Oregon's Mother Sounds Like Some Posters Here...

[slieb85]

A lot of what she has been saying sounds pretty much exactly like what I read on here from others about "protecting their home."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html

 

[Greenway4Prez]

A lot of what she has been saying sounds pretty much exactly like what I read on here from others about "protecting their home."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/mother-of-oregon-gunman-wrote-of-keeping-firearms.html

Do think "others on here" would be reckless enough to keep numerous firearms on hand so enthusiastically, and try to pass that passion down to a child that has Asperger's?

She failed as a parent. He failed as a human.

 

[NoleandDawg]

What do you know. The kid had been institutionalized and was on psychotropic medication. Sounds like some other mass shooters that we know.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

What do you know. The kid had been institutionalized and was on psychotropic medication. Sounds like some other mass shooters that we know.

And his mom taught him how to "be safe" with guns and how they bonded at the firing range...idiots.

It's time to take Australia's example. Create well-regulated and armed state militias, don't buy the "for protection" BS gun nuts hide behind.

 

[slieb85]

So would you all support taking away guns from all people with Asperger's? Is that an appropriate check on the 2nd amendment?

Or do you only support that after someone kills 10 people?

 

[moral_victory]

institutionalized

 

[MichiganManLifer]

So would you all support taking away guns from all people with Asperger's? Is that an appropriate check on the 2nd amendment?

Or do you only support that after someone kills 10 people?

Do you support real answers to treating mental illness or just hyperbole? Maybe he should be locked up in a treatment facility rather than blaming guns for what went wrong>

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

It does not have to be either/or. We can all work to make mental health screening and reporting more accessible AND make guns far less accessible. Seems like the things thinking grown-ups would do.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

People I am very close to have a son with Aspergers. In no way shape or form would my friend's son ever be allowed access to guns. That would be asking for someone to get shot. He is not allowed to drive because of the danger he represents to others. Based on the article and my observation of the young man I know, I doubt the mother actually has Aspergers. She is too high functioning. Keeping a job would be almost impossible for someone who truly had Aspergers.

I edited this for the comments above.

In my friends case, despite the official diagnosis of Aspegers there is almost no support for the young man. He went to special schools and had the social system help him find jobs. But he can't keep a job when he finds one because of the disease. But the state won't declare him disabled or provide a group home or treatment facility.

 

[naturalmwa]

Do you support real answers to treating mental illness or just hyperbole? Maybe he should be locked up in a treatment facility rather than blaming guns for what went wrong>

Go on. Tell us more about what mental health provisions we should expand. Are you a supporter of the ACA which did just this?

 

[jscott78]

Do you support real answers to treating mental illness or just hyperbole? Maybe he should be locked up in a treatment facility rather than blaming guns for what went wrong>

You'd have to pay for that and the gun nut crowd won't as part of its ideology. Since Reagan.

 

[mstp1992]

People I am very close to have a son with Aspergers. In no way shape or form would my friend's son ever be allowed access to guns. That would be asking for someone to get shot. He is not allowed to drive because of the danger he represents to others. Based on the article and my observation of the young man I know, I doubt the mother actually has Aspergers. She is too high functioning. Keeping a job would be almost impossible for someone who truly had Aspergers.

I edited this for the comments above.

In my friends case, despite the official diagnosis of Aspegers there is almost no support for the young man. He went to special schools and had the social system help him find jobs. But he can't keep a job when he finds one because of the disease. But the state won't declare him disabled pr provide a group home or treatment facility.

Asperger's is no longer in the DSM-5. If appropriate, most with previously diagnosed Asperger's would now be diagnosed autism spectrum disorder without language or intellectual impairment.
The change took place because of the inconsistency in how the diagnosis was being used.

My personal opinion is that it became a catch-all classification for anyone who didn't quite fit the social norms or was a bit socially awkward; kind of a "funny looking kid" syndrome.

 

[slieb85]

So the mom and son should have been locked up before hand? We should institutionalize everyone with Asperger's? Hearing you correct blue?

 

[naturalmwa]

So the mom and son should have been locked up before hand? We should institutionalize everyone with Asperger's? Hearing you correct blue?

Minority Report is having its propaganda effect.

 

[MichiganManLifer]

So the mom and son should have been locked up before hand? We should institutionalize everyone with Asperger's? Hearing you correct blue?

If you could read, you would have seen that I said "Him". Why does everyone that knows these people come out after they commit mass murder and say, "Oh, that's not surprising, he had issues and a very obvious spiral...etc, etc....". Then when it's done, everybody wants to blame guns.

