We can have a combination gun control/mental illness test question: “Have you at any time shot up an elementary school?” “No? You are declared mentally fit, and here’s your firearm.”
Agreed. Moreover, just because someone has never been diagnosed by a doctor as being mentally ill, doesn’t mean one isn’t mentally ill.
I think that a background check for handgun ownership should be as detailed and relentless as an adoption check is.
You apply, they watch you for a year. Check your work absences, talk to your co-workers, neighbors, relatives, family history, relationship history, and especially your mental health history. If you’ve cried because your favorite team lost, sorry. No gun for you. Enjoy your slingshot.
Some people name their guns and refer to it as “my baby”. And they are responsible for any activity involving their gun (child). You are required to report a stolen or missing (child) weapon (right, Casey Anthony?) or charges can come to you if the weapon is involved in a crime.
Add an essay to detail why a potential handgun owner feels she/he needs one and watch for any upsetting phrases like, “black president”, “before China takes over”, and “those fucking dogs that bark all night.”
You are seeing offense where there is none. I’m simply expressing my thoughts.
I worked for 15 years as a clinician and researcher in the mental health field. I am well aware of how society sees mental illness.
Of course no one is saying it. But the continuing association of these kinds of crimes with the attitude of “of course he’s mentally ill, that’s why he did it” does continue the stigmatization of mental illness by associating horrific crimes with mental illness, in spite of the fact that statistics show otherwise.
But people who kill only one person are not? How many people are required to be killed in order to make the person mentally ill? Two? Five? Ten? Where’s the line?
I never said I thought he was perfectly sane. I said that the statements that people are making that his mother should have kept her guns away from her OBVIOUSLY mentally ill son aren’t (yet) supported by evidence that he was OBVIOUSLY mentally ill, with or without a diagnosis. We have heard vague descriptions of him as odd, remote, nerdy, possibly having a personality disorder. How many people does that fit? Why should the assumption be that such a person is so obviously mentally ill that his mother should automatically know that he’s going to shoot up a school?
Those are the questions that are being assumed in this thread, though. That keeping guns away from the mentally ill is the answer, and this guy was so clearly mentally ill prior to this that his mother and other people should have known he was going to use her guns for nefarious purposes.
Again, does a single murder mean that the person is mentally ill? What’s the dividing line?
Look, I’m not saying he’s NOT mentally ill. For all I know, evidence will come to light that he was receiving treatment. But so far all we have is he was odd and nerdy. I would think that describes an enormous number of people in the world. So what made this particular odd and nerdy person do this? I don’t know. And no one here does, either. Because very little information has been released.
And that’s part of the broader problem here. Preventing this stuff means getting serious about severe mental illness.
Then we don’t disagree: it hasn’t been established in any firm way beyond the obvious fact that he murdered a score of children. But I don’t think it’s necessary to protest the inference this much as we wait for some actual facts.
By reports, you mean? Or by his school and other caregivers?
That part is premature.
But the discussion is not just about the shooting on Friday, so there’s nothing wrong with pointing that out.
I agree we don’t need to crack down on people who wear long black coats and I don’t want to see oddballs or loners stigmatized more than they already are. But at this point I’m not overly concerned about that. I think people grasp the fact that these things are the actions of (almost always lone) people who are very disturbed. People are pretty comfortable with the fact that some people are autistic and others need help for things like depression and that those conditions by themselves don’t make people dangerous. But I think some greater awareness of serious psychiatric illnesses is called for. Most of those people are not violent, but some are and I think a lot of other people are falling through the cracks.
For what it’s worth the Columbine shooters had criminal records (Friday’s shooter evidently doesn’t) and were receiving treatment for mental health problems, although who knows if that treatment was being followed or if it was any good.
I agree that mental health treatment in this country sucks donkey balls, but unless this guy has a history that we haven’t been informed about, getting serious about severe mental illness wouldn’t have done anything to prevent this event. If a person has a severe mental illness, to receive treatment they would need to have that illness recognized. I haven’t seen any reports that anyone recognized such a severe illness in this particular person.
My “protests” are merely to share my thoughts about the effects of people jumping to conclusions and proposing possible preventions that may or may not have done anything in this particular case.
Yes, that’s what I meant. Sorry that I wasn’t clear.
I agree
Fair enough.
