Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[spydy13]

I agree about keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but I think your approach sounds much better in theory than it would be in practice. When you actually start thinking about how it would work on a one on one level, there are some pretty obvious problems. I've had the opportunity to work with a fair number of psychologists over the years, and some problems kind of jump out.

First, there's the administrative aspect. Exactly how many shrinks is this going to take, and what would the backlog be? Let's say 10,000 people in Cuyahoga County want to buy weapons -- hardly an unrealistic number. How the hell do you actually examine all of them?

And, who decides which shrink evaluates each person? Do you just go and get a certificate from a shrink saying that you didn't appear nuts in the one hour interview he had, or are shrinks assigned to each person by someone in the government? And do you see how easy it would be for politics/bias of the appointing authority (and the various shrinks) to taint that process? You'd have those favoring gun control appointing shrinks who feel the same, and who would be pre-disposed to disqualify. Then you'd have others who support gun rights appointing/assigning shrinks who feel the same. It would be an out and out politicization of psychologists..

Second, consider the substance. Psychologists generally focus much more on treatment than on forensic diagnoses They count on the people they examine to (generally) tell them the truth. That's perfectly reasonable given the usual doctor/patient relationship where the patient is coming to the doctor for help. They want to see the shrink, and most shrinks will tell you that they need their patients to be honest if they're going to diagnose/treat them correctly

But what you're proposing is something entirely different -- people being compelled to see the shrink if they want a license. They have zero incentive to reveal their inner thoughts or to be honest. They just want to say whatever is necessary to get them in and out as fast as possible. And most psychologists are not forensic psychologists trained or practiced in ferreting out patient lies, etc...

Now, that obviously happens with criminals, although those shrinks usually are forensic shrinks. But those involuntarily referrals are much different because the forensic shrink has been provided with a specific factual history of whatever criminal/unusual/antisocial behaviors that criminal demonstrated that got them referred to the shrink in the first place. There's a clear starting point of "why did you engage in these behaviors", etc...

But for the average man or woman being sent to a shrink for the gun stamp of approval, there's none of that. There's no obvious criminal/antisocial act or course of conduct that led to the referral, so there's no basis to question the mental competency of the person. And I'd bet the vast majority of shrinks (if they're being honest and not trying to get on a government gravy-train of massive, required mental exams) will tell you that having people come in for some cursory mental health exame is going to be pretty pointless.

In a surprisingly large number of crazy shooter cases, the shooters actually were already referred to some mental health professional by a family member, etc.. It's just that there either wasn't enough follow-up, or the diagnosed mental problems were never passed along to those responsible for background checks. If you wanted to propose some mandate, maybe just mandate that such stuff be reported. In most cases now, that's voluntary.

To avoid bias you would probably have to have some sort of panel, but you're right that it would be a much better idea to focus those people on people we presume mentally ill rather than people who are probably of sound mind. If we get through those backlogs and actually report that info to the database then we would have a better chance of keeping the wrong people from getting guns and more importantly getting those people the help they need.

As I said in that post, this clearly isn't a good idea from a feasibility or legal standpoint. Even the gun control advocates on here haven't run with it.

I refuse to believe though that there is nothing we can do to stop these crazed gunmen from killing random people. Obviously though, my suggestion is not the answer.

 

[The Oi]

Its not about mentally ill people committing crimes at a higher rate, its about not allowing a child to play with fire.

Exactly.

Just to continue the child concept...why don't people allow children who are untrained in handling guns to handle guns? Or to handle them without supervision?

Because you can't trust them. They could make a mistake and it might not even be their fault or intentional.

Mentally ill people would be more likely to use them ON PURPOSE than to take actions totally devoid of any blame. But the fact of the matter is that there's nothing wrong with making it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns, to own guns.

If you're qualified to own a gun, you'll get one. And it'll take what...a couple weeks?

