Oregon Shooter's Family says he suffered from Mental Health problems

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Certain mental illnesses are obvious for "no gun" allowed - those can be the first diagnosis' thrown into the law (that would be a quick action taken by our government). After that it has to start getting broken down. How I am not sure, maybe by self-reporting households regarding "my kid has posted online that he wants to commit "X". Then so on.

Not only that....but we need to look at the side effects of medications prescribed. We are experiencing too many people who are having psychotic breaks when they stop taking their meds, or run out of them.
We need more self reporting.....and we do need to hold families responsible for knowing their kids or family members who have known conditions.

Parkersburg coach Ed Thomas would be alive today, if the kid's family would have had him committed and institutionalized. From all reports, his psychotic breaks were getting more and more violent while he was living at home......and they did nothing.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Brandstad didn't help things by closing institutions down, I am going to guess that 1 or both will be reopened in the near future.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

I agree and disagree. IF you are suspected, but there is no diagnosis....then you can't legally prohibit someone. If there is diagnosis and a trail of medications prescribed, then I agree with erring on the side of caution, until a deeper diagnosis can be made.

I am not an expert on the diagnosis of mental illness and the accuracy of those diagnosis. My opinion if a doctor suspects you are a potential danger to others than he should have the ability to restrict your access to a gun. Your rights do not out weigh the rights of others.

 

[hawkifann]

If you suspect or are diagnosed with mental illness the law should err on the side of restricting the right to a gun. Better to infringe the right of one than to risk the lives of many.

But, again, treat all mental illness the same? Bulimia, anorexia, amnesic disorder, cannabis dependence, bereavement, claustrophobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, nicotine withdrawal, night eating syndrome and stuttering (and many more) are categorized as "mental disorders" by the DSM and/or ICD diagnosis guidelines. Those fall on one extreme of mental illness that someone might seek treatment for. On the other extreme, you'd have things like schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorder and a variety of other serious mental illnesses.

They're not all the same and to implement an effective solution, we'll have to find a place to draw the line.

 

[Vroom_C14]

I am not an expert on the diagnosis of mental illness and the accuracy of those diagnosis. My opinion if a doctor suspects you are a potential danger to others than he should have the ability to restrict your access to a gun. Your rights do not out weigh the rights of others.

No one on here is an "expert" (well some will claim to be) but that isn't what is required - ideas, thoughts and direction are.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

Not only that....but we need to look at the side effects of medications prescribed. We are experiencing too many people who are having psychotic breaks when they stop taking their meds, or run out of them.
We need more self reporting.....and we do need to hold families responsible for knowing their kids or family members who have known conditions.

Parkersburg coach Ed Thomas would be alive today, if the kid's family would have had him committed and institutionalized. From all reports, his psychotic breaks were getting more and more violent while he was living at home......and they did nothing.

The issue is that people who have mental illness take their meds and feel better. They don't like the side effects of the meds so assume they are cured enough to forgo the medication. They go off their meds. It's a repeating cycle. Thus someone who is mentally ill, even if being treated cannot be allowed access to guns.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

If we, as a country, are insistent on allowing gun ownership as a fundamental right, the conundrum here is:

• How do we single-out/identify the people who should NOT own guns?
• How do we accomplish this w/o violating the rights of the rest of the population?

This is not trivial: anyone with mental health issues also has a right to medical privacy. So, unless we are going to allow forfeiture of certain medical rights as 'flags' to prevent or withdraw gun ownership rights, we have no chance at avoiding these types of incidents - they are just 'the cost of the right to bear arms'.

Perhaps one way we could accomplish this is by:

• A) requiring ALL firearms be registered in a national database
• B) allowing medical personnel direct access to that database as part of your health records

We have previously had the NRA fight against allowing physicians to ask about gun ownership with their patients; this is the opposite of what should be done.

If it is the mentally ill people we are worried about, perhaps it's time to link gun ownership/registration with medical files, so that we at least have a chance to get out in front of the problems. And if someone in a family has a mental illness, then we as a society have the right to remove those guns until there is a reasonable assurance the mentally ill family member has no chance to access them. Any physician would then have the ability to report an 'at risk' mental illness to local authorities in the event that family or individual had registered weapons in their household.

Thus, we do not restrict anyone from owning guns; but we put a limiter in place that precludes people with at-risk medical issues from owning guns, AT LEAST temporarily.

Or, are we all 'ok' with crazy people owning guns?

So how does one define crazy? And who is going to define it?

