them American Citizens. Was there a real threat? Probably, but the act of incarcerating the innocent minority to protect the majority has NO PLACE in the our country. Whether we discriminate based on race, mental illness, or lifestyle, we cannot infringe on the rights of others until they present an immediate risk to the community as a whole.
From my point of view, here are some of my proposed solutions:
1) Operationalize the definitions of mental illness that would disenfranchise someone of their right to own a firearm. Currently,
In this case, all the decision in placed on a judge, working in conjunction with mental health professionals. I would like to see the definitions more strictly behavioral, describing more clearly the behaviors that would provide clear parameters for judges to make their decisions. Examples might include: having a chronic history (more than 4 in 2 years; one of which muct be involuntary) of inpatient hospitalizaion for threats to self or others, abuse of drugs or alchol, or inability to carry out daily tasks due to psychosis; being found permanently disabled due to mental illness; etc.
2) Improve State compliance with the sharing of mental health records, giving NICS the information they need to process Instant Background Checks.
3) Notify a person, in writing, when they have been found to meet the criteria disqualifying them from gun ownership, and explain the process for regaining those rights, by following up with prescribed treatment, recieving reccomendations from both family and professional references, and a review from an independent qualified mental health professional.
4) Incentivize EAP benefits with employers, and perhaps open them up to high schools making it easier for teens to access mental health services.
5) Improve the Medicaid system, so that persons with persistant mental illness are not relegated to community mental health programs.
6) Ban the practice of administratively discharging patients who miss 2-3 consecutive appointments without allowing them to return for a period of time.
These are just a few, but from my experience, these would all improve the mental health system related to firearms.
1) Operationalize the definitions of mental illness that would disenfranchise someone of their right to own a firearm. Currently,
ATF and US Code 922 said:
- Is a danger to himself or to others
- Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs
- Is found insane by a court in a criminal case
- Is found incompentant to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility, persuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 850a, 876b
In this case, all the decision in placed on a judge, working in conjunction with mental health professionals. I would like to see the definitions more strictly behavioral, describing more clearly the behaviors that would provide clear parameters for judges to make their decisions. Examples might include: having a chronic history (more than 4 in 2 years; one of which muct be involuntary) of inpatient hospitalizaion for threats to self or others, abuse of drugs or alchol, or inability to carry out daily tasks due to psychosis; being found permanently disabled due to mental illness; etc.
2) Improve State compliance with the sharing of mental health records, giving NICS the information they need to process Instant Background Checks.
3) Notify a person, in writing, when they have been found to meet the criteria disqualifying them from gun ownership, and explain the process for regaining those rights, by following up with prescribed treatment, recieving reccomendations from both family and professional references, and a review from an independent qualified mental health professional.
4) Incentivize EAP benefits with employers, and perhaps open them up to high schools making it easier for teens to access mental health services.
5) Improve the Medicaid system, so that persons with persistant mental illness are not relegated to community mental health programs.
6) Ban the practice of administratively discharging patients who miss 2-3 consecutive appointments without allowing them to return for a period of time.
Side story: the above is very real in my state. The community mental health provider for outpatient psychiatric services will kick someone out if they miss 2-3 appointments, and will not let them come back for 6 months or more. Further, since Medicaid pays so little, most private facilities won't accept it at all, and even fewer for adults. 6 months without medications for the chronicaly mentally ill is asinine. I understand their logic, but I still hate it. [/rant]
These are just a few, but from my experience, these would all improve the mental health system related to firearms.
What if there is no pattern, no 20/20 hindsight, no game plan?
I'm 42 years old, in the 99th percentile in most every test, and I still do not understand the choices, the impulses, depressions, unshakeable memes and surprise emotions I've weathered as a human being.
I think we are all a stone's throw from the chasm Lanza, Oswald and all the rest fell into.
We may have to accept this kind of evil as something we all carry as the downside to free will. Maybe some of the outrage is just the sense you can't live amongst other people without this happening now and then because we are all carriers of the disease.
I'm 42 years old, in the 99th percentile in most every test, and I still do not understand the choices, the impulses, depressions, unshakeable memes and surprise emotions I've weathered as a human being.