 

[Otsego Mar]

As I said in that post, this clearly isn't a good idea from a feasibility or legal standpoint. Even the gun control advocates on here haven't run with it.

I refuse to believe though that there is nothing we can do to stop these crazed gunmen from killing random people. Obviously though, my suggestion is not the answer.

Arm yourself. Very simple.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Is there any evidence that the mentally ill commit crimes at a higher rate?

Yes, though it is remarkably difficult to find, which illustrates one of the problems with screening, and with trusting psychologists more generally.

Psychologists are generally concerned primarily with the welfare of their patients, and so a ton of the literature is directed towards eliminating stereotypes that stigmatize the mentally ill.

So when you start looking (which I just did), you find all sorts of agenda-driven articles about how small a percentage of crimes are committed by the mentally ill, how the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime, etc.. Most of the people in the field are trying to avoid stigmatizing, so they try their best to avoid addressing the issue you raise - are the mentally ill more likely to commit crimes?

Here's an article I found that exemplifies this perfectly - I couldn't get the URL so just Google the title:

Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms

After reading through all the advocacy, you finally do get to this:

Evidence strongly suggests that mass shooters are often mentally ill and
socially marginalized. Enhanced psychiatric attention may well prevent particular crimes.

While I support a huge effort to address mental health issues in this county, it seems to be a total red herring from the NRA to shift the conversation away from gun control.

I think that's unfair. One of the first criticisms/comments that pop up within the non-NRA media and public is "we shouldn't let crazy people get guns" followed by statements about how the NRA opposes gun control.

The clear implication by many in the media, and the assumption by some of the.public, is that the NRA is fine with crazy people getting guns. The NRA is simply responding to that expressed concern.

So to the extent you think it is just a red herring, it is not one of the NRA's creation.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Full disclosure, I am approaching the idea from a legal perspective. The government has a very large burden of proof to curtail basic individual constitutional rights. I'm not so sure a broad limitation on gun rights for the mentally ill would pass an intermediate scrutiny test absent evidence that they are committing crimes at a much higher rate.

Yeah, that's completely accurate. Generally, you're going to need a legal finding by a judge, in a proceeding at which the subject has a chance to respond, that the person is dangerous. The bald statement of a shrink won't cut it.

 

[The Oi]

I think it's common sense to suggest that anyone who commits mass murder is mentally ill. Hard to justify otherwise.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

To avoid bias you would probably have to have some sort of panel, but you're right that it would be a much better idea to focus those people on people we presume mentally ill rather than people who are probably of sound mind. If we get through those backlogs and actually report that info to the database then we would have a better chance of keeping the wrong people from getting guns and more importantly getting those people the help they need.

As I said in that post, this clearly isn't a good idea from a feasibility or legal standpoint. Even the gun control advocates on here haven't run with it.

I refuse to believe though that there is nothing we can do to stop these crazed gunmen from killing random people. Obviously though, my suggestion is not the answer.

What is.most frustrating is when you have an actual legal finding of dangerousness, and it doesn't get put into the system. I think we all agree that needs to be fixed.

 

[gourimoko]

Yes, though it is remarkably difficult to find, which illustrates one of the problems with screening, and with trusting psychologists more generally.

False. In fact, it's so false; I don't know why you would say "yes, though it's remarkably difficult to find" - and then go on to say you don't trust those qualified to make such measurements.

Psychologists are generally concerned primarily with the welfare of their patients, and so a ton of the literature is directed towards eliminating stereotypes that stigmatize the mentally ill.

This is also false, and more likely, you just made that up.

The vast majority of the mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crimes than those that aren't mentally ill.

Finding links for studies isn't hard.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/mental-illness-crime.aspx

The only reason you think it's hard is because you're trying to cherry-pick surveys that fit your narrative while ignoring the vast majority of research done on the topic.

That's not scientific nor is it critical analysis; in fact, that's the opposite of being scientific.

 

[gourimoko]

I think it's common sense to suggest that anyone who commits mass murder is mentally ill. Hard to justify otherwise.