 

[rocketclone]

That is my point. Have gun 'registration' AND a 'weapons license' type function, so that any criteria that is a flag for weapon ownership (medical record, drug prescription/drug use, etc) can be flagged to prevent purchase of a weapon from an individual or household member who has been flagged. Temporary or permanent or whatever.

Note that this could easily include war vets suffering from PTSD, etc.

But absent some function such as this, there is simply no way to prevent these types of shootings, because there is no way for authorities to access 'flagged' information for at risk people, nor for gun sellers to have any idea who they are selling to.

The short-schrift is: do we want 'crazy people' to own or access guns?

The Right will torpedoe this as infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
The Left will torpedoe this as infringement on the rights of (or stigmatization of) people with mental illnesses.

Thus, I see no way it'd ever be proposed, but it's the only way we would have a good chance at avoiding Sandy Hook, Aurora CO and Oregon shootings.

I understand what you are saying, however, how do you get this information. This is all private information and cannot be released. So you are saying "flag" their file. Well where are you getting the information from to "flag" their file.

How do you keep people from suing their doctors for releasing the information??

The intent of what you are saying is great, however, the information won't be available because of the privacy issues

 

[fredjr82]

People here want to have a serious discussion about this.

Can you stop with this bullshit? Maybe? Please?
Come on man....DAMN!

If you want to have a serious conversation than ignore him and give us your ideas. The only thing I've seen in this thread is the goalposts moving like they always do after one of these events. First it was we needed to have a more in depth background check, then we needed to keep mentally ill people away from purchasing guns, and now today we need the parents to do more. It's like any idea that gets brought up is automatically dismissed because......this reason. There are never any serious discussions regarding this. It's a bunch of pissing and moaning about why we need more gun control and the reasons we can't have it. Rinse and repeat.

 

[rocketclone]

This is (mostly) interesting discussion. I'm still curious where people would draw the line on what constitutes a "mental illness" that would warrant forced confiscation of guns and/or putting someone on a "no-buy" list. Mental health, like so many other things, runs on a spectrum from the fairly benign to the severe. I think we can mostly all agree on the severe side....but there's a lot of gray before you get there and some pretty benign conditions that can be easily treated/managed with meds and/or therapy. When I hear "sought treatment", that could mean anything from an involuntary hospitalization to seeking out a few counseling sessions during a rough patch. Where is the gun line?

This is a great questions. Doctors now hand out meds like crazy for depression, etc. if someone is feeling down here take this and you will feel better. Well, are they then banned from gun ownership.

Life insurance has changed a bunch. used to be if you were on some sort of meds they would charge more, and now it is pretty standard that people are on something so they have changed their guidelines.

 

[Joes Place]

I understand what you are saying, however, how do you get this information. This is all private information and cannot be released. So you are saying "flag" their file. Well where are you getting the information from to "flag" their file.

How do you keep people from suing their doctors for releasing the information??

The intent of what you are saying is great, however, the information won't be available because of the privacy issues

No. You enact the laws so that the medical 'flag' is linked to the 'ok for gun ownership' list. There is no indication of what the condition being flagged is; just that the person should be barred from purchase. That flag can be permanent, in the case of criminal or violent history, or it can be temporary, lifted off the list by subsequent medical diagnosis or an impaired individual moving out of the household.

If this type of tracking could be legislated so that it minimized gun ownership restrictions for most people, but it would have at LEAST flagged the shooters' households for Aurora, Sandy Hook or Oregon, we as citizens should be demanding that our legislators start working on something and proposing it.

 

[Joes Place]

So how does one define crazy? And who is going to define it?

I believe we have entire medical professions devoted to this....

 

[pablow]

I am not an expert on the diagnosis of mental illness and the accuracy of those diagnosis. My opinion if a doctor suspects you are a potential danger to others than he should have the ability to restrict your access to a gun. Your rights do not out weigh the rights of others.

This standard is used every day for mental health commitments, it should apply to firearms possesion as well. It's not perfect but it, along with other sensible measures, will offer some protections against these mass killings.

I think our culture needs to change too: social isolation, violent imagery, narcissism, and dysfunctional families. I think the USA leads the world in this areas. We are a breeding ground for homicidal losers.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

If you want to have a serious conversation than ignore him and give us your ideas. The only thing I've seen in this thread is the goalposts moving like they always do after one of these events. First it was we needed to have a more in depth background check, then we needed to keep mentally ill people away from purchasing guns, and now today we need the parents to do more. It's like any idea that gets brought up is automatically dismissed because......this reason. There are never any serious discussions regarding this. It's a bunch of pissing and moaning about why we need more gun control and the reasons we can't have it. Rinse and repeat.