I think we are all a stone's throw from the chasm Lanza, Oswald and all the rest fell into.
We may have to accept this kind of evil as something we all carry as the downside to free will. Maybe some of the outrage is just the sense you can't live amongst other people without this happening now and then because we are all carriers of the disease.
leadcounsel
Moderator
I'll also add that there should be a de-stigmatizing of getting MH treatment.
I think this prevents many from seeking help.
I think this prevents many from seeking help.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As a veteran, I am seeing the backlash from the post-Sandy Hook (and post-sandbox) incident. The VA Healthcare System is making an effort to get as many veterans as possible (an outreach aimed primarily at those veterans who have recently served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan) to sign up for PTSD treatment. Given the number of veteran/returnee suicides, spousal abuse/assault/murder incidents, and other problems that can probably be attributed to PTSD, this would appear to be a laudable program.
The dark side is that, at the same time the VA is actively trying to diagnose as many veterans as possible with PTSD, other elements of the government (the Congress) are trying to enact laws that will automatically classify anyone diagnosed with PTSD as being permanently ineligible to possess firearms -- for life.
Understandably, the prospect of being prohibited FOR LIFE from ever touching a firearm is a powerful disincentive for veterans to sign up for the help that they [some of them] need. It's a classic Catch-22.
Sure, it's easy to opine that head cases shouldn't be allowed to have [access to] guns. The problem is that there isn't any bright line, and determining which cases are sufficiently dangerous to justify terminating their constitutional right to self-defense is a sticky issue.
The dark side is that, at the same time the VA is actively trying to diagnose as many veterans as possible with PTSD, other elements of the government (the Congress) are trying to enact laws that will automatically classify anyone diagnosed with PTSD as being permanently ineligible to possess firearms -- for life.
Understandably, the prospect of being prohibited FOR LIFE from ever touching a firearm is a powerful disincentive for veterans to sign up for the help that they [some of them] need. It's a classic Catch-22.
Sure, it's easy to opine that head cases shouldn't be allowed to have [access to] guns. The problem is that there isn't any bright line, and determining which cases are sufficiently dangerous to justify terminating their constitutional right to self-defense is a sticky issue.
Aguila Blanca said:The dark side is that, at the same time the VA is actively trying to diagnose as many veterans as possible with PTSD, other elements of the government (the Congress) are trying to enact laws that will automatically classify anyone diagnosed with PTSD as being permanently ineligible to possess firearms -- for life.
The very idea that someone would be barred from anything based on a diagnosis is laughable, which makes it a perfect plan for Congress to take on.
Every mental health diagnosis is a spectrum in terms of severity, PTSD included. Some folks with PTSD are completely unable to function because of the hypervigilance, flash backs, and night terrors. Other have much more mild symptoms that require some effort to negotiate, but can be managed. Assuming that both ends of the spectrum are equally dangerous is contrary to everything we know about mental illness.
cannonfire
New member
The dark side is that, at the same time the VA is actively trying to diagnose as many veterans as possible with PTSD, other elements of the government (the Congress) are trying to enact laws that will automatically classify anyone diagnosed with PTSD as being permanently ineligible to possess firearms -- for life.
And it's not just rights that are threatened. We are talking about men and women who joined to serve their country and voluntarily expose themselves to some terrible things, then are expected to come back to society unchanged. So they develop PTSD and seek help, but now their job and possibly their careers are in danger. So to admit you need help you are risking life liberties and your job/career. To some it's not worth seeking help.
Every mental health diagnosis is a spectrum in terms of severity, PTSD included. Some folks with PTSD are completely unable to function because of the hypervigilance, flash backs, and night terrors. Other have much more mild symptoms that require some effort to negotiate, but can be managed.
Exactly. 6 months after I came back from Iraq in 2008 I was diagnosed with PTSD. My symptoms? I couldn't sleep. To I turned to drinking (hoping to get drunk just to get a couple of hours of sleep). I drank in my home and was not a danger to anyone. I wasn't homicidal, suicidal, or violent. I wasn't drinking away my memories, only doing it to sleep. At the time I went to school full time and worked for UPS. I still think I was productive, maybe not to my best ability but I was able to function. Should I be classified with someone who is homicidal, suicidal, or violent who can't survive on their own? Well my medical records say the samething as those guys. July/2009 diagnosed with PTSD.