People here are wanting to say the mentally ill are somehow more dangerous than others and more likely to commit crimes.

"Mentally ill" encompasses quite a few different disorders, and a great deal of the posts here are blatantly ignorant. I don't mean that in an offensive way; I mean, we've essentially got people talking about things they know very little about.

But I think the question we need to answer first is why does society look to blame some segment of the population to explain events like this?

 

[RonG]

People here are wanting to say the mentally ill are somehow more dangerous than others and more likely to commit crimes.

"Mentally ill encompasses" quite a few different disorders, and a great deal of the posts here are blatantly ignorant. I don't mean that in an offensive way; I mean, we've essentially got people talking about things they know very little about.

But I think the question we need to answer first is why does society look to blame some segment of the population to explain events like this?

I am going to ramble this isnt all aimed at you, just conversation.


Gour if your able to use Mental illness as a defense, don't you think we should be able to use it to preventive label? Trust me I understand how slippery that slope is but it has to be considered and vetted .I know we are using mental illness as blanket right now, and that can be cleaned up and defined. This is a jump off point, one more way to to make it a little safer.

Hunter safety is required to be able purchase a hunting license now. I see no reason why you it wouldn't be a good idea to make a gun safety class before you purchase a gun just mimic the hunter safety course make it once a lifetime. The cool-off period is a joke, i fill out my paper work and 30 minutes later I am walking out the door with a gun. This every single purchase we have made (we own 3 hand guns 3 shot guns and 4 bolt action rifles I own 2 assault rifles that I built both are Blackout 308's we use them for hog hunting). All of my purchases were made new, however I have been to gun shows with my Step-dad, who is an avid collector and watched him by a gun from a stranger in 2 minutes... and done. ( only bolt action rifles that i can remember). It is hard to enforce any laws when we can just exchange guns for cash in 2 minutes in public with law enforcement present at all of these gun shows and their hands are tied.

There are some steps that the NRA and conservatives need to recognize and support. To keep beating the drum of the 2nd amendment and not recognize we have major issues that need to be addressed is shameful and irresponsible.

 

[gourimoko]

IGour if your able to use Mental illness as a defense, don't you think we should be able to use it to preventive label? Trust me I understand how slippery that slope is but it has to be considered and vetted .I know we are using mental illness as blanket right now, and that can be cleaned up and defined. This is a jump off point, one more way to to make it a little safer.

But, as you said, that's a very slippery slope.

Mental illness just like mental wellness, is a spectrum of condition. It changes.

One can have genetic predispositions to certain conditions, or it can develop through stress, diet, drug abuse, or simply the ever-changing physiology of the human body; something that is very opaque to us at present.

The argument regarding mental illness being used as a defense is logically rooted in the concept of free will; did this person make a free choice. The degree of illness that a person would suffer from would be beyond that of everyday neurosis and into the rarest forms of psychosis.

My point is that you would very rarely find people who would (1) willingly take such tests if they themselves believed they might fail; and (2) would fail if their intent is not medical treatment but instead evasion.

Someone truly suffering from psychosis, to the point that they can no longer freely and rationally act on their own, is unlikely to premeditate and plan a mass murder - as they can't act rationally. These kinds of persons are instead to act impulsively, and that means if they are going to kill, they wouldn't use a handgun unless they already owned one at some earlier date.

Here's an article of a man very likely was suffering from some degree of severe mental illness:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-5-children-3-adults-in-home-after-standoff/

He killed 6 children and 2 adults, after sneaking into a home, restraining them with handcuffs, then executing them; with a handgun.

But here's the thing.

David Conley had already been arrested, tried, and convicted of Domestic Violence; which federally bars him from even possessing a firearm or anyone from selling or giving him a firearm - even in private sale. There are zero exceptions or loopholes to this rule.

So going back to 2000, Conley was barred from owning a gun; medical examination or not - yet he still managed to get one.