In the past i've repeatedly given my ideas, with quite a bit of agreement from posters on both sides.

I agree with you on the rest of your post.

 

[fredjr82]

In the past i've repeatedly given my ideas, with quite a bit of agreement from posters on both sides.

I agree with you on the rest of your post.

Go read the "Armed Teachers would have stopped it" thread if you want a good laugh about how your party intends to deal with this. Funny I don't see you over there calling them out like you did jscott.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Go read the "Armed Teachers would have stopped it" thread if you want a good laugh about how your party intends to deal with this. Funny I don't see you over there calling them out like you did jscott.

My party? I don't belong to any "party".
Haven't read the thread at all. I saw the title and shook my head, because I knew how it was going to read.

 

[fredjr82]

My party? I don't belong to any "party".

 

[naturalmwa]

This is (mostly) interesting discussion. I'm still curious where people would draw the line on what constitutes a "mental illness" that would warrant forced confiscation of guns and/or putting someone on a "no-buy" list. Mental health, like so many other things, runs on a spectrum from the fairly benign to the severe. I think we can mostly all agree on the severe side....but there's a lot of gray before you get there and some pretty benign conditions that can be easily treated/managed with meds and/or therapy. When I hear "sought treatment", that could mean anything from an involuntary hospitalization to seeking out a few counseling sessions during a rough patch. Where is the gun line?

This might be why gun rights are framed in the context of first gaining admission to a well regulated militia.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

This is a great questions. Doctors now hand out meds like crazy for depression, etc. if someone is feeling down here take this and you will feel better. Well, are they then banned from gun ownership.

Life insurance has changed a bunch. used to be if you were on some sort of meds they would charge more, and now it is pretty standard that people are on something so they have changed their guidelines.

There are a whole lot of liberals that would claim that conservatives are by definition "crazy". When they lose their arguments based on the fact, the next step is to call names and claim they are crazy. This is why I ask the question, who defines what crazy is.

 

[CeMar_Clone]

This might be why gun rights are framed in the context of first gaining admission to a well regulated militia.

Regulating guns will done nothing to stop this violence. People like this guy are doing it for the publicity, not the guns. Other weapons will and have been used. So because one person does something stupid, we need to take guns away from the 150M Americans that use them correctly?

 

[22*43*51]

This might be why gun rights are framed in the context of first gaining admission to a well regulated militia.

I am part of my own well regulated militia. My next door neighbor has his own militia and so does the guy across the street etc; They're everywhere.

You should start your own militia too.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Sorry to burst your bubble. I vote in both directions base on who the candidate is, and where I fall on what they're proposing on issues that are important to me. If you want to lock your brain into ideology, be my guest.

 

[rocketclone]

No. You enact the laws so that the medical 'flag' is linked to the 'ok for gun ownership' list. There is no indication of what the condition being flagged is; just that the person should be barred from purchase. That flag can be permanent, in the case of criminal or violent history, or it can be temporary, lifted off the list by subsequent medical diagnosis or an impaired individual moving out of the household.

If this type of tracking could be legislated so that it minimized gun ownership restrictions for most people, but it would have at LEAST flagged the shooters' households for Aurora, Sandy Hook or Oregon, we as citizens should be demanding that our legislators start working on something and proposing it.

Like I said, good idea but most likely won't happen. The Plaintiff Bar will make sure that they get theirs with lawsuits.

I can't even get my kids grades or bills from college without their ok, so not sure you will ever get this to work.

I have said you have to tie it with abortion bill and then it will work. Both sides take the heat.

 

[naturalmwa]

Regulating guns will done nothing to stop this violence. People like this guy are doing it for the publicity, not the guns. Other weapons will and have been used. So because one person does something stupid, we need to take guns away from the 150M Americans that use them correctly?

I keep getting told how there are dozens of deaths all over America every week from gun violence. Now it's just one person? I think you need to have a team meeting and decide what we're talking about. But your point that removing guns from the equation would be meaningless is obviously foolish and/or dishonest.

 

[naturalmwa]

I am part of my own well regulated militia. My next door neighbor has his own militia and so does the guy across the street etc; They're everywhere.

You should start your own militia too.