 

[slieb85]

If you could read, you would have seen that I said "Him". Why does everyone that knows these people come out after they commit mass murder and say, "Oh, that's not surprising, he had issues and a very obvious spiral...etc, etc....". Then when it's done, everybody wants to blame guns.

But both he and his mother have Asperger's... How do you tell apart the people you want to institutionalize from those that you don't? Remember, while this kid struggled from time to time, he was a student at a community college. It's not like he wandering babbling to himself...

There's a student at my law school with Asperger's. He has some weird tendencies. Should he be locked up?

 

[thewop]

Asperger's is no longer in the DSM-5. If appropriate, most with previously diagnosed Asperger's would now be diagnosed autism spectrum disorder without language or intellectual impairment.
The change took place because of the inconsistency in how the diagnosis was being used.

My personal opinion is that it became a catch-all classification for anyone who didn't quite fit the social norms or was a bit socially awkward; kind of a "funny looking kid" syndrome.

FLK's turn into FLA's (Funny looking adults), and that can't be easy, it's only a matter of time until they snap. No guns for them.

Of course we take them away from people with Aspergers, they're prone to flare-ups of instability as part of their condition...why would we want them armed?

I also advocate certain classes of guns be locked up at highly secure shooting ranges and be kept there by their owners for sport shooting only. Transportation to other ranges would have to be done by independent armored transport.

Handguns for protection? Guns for hunting? Sure, every responsible, coherent adult should be allowed to have one of those if they want.

sure we can argue about the details, but basically, I'm in favor of guns for protection and guns for fun owned by anyone responsible enough to handle it, and see very little value in having civilians walk around with larger assault weapons designed to take out many people quickly (classify them as you may).

 

[rocketclone]

HIPPAA will keep a lot of this from happening. Privacy violations have to be dealt with.

 

[mstp1992]

HIPPAA will keep a lot of this from happening. Privacy violations have to be dealt with.

(no message; wrong thread)

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Asperger's is no longer in the DSM-5. If appropriate, most with previously diagnosed Asperger's would now be diagnosed autism spectrum disorder without language or intellectual impairment.
The change took place because of the inconsistency in how the diagnosis was being used.

My personal opinion is that it became a catch-all classification for anyone who didn't quite fit the social norms or was a bit socially awkward; kind of a "funny looking kid" syndrome.

Ehh . . . I think a lot of people self diagnosed themselves with Asperger's but I don't know of too many professionals who diagnosed it as a catch all.

 

[Mattski]

So would you all support taking away guns from all people with Asperger's? Is that an appropriate check on the 2nd amendment?

Or do you only support that after someone kills 10 people?

It's funny how the anti gunners are all about taking guns away and expanding restrictions on access until the root of the issue is involved - taking guns from mentally ill and unstable people comes up. Then they are quick to run to the defense of their right to ownership of guns and privacy etc... You'll gladly put restrictions on 60 million gun owners with no criminal history and no mental illnesses, but if someone suggests we instead isolate the real people doing these shootings and restrict their ability to own guns and you scream about privacy and fairness. Comical really.

 

[mstp1992]

Ehh . . . I think a lot of people self diagnosed themselves with Asperger's but I don't know of too many professionals who diagnosed it as a catch all.

I personally know many who have. Okay, I will preface that. There are those who see a patient come in and Asperger's is among the list of "diagnoses" the patient comes in with (whether or not there is any previous documentation from other care providers), and then it simply gets transcribed into the new list of diagnoses.

And yes, I will most definitely agree with you that many are "self-diagnosed" and unless the new care provider goes through the criteria, that's when it just gets cut-n-pasted into the new report.

However, there are many who diagnosed it based on very limited empirical data.

 

[MichiganManLifer]

But both he and his mother have Asperger's... How do you tell apart the people you want to institutionalize from those that you don't? Remember, while this kid struggled from time to time, he was a student at a community college. It's not like he wandering babbling to himself...

There's a student at my law school with Asperger's. He has some weird tendencies. Should he be locked up?

If the guy at your law school shows any signs of harming or willingness to harm people around him, yes. Why do I care if he can pass tests and get in school? I'm equal opportunity. I'm not saying beat or torture them. As much as this liberal government spends on programs, housing potentially dangerous people should be able to fit in too.

 

[mstp1992]

It's funny how the anti gunners are all about taking guns away and expanding restrictions on access until the root of the issue is involved - taking guns from mentally ill and unstable people comes up. Then they are quick to run to the defense of their right to ownership of guns and privacy etc... You'll gladly put restrictions on 60 million gun owners with no criminal history and no mental illnesses, but if someone suggests we instead isolate the real people doing these shootings and restrict their ability to own guns and you scream about privacy and fairness. Comical really.