So adding psych tests to those looking to purchase wouldn't have prevented Conley from acquiring a firearm as he didn't do so legally.

More to the point, psychological evaluations are not tests that can weed out deception. If someone is wanting to pass an evaluation, they very likely can do so. Instead, the tests are designed to detect potential cognitive and emotional problems in willing patients; not unwilling criminals.

So this entire conversion makes little sense in that context.

Hunter safety is required to be able purchase a hunting license now.

Hunting and firearm ownership are two different things.

Most firearm owners rarely if ever go hunting, and I'm not really a fan of using hunters as prototypical firearm owners.

I see no reason why you it wouldn't be a good idea to make a gun safety class before you purchase a gun just mimic the hunter safety course make it once a lifetime.

Because you have a civil right to own a firearm; therefore, you should not require a competency test in order to exercise that right.

Another example is competency or literacy tests for voting. Should people be required to be able to read and write before casting a ballot? Should there be federal requirements on journalists to report truthfully? Terrorism is bad so should we be able to ignore constitutional for "obviously" bad people? Drone-strikes against American citizens abroad, sans trial...

There's lots of questions here, that all really have their own slippery slopes.

My single point with this issue, regardless of those others, is that many of these seemingly common-sense restrictions, tests, mandates, etc don't actually solve the problem, they just further entrench the idea of government responsibility over an issue that's best solved by individuals.

I feel the same way about health insurance mandates for private insurance, dodging the tax system solely for political expediency; but that's another topic.

The cool-off period is a joke, i fill out my paper work and 30 minutes later I am walking out the door with a gun.

You live in Texas. I live in California. We have polar opposite laws when it comes to firearm ownership.

I can't even bring my SBR AR-15 from Ohio to L.A.

This every single purchase we have made (we own 3 hand guns 3 shot guns and 4 bolt action rifles I own 2 assault rifles that I built both are Blackout 308's we use them for hog hunting).

For the shotguns, bolt action, and even the assault rifles; I don't feel there should be a waiting period. On the handguns, again, that varies state to state.

I don't agree that all firearms should be subject to a waiting period though.

All of my purchases were made new, however I have been to gun shows with my Step-dad, who is an avid collector and watched him by a gun from a stranger in 2 minutes... and done. ( only bolt action rifles that i can remember).

It's a private sale of a protected item (a firearm) between two consenting adults - what more needs to be said?

It is hard to enforce any laws when we can just exchange guns for cash in 2 minutes in public with law enforcement present at all of these gun shows and their hands are tied.

Did you step-dad go out and kill anybody?

Closing loopholes has nothing to do with preventing crime, Ron. Those people at gun shows are almost entirely law-abiding citizens practicing their second amendment rights.

There are some steps that the NRA and conservatives need to recognize and support.

Like what?

To keep beating the drum of the 2nd amendment and not recognize we have major issues that need to be addressed is shameful and irresponsible.

I take exception to this...

No one is saying we don't have issues; the point is that guns aren't running around killing people on their own.

We have human beings in our society ready and willing to commit acts of murder - addressing that issue solves the problem, not curtailing the freedoms of millions upon millions of lawful owners solely to change the narrative on CNN.

 

[Otsego Mar]

I say we get one of those shrink-rays like in Honey, I shrunk the Kids. That way we can shrink a police officer and put him (or her or heshe/shehe) in our pocket!

 

[David.]

Are you literally always high?

I say we get one of those shrink-rays like in Honey, I shrunk the Kids. That way we can shrink a police man and put him in our pocket!

 

[Otsego Mar]

Are you literally always high?

High on freedom, bro.

Perecived freedom lol.

 

[gourimoko]

I say we get one of those shrink-rays like in Honey, I shrunk the Kids. That way we can shrink a police officer and put him (or her or heshe/shehe) in our pocket!

I'm stealing this..

I love this quote..

Lolololol!!!!