Post your regulations for us please. While your at it I'm calling you to duty. Muster at 6am on the quad or forfeit your charter. You best be able to pass the PT test.

 

[22*43*51]

Post your regulations for us please. While your at it I'm calling you to duty. Muster at 6am on the quad or forfeit your charter. You best be able to pass the PT test.

The regulations are fluid and subject to Mrs. 22*'s discretion.

I have limited jurisdiction outside of where I mow.

 

[naturalmwa]

The regulations are fluid and subject to Mrs. 22*'s discretion.

I have limited jurisdiction outside of where I mow.

I'm dubious this militia is providing for the security of a free state. It sounds more mercenary.

 

[22*43*51]

I'm dubious this militia is providing for the security of a free state. It sounds more mercenary.

It's free in my property lines and the neighbors for that matter.

 

[ihhawk]

I just realized that we would have to remove the guns from all veterans that have PTSD.

Honest question though. If we say a person is not safe to own a firearm, can we honestly say they should have the ability to drive a car. Literally a 3000b weapon

 

[Gimmered]

This might be why gun rights are framed in the context of first gaining admission to a well regulated militia.

This has already been addressed by the SCOTUS and they disagree with you. Unless/until the Court decides to take it up again it is the law of the land.

 

[naturalmwa]

This has already been addressed by the SCOTUS and they disagree with you. Unless/until the Court decides to take it up again it is the law of the land.

Didn't you a really make that point and I already agree? The best way to challenge any decision is to encourage people to challenge the decision. A rather academic point for myself as I hold the people do have an individual right to be secure in their persons and thus to self defence. That's just not what the 2nd is actually about. Nor is it about rebellion or personal militias to fight tyranny or hunting. It's about national defence and devolving Federal power to the states. A foundational principle we have long since abandoned. Making all the NRA constitutional hysteria nothing but a marker for fools. I'm not actually anti gun or even terribly pro gun control (although I would like policy to be more effective and consistent nationally). I just think it's important to know who we are and the 2nd is a touchstone for understanding the current American Empire is the real constitutional crisis, not gun control.

 

[Gimmered]

Didn't you a really make that point and I already agree? The best way to challenge any decision is to encourage people to challenge the decision. A rather academic point for myself as I hold the people do have an individual right to be secure in their persons and thus to self defence. That's just not what the 2nd is actually about. Nor is it about rebellion or personal militias to fight tyranny or hunting. It's about national defence and devolving Federal power to the states. A foundational principle we have long since abandoned. Making all the NRA constitutional hysteria nothing but a marker for fools. I'm not actually anti gun or even terribly pro gun control (although I would like policy to be more effective and consistent nationally). I just think it's important to know who we are and the 2nd is a touchstone for understanding the current American Empire is the real constitutional crisis, not gun control.

I do agree that to some the second amendment was to eliminate the need for a standing army. But what my opinion is would be totally irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is that of the SCOTUS.

 

[naturalmwa]

I do agree that to some the second amendment was to eliminate the need for a standing army. But what my opinion is would be totally irrelevant. The only opinion that matters is that of the SCOTUS.

Sure, but that changes.

 

[Mattski]

-So you do realize that the strengthened Oregon laws failed, as they always do?

That's because most of those regulations do not address the underlying problem. If you look at the CO Theater, Sandy Hook and this shooting, the common denominator is a mentally ill individual, known in considerable detail by the families and others around them, where all of the shooters were still able to buy and access guns.

-How do you propose you regulate gun buying using mental health assessments?

There is no need for a 'mental health assessment' for buying a gun. That is something handled entirely separately via regular medical records and family intervention (notification to doctor by family members, etc.) And there can be specific triggers which identify households or individuals 'at risk', including any types of anti-depressants or other drugs for mental illnesses. You provide a framework for families to intervene via medical routes, and then an individual can be 'flagged' if they try to purchase a gun.

-Where do you get the money for a program like that?

No need; you already have ACA and other gun registration elements in place. Use the systems you have and tweak as necessary.

-Had he failed to buy them from a store, what would have stopped him from buying it under the table? Or stealing someone elses?

Those are side-issues. None of the shooters in CO Theatre, Sandy Hook or Oregon obtained weapons illegally. And you definitely have the opportunity to stop them WHEN they try to steal a weapon. Maybe they can steal ONE, can they steal 12 or 13 guns w/o being caught?

-Why are college students having such bad mental breakdowns?

I don't think it has anything to do with 'college students', per se. Sandy Hook didn't.