That is in my records for good. I'm trying to get back into the military (got out to get my degree) and guess what, because I couldn't sleep 4 years ago huge red flags are flying up.
My point is that we are looking at this in hindsight. In order to prevent every crime committed by the mentally ill we have to have incarcerate (for lack of a better term) every person who shows the slightest sign of abnormality and who gets to decide what's normal? Personally I could make the arguement that anyone who joins a combat arms branch of the military, becomes a police officer or fireman are at the very least slightly abnormal.
Last edited:
In order to prevent every crime committed by the mentally ill we have to have incarcerate (for lack of a better term) every person who shows the slightest sign of abnormality and who gets to decide what's normal?
That is exactly what we did for many years. Many children with disabilities were taken at birth or at a very young age and warehoused in horrific conditions for the rest of their lives. Parents were generally told to forget about them and move on. It is a shameful and largely ignored chapter in our history. It was not back in the dark ages either. Significant change did not start tell around 1970 and one of the institutions, Willowbrook, that was under significant scrutiny from the media and legal actions did not actually close tell 1987.
SPEMack618
New member
The VA does some good stuff and has good doctors working for them, but they are on a kick about PTSD.
Got a few chunks of Humvee in my knee in the sandbox. About a year after I had been back, my knee really started hurting during a fraternity softball game. Went to the VA, and spent more time answering questionaires about how much I sleep(college frat boy, not much) and how I drank (college frat boy, a lot) than getting my knee checked on. It was rather aggravating.
Until the stigma of mental health issues is removed, which will require a tremendous cultural shift in this country, we aren't going to see any meaningful change.
In regards to the police report, the banality of evil with that bastard is just sickening. And sort of troubling, I have a drawer full of magazines and random boxes of half shot shotgun shells sitting out and about.
And an old Nintendo thats get a lot of use, too.
Got a few chunks of Humvee in my knee in the sandbox. About a year after I had been back, my knee really started hurting during a fraternity softball game. Went to the VA, and spent more time answering questionaires about how much I sleep(college frat boy, not much) and how I drank (college frat boy, a lot) than getting my knee checked on. It was rather aggravating.
Until the stigma of mental health issues is removed, which will require a tremendous cultural shift in this country, we aren't going to see any meaningful change.
In regards to the police report, the banality of evil with that bastard is just sickening. And sort of troubling, I have a drawer full of magazines and random boxes of half shot shotgun shells sitting out and about.
And an old Nintendo thats get a lot of use, too.
johnelmore
New member
PTSD is something which effects people differently. Ive seen dead people and it was depressing. I had bad dreams for a few days, but then it went away and I dont feel different. While others who witness violent episodes or gory scenes somehow it sticks with them for life. PTSD can be permanent but it can also be temporary.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
1. Before people pontificate on Asperger's - be aware that that diagnosis has been removed from the DSM-V. There is now just the Autism Spectrum.
2. I am also uncomfortable with folks discussing the psychological/psychiatric problems of a relative or friend without their explicit permission.
Please do not do such in the future. One doesn't know who might pick up such from the Internet.
2. I am also uncomfortable with folks discussing the psychological/psychiatric problems of a relative or friend without their explicit permission.
Please do not do such in the future. One doesn't know who might pick up such from the Internet.
motorhead0922
New member
This seems to be a recurring theme: when a shooter is confronted or knows that confrontation is imminent (in this case by hearing sirens nearby), he checks out. Facing the confrontation doesn't seem to be an option.Report said:It was fewer than five minutes from the first 911 call, and one minute after the arrival of the first officer, that the shooter killed himself.
I just dont see the point here guys, you could study the mentally ill and laws and statistics but what good is that gonna do when a sane normal kid shoots up his school. If you think the only people capable of mass shootings are the mentally ill you got a screw loose. Why not concentrate on keeping your kids safe?