Again, that only applies if this person’s severe mental illness was already known. If this was his first psychiatric break or manic episode, he wouldn’t have been identified as needing treatment, and proposals to limit access to handguns for the mentally ill would not have applied, nor would have the calls for his mother to be more careful with her guns.
I do know that, although the criminal records were for theft. The treatment was during their diversion program, although Harris did see a therapist up until a few months prior to the shooting.
A negligent entrustment theory. Certainly not strict liability. Something more like a presumption that a person whose not-reported-stolen firearm was used in a homicide is liable for it. In this case, assuming the mother was overpowered by the son, she could obviously rebut that presumption (or her estate, as the case may be).
If, on the other hand, she left her Glock sitting on the nightstand and her schizophrenic son just walked in and took it, then she’d be liable.
That’s a closer question, but it depends on how the keys got into the vehicle. If somebody broke into your house and took them, it would be manifestly unfair to hold you responsible.
That’s how negligent entrustment works. If you give your car to someone and they mow down a pedestrian, you are deemed to have been negligent. It generally doesn’t matter if they previously had a perfect driving record. In other words, it’s irrelevant whether the mother knew the kid was mentally ill. If you give someone something dangerous, you assume the risk that they won’t do anything dumb with it.
Horrific crimes are associated with some kinds of mental illness. That does not mean all mental illness is associated with horrific crimes. This is a basic statistics concept.
I would say if you kill someone you know out of anger or revenge or something, you’re probably not mentally ill. If you go kill a bunch of random strangers and then kill yourself, you’re mentally ill. I really do not think the exact position of the dividing line matters much.
Yes, fair enough, we’ve not seen any evidence that this could have been predicted. That does not mean it isn’t worth trying to figure out ways to identify these people, who are obviously suffering from some kind of mental disorder, in advance. If they added “Mass Shooter Personality Disorder” to the DSM, would you feel better about this?
Who cares? I don’t need to know exactly where the dividing line is to know that someone who kills his mother and 20 twenty children and commits suicide is obviously mentally ill. Some murderers are closer to the gray area. This guy clearly was not.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that someone is not mentally ill unless they have been diagnosed and were receiving treatment. Whatever made this guy commit mass murder, it was some kind of mental illness, regardless of whether anyone diagnosed him with it, whether it was even possible to diagnose him, and whether we even know enough about the brain to characterize it. Pretending that this is not the case out of some kind of desire to avoid offending mentally ill people in general is ridiculous.
A reasoned debate about gun control? Seriously around here maybe once in a while we have a gun thread and a reasoned debate breaks out, but mostly gun discussions are retreads of the same talking points, taken out like the Christmas ornaments after something like this happens and packed back up after the news cycle has moved on … certainly faster than the Christmas decorations are removed.
Meanwhile guns are and will be available in this country. Threads like this propose major policy changes, almost always almost exclusively regarding gun control, because of its immediacy, but attending to reducing the every day hundred-fold greater number of deaths as a result of teen suicide barely even gets discussed, let alone seriously addressed, lost in the smoke of yet another gun debate. A debate that will predictably go nowhere. Again.
Yes guns are an amplifier, and some weapons (and damned if I know which ones they are, but I’ve learned that they are not necessarily the ones covered by the AWB) are more efficient amplifiers than others. Sure I accept that having loaded weapon unsecured in a household is doing virtually nothing statistically to save any lives while its easy access makes acting on a suicidal or dangerously mentally ill impulse much more likely to result in death. But debating that will get no where and accomplishes nothing other than distracting us from doing anything that we actually might be able to accomplish in terms of putting more resources on even understanding why there IS more teen suicide, and how to prevent teens and young adults with problems from reaching the point that some have tragically reached with horrible impacts on others.
Just FYI, that quote was mine, not Absolute’s. And I believe that you are wrong, and that negligent entrustment only applies if you give a car or a weapon to someone with a known reputation or record of being untrustworthy. I would be interested in hearing the case law from an attorney, though.
Not unless your working definition of mental illness includes “commission of a horrific crime.” Which it seems like yours does.
I, too, would like to identify people likely to commit crimes before they do so. We can’t do that yet, and we can’t intervene in someone’s life because they MIGHT commit a crime. This person may or may not have had a pre-existing record of behavior that clearly indicates he needed psychiatric care or intervention. If so, then some of the proposals here are valid with regard to prevention. If not, then they are not.