Here's the abstract from a good review article on the topic of mental illness and guns: "Gun Policy and Serious Mental Illness: Priorities for Future Research and Policy" (E.E. McGinty, D.W. Webster, & C.L, Barry, 2014).

Abstract
Policies to restrict access to firearms among persons with serious mental illness are popular, but are they supported by evidence? As this literature review demonstrates, some things are clear: most persons with serious mental illness are not violent; risk assessment tools are not reliable at predicting who will be violent; and persons with serious mental illness and a history of substance use and abuse or trauma are more likely to be violent. More research is needed to develop thoughtful gun restriction policies that do not further stigmatize mental illness, the authors said.

Objective

In response to recent mass shootings, policy makers have proposed multiple policies to prevent persons with serious mental illness from having guns. The political debate about these proposals is often uninformed by research. To address this gap, this review article summarizes the research related to gun restriction policies that focus on serious mental illness.

Methods

Gun restriction policies were identified by researching the THOMAS legislative database, state legislative databases, prior review articles, and the news media. PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases were searched for publications between 1970 and 2013 that addressed the relationship between serious mental illness and violence, the effectiveness of gun policies focused on serious mental illness, the potential for such policies to exacerbate negative public attitudes, and the potential for gun restriction policies to deter mental health treatment seeking.

Results

Limited research suggests that federal law restricting gun possession by persons with serious mental illness may prevent gun violence from this population. Promotion of policies to prevent persons with serious mental illness from having guns does not seem to exacerbate negative public attitudes toward this group. Little is known about how restricting gun possession among persons with serious mental illness affects suicide risk or mental health treatment seeking.

Conclusions

Future studies should examine how gun restriction policies for serious mental illness affect suicide, how such policies are implemented by states, how persons with serious mental illness perceive policies that restrict their possession of guns, and how gun restriction policies influence mental health treatment seeking among persons with serious mental illness.

 

[22*43*51]

So would you all support taking away guns from all people with Asperger's? Is that an appropriate check on the 2nd amendment?

Sure. So long as you support holding parents in these cases accountable in some form for the murders their children committed.

 

[mstp1992]

Sure. So long as you support holding parents in these cases accountable in some form for the murders their children committed.

What if the child is actually an adult and living on his/her own; ie. no longer a dependent of the parents?

 

[22*43*51]

What if the child is actually an adult and living on his/her own; ie. no longer a dependent of the parents?

No. Not in that example.

In this case he was still at home.

I wonder what would happen to gun violence in Chicago if parents of these teenaged gang bangers had to do some time for their kid's actions.

 

[mstp1992]

No. Not in that example.

In this case he was still at home.

I wonder what would happen to gun violence in Chicago if parents of these teenaged gang bangers had to do some time for their kid's actions.

Aha, I get where you're coming from. I've wondered too about parents (anywhere) of kids who commit crimes making them somehow responsible for their kids' actions. Can't say I'm opposed to the idea.

 

[22*43*51]

Aha, I get where you're coming from. I've wondered too about parents (anywhere) of kids who commit crimes making them somehow responsible for their kids' actions. Can't say I'm opposed to the idea.

I also wonder what that would do for birth control too.

I would bet folks would be less likely to have half a dozen kids if they were truly responsible for keeping track of them.

 

[slieb85]

If the guy at your law school shows any signs of harming or willingness to harm people around him, yes. Why do I care if he can pass tests and get in school? I'm equal opportunity. I'm not saying beat or torture them. As much as this liberal government spends on programs, housing potentially dangerous people should be able to fit in too.

Ok. So you're in favor of the federal government going into this woman's house right now and taking away her guns?

I just want clarification because there's an obvious next question, and I'm not sure I expected that answer from you.

 

[slieb85]

It's funny how the anti gunners are all about taking guns away and expanding restrictions on access until the root of the issue is involved - taking guns from mentally ill and unstable people comes up. Then they are quick to run to the defense of their right to ownership of guns and privacy etc... You'll gladly put restrictions on 60 million gun owners with no criminal history and no mental illnesses, but if someone suggests we instead isolate the real people doing these shootings and restrict their ability to own guns and you scream about privacy and fairness. Comical really.

It's called playing Devil's Advocate. I'm teasing out the tensions in the argument that "mental instability" is the root cause of gun violence, and that "institutionalizing" people is the answer. I'm not sure I buy either prong of this argument, so I'm trying to get people to logically walk me through it.

I, for one, am not supportive of the notion that the federal government can tell this woman she's not allowed to have a gun. At least not as the first and only step.

But, if you want to take this woman's guns, with her apparent lack of violent history, I'm going to ask that your guns get taken away too. Otherwise you're simply demanding she not have guns because she has Asperger's, which I've yet to see anyone in this thread say is a categorical reason someone should not be allowed to have guns in America. Unless you're willing to say that now?