-What do you have to say about the very blatant and dishonest attempt to push this on the right wing?

Politicians will be politicians. That's not going to address the problem, though.

-Whom do you want the guns to be taken away from?

A start would be: those on any types of drugs/medications for mental illnesses, or drugs that can cause psychotic episodes (including some sleep meds).

Those with any history of mental illness, which has not been appropriately addressed by medications.

Those with any history of violent behavior.

Family members who are gun owners should understand they are liable for the use of those weapons by anyone in the household; thus, if they have a mentally ill child/relative, they should be responsible for moving the weapons off site at least temporarily until that individual does not have access to the house.

-What is your solution for all of this?

Noted here, and in other threads. Gun ownership is absolutely a right, but a limited right that can be temporarily or permantly removed if an individual with mental incapacity can access weapons. And that responsibility should reside with the weapons owner. Mental illness can generally be identified via normal medical history w/o the need for any form of 'check' just to own a gun.

Will we eliminate these kinds of shootings by limiting access/tracking those who are at risk via medical records? No. But we might stop some of them, maybe most of them. The real challenge is to allow this type of medical history tracking w/o violating medical records laws; you don't need to know 'why' an individual has a temporary or permanent restriction on gun buying, just that it is a restriction.

This is a good post with a lot of common sense answers. Unfortunately there is no chance in hell of it happening bc it's not as easy as "mandatory background checks" which means absolutely nothing when it comes to preventing gun crime and particularly mass killings.
The far left will never go for this.

 

[Joes Place]

I just realized that we would have to remove the guns from all veterans that have PTSD.

Honest question though. If we say a person is not safe to own a firearm, can we honestly say they should have the ability to drive a car. Literally a 3000b weapon

Well, when we start having mentally ill people use cars as weapons to kill lots of innocent people, we could certainly look at ways to address that. Right now, they are mostly using stashes of guns.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

is anyone going to look into the mental health of his handler?

 

[rolfey]

Let's say a law is written that ties gun owernership to mental health. How many people will now avoid seeking help for fear that someone might grab their guns? My guess is these would be the people we would want to know about.

 

[Joes Place]

Let's say a law is written that ties gun owernership to mental health. How many people will now avoid seeking help for fear that someone might grab their guns? My guess is these would be the people we would want to know about.

....and that will put Big Pharma against any laws tying mental health to gun rights.

With both Big Pharma and the NRA against anything like this, there's no way we'd ever get any legitimate discussion/debate going.

 

[FranklinHawk]

She would have. He would not have. And if her gun ownership was tied to household medical records, there could have been legal intervention to eliminate the guns from her house while he lived there or was on medication. So, yes, we could have at the very least 'flagged' him/her as a risk.



Depends on the drugs. Certainly some are associated with psychotic episodes, particularly certain sleep meds. And just b/c people are taking meds should not preclude gun ownership, but might be a flag to temporarily restrict if meds change, etc.

In all 3 of these particular cases (Sandy Hook, Oregon, Aurora CO) there were people associated with the shooter and/or family members who very likely could have 'flagged' them as 'at risk' individuals and made it MUCH harder for them to retain or obtain guns. That is the debate we should be having - is it feasible to come up with guidelines where we can prevent at LEAST these types of individuals from obtaining/owning guns, and at LEAST on a temporary basis?

I certainly see where you are going, but to put me (a parent) on a "no buy" list due to who is living in my house is a very slippery slope. Now if you want to say hold me accountable if I don't appropriately secure my guns and they are used in a scenario like this (assuming there is legitimate evidence of mental illness or high risk and not just a perferctly normal person who "snaps"), I would probably agree with that.

 

[Joes Place]

I certainly see where you are going, but to put me (a parent) on a "no buy" list due to who is living in my house is a very slippery slope. Now if you want to say hold me accountable if I don't appropriately secure my guns and they are used in a scenario like this (assuming there is legitimate evidence of mental illness or high risk and not just a perferctly normal person who "snaps"), I would probably agree with that.

That certainly is an option to 'free up' gun ownership rights in this type of scenario. But laws would need to be very clear on the consequences, and any violation where someone DID use weapons which were flagged would result in combination of prison time and being banned from ever owning another gun.

This is precisely where some of the discussion on this topic need to be going; not 'ban all handguns', not 'ban high capacity magazines', etc. But I doubt you'll see any politicians engaging in these discussions, because they are too politically risky, and they won't appease the 'bases' of their parties.