I just dont see the point here guys, you could study the mentally ill and laws and statistics but what good is that gonna do when a sane normal kid shoots up his school. If you think the only people capable of mass shootings are the mentally ill you got a screw loose. Why not concentrate on keeping your kids safe?
Good point. We have made schools gun-free zones, and deliberately discouraged kids from acting independently to save themselves. In most school shootings kids who ran away, scattered survived unless they ran right into the shooter. But for the most part it seems we actively disable kids' natural instinct for survival and put them at greater risk. An actual plan for student safety and not CYA would be even better.
johnelmore
New member
I do know that most people do not actually know PTSD, Aspergers and many other such conditions/illnesses. These are complex medical situations which are best left for doctors and specialized persons to pontificate. That said, as a non-medical professional, I do not believe either PTSD or Aspergers to be illnesses associated with violence.
If Lanza had a cavity in his tooth then it would be ridiculous to believe that that caused the violent situation. I believe its just as ridiculous to believe that Aspergers had anything to do with this violent event. He probably had other conditions which caused the tragic event.
What we can deduct is that Lanza's mother was trying to protect others from her son. She knew that Lanza was violent. She made a mistake and tried to handle the situation in her own way by herself. She should have discussed the matter with the police and medical professionals. She certainly should not have had firearms around her son even in locked cabinets. Those should have been stored off-site away from her son. She didnt handle this situation properly. If you know someone has violent tendencies then you should do the right thing and convey your beliefs to the authorities.
This is a matter of someone being violently mentally ill and a loved one not properly alerting the right people about the situation. If I had a violently ill son then the right thing to do would to discuss the situation with the police and medical professionals in great detail. Handling the situation on your own in your home is not the right thing to do.
Can a person in their right mind go into a crowded place and start shooting others? In my mind, I do not believe so. Readying firearms, planning an attack, carrying out the attack, etc. is a deliberate act which requires a lot of work and action. I do not believe someone in their right mind is capable of coming to a logical conclusion that this is the right thing to do. My belief is that something must be wrong with this individual.
If Lanza had a cavity in his tooth then it would be ridiculous to believe that that caused the violent situation. I believe its just as ridiculous to believe that Aspergers had anything to do with this violent event. He probably had other conditions which caused the tragic event.
What we can deduct is that Lanza's mother was trying to protect others from her son. She knew that Lanza was violent. She made a mistake and tried to handle the situation in her own way by herself. She should have discussed the matter with the police and medical professionals. She certainly should not have had firearms around her son even in locked cabinets. Those should have been stored off-site away from her son. She didnt handle this situation properly. If you know someone has violent tendencies then you should do the right thing and convey your beliefs to the authorities.
This is a matter of someone being violently mentally ill and a loved one not properly alerting the right people about the situation. If I had a violently ill son then the right thing to do would to discuss the situation with the police and medical professionals in great detail. Handling the situation on your own in your home is not the right thing to do.
Can a person in their right mind go into a crowded place and start shooting others? In my mind, I do not believe so. Readying firearms, planning an attack, carrying out the attack, etc. is a deliberate act which requires a lot of work and action. I do not believe someone in their right mind is capable of coming to a logical conclusion that this is the right thing to do. My belief is that something must be wrong with this individual.
RodTheWrench
New member
The only thing that can stop things like this is the family. Care enough, be concerned enough, get help if you can't do it alone, but if a loved one is displaying these behaviors, they need evaluated, monitored and given the HELP they NEED. Also, and I think this is obvious to pretty much EVERYONE here, but PLEASE secure your firearms! Don't cry to me about your right to do whatever you want inside your own home, this situation BEGGED for Mom to take control of her family's safety and that of her son, and ultimately that of everyone around them by LOCKING UP the guns. Control access, or the government will control you. Nuff said.
Shooting up a school is not something "sane, normal" people do.what good is that gonna do when a sane normal kid shoots up his school.
Sane, normal people don't start businesses, do solo ocean crossings, run for political office or heli-ski. It is very easy to say someone is insane because they did something insane, but up until the moment they decided to do it they are just like the rest of us, so that isn't a statement with any predictive value.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.