 

[slieb85]

Sure. So long as you support holding parents in these cases accountable in some form for the murders their children committed.

I don't get how the two are related? So you want to ban all American's with Asperger's from owning guns and you want separate legislation to create liability for parents when their kids shoot someone?

I didn't realize you were so pro-gun control.

 

[joelbc1]

I just heard that "the mother" is a nurse......Judging by her "blog" comments, it certainly reminds me of the old hospital axiom that goes something like, "You can always tell a nurse...you just can't tell them much."

 

[MichiganManLifer]

Ok. So you're in favor of the federal government going into this woman's house right now and taking away her guns?

I just want clarification because there's an obvious next question, and I'm not sure I expected that answer from you.

Hell, I'm not in favor of the federal government doing anything usually. I do not think that mentally insane people should have guns because I'm not nuts. I also am in favor of criminals not having guns and don't care if they take those too.

 

[22*43*51]

I don't get how the two are related? So you want to ban all American's with Asperger's from owning guns and you want separate legislation to create liability for parents when their kids shoot someone?

I didn't realize you were so pro-gun control.

Pro-accountability, marriage and parenting.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I do not think that mentally insane people should have guns because I'm not nuts.

This is part of the problem. Ignorance, usually willful.

What, pray tell, do you believe your statement actually means?

Like every other great authoritarian, you want to be able to pick and choose who to protect.......based on whatever you want.

 

[Mattski]

But, if you want to take this woman's guns, with her apparent lack of violent history, I'm going to ask that your guns get taken away too. [/QUOTE]

And that is why nothing will ever get done effectively on this topic and why you don't really care to prevent mass shootings. This is what the anti gunners want.
To most it's obvious the people doing these all have 1 thing in common - they are mentally ill and almost all have had an official diagnosis of mentally instability and have been on prescribed meds. But for some reason you'd rather this be a one size fit all fix? Why is that? Is it bc you really don't think any of this would actually stop mass shootings and would just be personally more comfortable knowing less people owned guns?

 

[theIowaHawk]

But, if you want to take this woman's guns, with her apparent lack of violent history, I'm going to ask that your guns get taken away too.

And that is why nothing will ever get done effectively on this topic and why you don't really care to prevent mass shootings. This is what the anti gunners want.
To most it's obvious the people doing these all have 1 thing in common - they are mentally ill and almost all have had an official diagnosis of mentally instability and have been on prescribed meds. But for some reason you'd rather this be a one size fit all fix? Why is that? Is it bc you really don't think any of this would actually stop mass shootings and would just be personally more comfortable knowing less people owned guns?[/QUOTE]

No, someone who is pushing what you are claiming would be doing so with the idea that ownership of guns is the large problem, and that blaming it on the "mentally ill" just uses the easiest fall-guy.

How many people are "mentally ill" in most used definitions (lay people)? 1 in 5? 60+ Million people? You want to ban 1/5 of the country, yet won't discuss the larger issue of guns? You are a black pot.

 

[Mattski]

And that is why nothing will ever get done effectively on this topic and why you don't really care to prevent mass shootings. This is what the anti gunners want.
To most it's obvious the people doing these all have 1 thing in common - they are mentally ill and almost all have had an official diagnosis of mentally instability and have been on prescribed meds. But for some reason you'd rather this be a one size fit all fix? Why is that? Is it bc you really don't think any of this would actually stop mass shootings and would just be personally more comfortable knowing less people owned guns?

No, someone who is pushing what you are claiming would be doing so with the idea that ownership of guns is the large problem, and that blaming it on the "mentally ill" just uses the easiest fall-guy.

How many people are "mentally ill" in most used definitions (lay people)? 1 in 5? 60+ Million people? You want to ban 1/5 of the country, yet won't discuss the larger issue of guns? You are a black pot.[/QUOTE]
1 in 5 is likely way high and regardless if we have to choose between restricting gun ownership of either all gun owners or just the crazy ones, I choose the crazy ones.

 

[theIowaHawk]

No, someone who is pushing what you are claiming would be doing so with the idea that ownership of guns is the large problem, and that blaming it on the "mentally ill" just uses the easiest fall-guy.

How many people are "mentally ill" in most used definitions (lay people)? 1 in 5? 60+ Million people? You want to ban 1/5 of the country, yet won't discuss the larger issue of guns? You are a black pot.

1 in 5 is likely way high and regardless if we have to choose between restricting gun ownership of either all gun owners or just the crazy ones, I choose the crazy ones.[/QUOTE]

That was precisely my point. Of course you would, because you are choosing which category people fall in to.