I don’t feel “better” or “worse” with respect to this crime. Some of the proposals here are not going to work if the shooter in this case wasn’t already exhibiting mental illness symptoms.
Again, if someone is mentally ill but not identified as such, how do we know? How do we treat them? Unless this particular person had a history of behavior that was disturbing enough to bring him to notice, and nobody did anything about it, then proposals that involve limiting handgun access to the mentally ill simply do not apply in this particular situation.
Oops. Apologies to Absolute.
They don’t have to have a “known record” of being untrustworthy. The test, as the Restatement puts it, is:
I suspect my previously post may be poorly worded, because it implies that one can be negligent even if one has no reason to believe the recipient will do anything dangerous. The point I was trying to make, however, is that there doesn’t have to be some type of official record of the recipient’s prior negligence or poor judgment for a negligent entrustment claim. It’s not necessary, for example, for the recipient to have been diagnosed with a mental disorder that predisposed him to violence, which is what the original post I misattributed to Absolute seemed to say.
Thanks for clarifying. But your own quote states that
(bolding mine)
Again, in this case, are we assuming that the mother KNEW her son was mentally unstable enough to use her guns to kill both her and 26 other people? People are implying that she knew, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that her son was the type of person to do that. And I haven’t seen enough evidence of that. It could very well come out that she did know, because it was obvious. But so far, vague reports of nerdy oddness aren’t enough, I don’t think.
I am speaking in the abstract here. This is an issue which would obviously require a trial to determine. Even if our armchair diagnoses are accurate, that doesn’t necessarily mean the mother knew, and we don’t even know if she could have prevented him from taking the gun. I am simply pointing out that negligent entrustment is a fairly low bar.
It doesn’t even have to be a reckless or dangerous person. It would be sufficient if the recipient were inexperienced (see Barsness v. Gen. Diesel & Equip. Co., Inc., 383 N.W.2d 840, 844 (N.D. 1986), for example, where a crane operator with no training wound up dropping something on the plaintiff).
As a physician, how would you suggest we revamp society to prevent teens from flipping out? A recommendation, that is, which is not more draconian than massive gun legislation?
Because every idea that I can think of are either policies we already have in place or they are things that would crimp the liberties of millions of people who aren’t psycho killers. Should people with violent tendencies be forced to take medication, whether they have been diagnosed with a disorder or not? Should young men be required to undergo psychological evaluations when they reach the age of majority, and be placed under surveillance if they meet a set of criteria? Should socially awkward teenagers be segregated and taught in special environments? Should we force socially awkward kids to receive psychiatric counseling and punish parents who refuse to pathologize non-conformist behavior in their children?
I’m trying to see where society is breaking down here, both with this case and in the others. All these guys seem to have social isolation in common. OK, I get this. Social isolation is bad. But if this is enough to sound an alarm, then a good majority of Dopers need to be feared! And maybe this is true…I don’t know. Simply being afraid is one thing, though. The long-reach of policies resulting from fear is another.
Oh, I get that. I’m just not sure it’s relevant, but I’m learning something I didn’t know about.
A neighbor reports that Mrs. Lanza would go target shooting with her sons. I don’t know if that would rise to the level of inexperienced in this case.
This is a different question than what I was addressing. I was simply amazed at your claim that this guy may not have been mentally ill. It seems obvious to me, and to most people, that he was. Obvious after the fact, I mean.
Whether there was any way to tell in advance, and whether our understanding of mental illness is good enough to potentially identify any of these people in advance without also falsely identifying an unacceptable number of innocent people, is a totally different question.
If you have LexisNexis access, there is an American Law Report digest directly on topic. I’m not sure how much of it I can post here and remain within the board’s fair use policy.
If you can’t read that, try Estate of Heck v. Stoffer, which involves surprisingly similar facts to this case (except the kid in question did have a criminal record, which was arguably determinative of the outcome).
Thanks. I think our campus database has LexisNexis access. I’ll check these out. I appreciate it.
My pleasure. It’s worth pointing out that a lot of the cases cited are about people suing the sellers of firearms. Those claims almost always fail because sellers are ordinarily only liable for injuries caused by defective products; a gun used to shoot someone is not defective, more or less by definition.