Mentally Ill Patients, Not Guns Are Shooting Culprit

[Wilber]

Where did this number one million come from? Are you talking about existing or new cases of mentally ill people? Are you sure it's only one million? One in five people will suffer a mental illness in their lifetime meaning many will suffer their illness long after they have accumulated their guns.

How do you intend to test gun owners on a regular basis for mental fitness? Who will register gun owners so that mental fitness certificates could be issued, States/Provinces or Federal governments? Who will pay for and build, maintain and staff the institutions, bureaucracies, hospitals and treatment facilities?

The same people who abhor the idea of public funding for universal medical care seem to have no problem finding the money to put more people behind bars.

[sharkman]

Where did this number one million come from? Are you talking about existing or new cases of mentally ill people? Are you sure it's only one million? One in five people will suffer a mental illness in their lifetime meaning many will suffer their illness long after they have accumulated their guns.

How do you intend to test gun owners on a regular basis for mental fitness? Who will register gun owners so that mental fitness certificates could be issued, States/Provinces or Federal governments? Who will pay for and build, maintain and staff the institutions, bureaucracies, hospitals and treatment facilities?

Exactly. That is to say, how badly do you want to stop the mass murders? Mental records already exist of the mentally ill, I thought you would know this.

Edited October 12, 2015 by sharkman

[kimmy]

Exactly. That is to say, how badly do you want to stop the mass murders? Mental records already exist of the mentally ill, I thought you would know this.

What are you proposing here? Everybody who has ever received treatment for mental health issues should go on some kind of watch-list?

Leaving aside the obvious privacy concerns, have you considered the potential impact of flagging everybody who seeks treatment for mental health issues as a potential hazard?

Voluntary self-reporting is the first and by far most common way for people to get help for mental health problems. Only when things have already gone badly do people get mental health treatment through other means.

And it is hard enough already for people to talk to their doctor about feelings of depression or anxiety. Even people who really ought to see a doctor often talk themselves out of it ("It's just regular feelings, everybody has them", "I can get through this without help", "I'll feel like a wimp if I go cry to my doctor about this", "everybody will think I'm nuts", etc.)

How much harder will it be to convince people who need help to talk to their doctors if you add potential loss of rights and freedoms to the reasons people already find to avoid seeking help?

-k

[kimmy]

I recall when I brought up mental illnesses with regards to these shootings and many who seem to agree now were not in that mindset previously.

What changed?

What specifically are you referring to? I seem to recall previous discussions of mental illness and mass shootings involved a member here blaming everything on "big pharma!" as "the Mass Murder Suicide Pills!!!" were obviously responsible for everything.

-k

[jbg]

I recall when I brought up mental illnesses with regards to these shootings and many who seem to agree now were not in that mindset previously.

What changed?

When was that? I respect your posts but don't photographically remember all of them.

[eyeball]

Exactly. That is to say, how badly do you want to stop the mass murders? Mental records already exist of the mentally ill, I thought you would know this.

Further to the issues kimmy raised, how do you deal with people who become ill after they've accumulated guns?

How do you convince them to seek help if they're afraid they'll lose their guns by doing so?

[sharkman]

Do the violently deranged people have the same rights to guns? Should law abiding people be at risk for theater shoot outs, high school and college military style assault weapon attacks? If your spouse/child/parent was murdered along with 25 others while at a mall by a person with mental illnesses who threw away his pills, should the mall staff or a private contractor ultimately clean up the blood?

Edited October 12, 2015 by sharkman

[Wilber]

Do the violently deranged people have the same rights to guns? Should law abiding people be at risk for theater shoot outs, high school and college military style assault weapon attacks? If your spouse/child/parent was murdered along with 25 others while at a mall by a person with mental illnesses who threw away his pills, should the mall staff or a private contractor ultimately clean up the blood?

Of course violently deranged people shouldn't have the same rights to guns, but in USA mentally ill people have the same right to privacy and doctor patient confidentiality as gun owners do to their guns.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Wilber

[SpankyMcFarland]

The OP is spot on about mental illness and the capacity to deal with high risk individuals.

According to a 2002 report by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:

-- Austria, 175

-- Finland, 218

-- Germany, 175

-- Sweden, 114

-- England, 93

The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S. -- voluntarily or involuntarily -- is: 17.

Is there a link?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Community care can work if properly resourced, which it usually is not. In the US, individual rights have trumped concerns for health and safety and psychiatric care has been neglected. The pendulum has swung too far away from institutional care because it is expensive and unpleasant to think about. Some patients still need hospitalization and there are nowhere near enough beds available, even in Canada.

In the specific matter of mental illness and homicide, the key group is a tiny fraction of mentally ill people - young, male, paranoid schizophrenics who are not taking their medication and are showing evidence of aggression. For such patients, a more paternalistic approach is justified, in my opinion, to protect them and society.

Edited November 7, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland