What do people who advocate mental health reforms as a solution to mass shootings really envision?

[Fear_Itself]

@Robert163

What?

Can you please relate that directly to whether people with (significant) mental illness should be able to purchase or posses guns?

You opened the door to employers and medical privacy here:

@Robert163

That is why I put in provisions about 3 and 5 and 10 years. I also do not think simply visiting a mental health professional should put you on the “black list”. I had not thought of privacy issues and employment and other issues. But let me ask, if I am taking medication for HIV, does my potential employer have access to this information? You can see my point I hope. Exactly how does medical privacy work out…

I was merely responding. I thought it was a tangent about employers and the risk of gun violence by employees. Sorry if I misconstrued.

[Robert163]

@monstro

No sarcasm or hyperbole. I’m for real. I sincerely believe that decreasing the testosterone levels in troubled males would be highly effective at reducing their aggression and acts of violence.

Why do you think your proposal is more effective than my plan? Why does my plan seem hyperbolic, while your plan to require mentally ill gun owners to keep a journal seems reasonable to you?

I think, using layman’s terms, Utility. Boys/people will get aggressive from time to time. This is on a different category than shooting 5 or more people at one time. I think in all such situations we need to take a balanced, holistic approach. (I don’t mean new age holistic, I mean, to address all components of the situation but in balance.)

[Robert163]

@Fear_Itself

You opened the door to employers and medical privacy here:
I was merely responding. I thought it was a tangent about employers and the risk of gun violence by employees. Sorry if I misconstrued.

I’m not against the idea of tangents. And, technically, I think It was Monstro who first mentioned employment and privacy. I think she has a valid point, btw. I’m just trying to figure out specifically what I am responding to in regards to your remarks, or, are you playing “devils advocate” and have no specific comment?

[eschereal]

@purplehearingaid

I think one thing that needs to be done is for schools to pay more attention to that quiet kid that sit in back of the classroom b/c the parents sure don’t seem to be dong anything . Most people are shocked when they find out who the shooter was , they were so ’ quiet and shy and kept to their self '.

 This  should  be  a  warning sign right there,  I know all shy kids will not  turn into  a mass  shooter but most mass shooters  were a  shy kid ...

This touches superficially on the crux of the problem. I tend to be pretty shy and antisocial most of the tune, but I have learned to cope. Sometimes I overcompensate and become kind of a caricature of gregarious, which can turn out rather badly. But I cope.

These guys who do this kind of thing lack a workable coping ability. The consequences of not being able to handle their own sense of isolation and frustration seem to be potentially very severe. Yet we continue to let people fall into this space. As long as our super individualistic society continues to let guys like this get pushed into a corner, where lashing out feels like the only satisfying response, this will keep happening.

But fixing it would probably encroach on our greater freedoms. That would be no good. We can just comfort ourselves with the notion that random people have to die horrible deaths from time to time so that we can remain free.

[monstro]

@Robert163

Well, if we want to get into hysterics, I apologize but I know no other way to express it, if we want to get into hysterics, do you want people who are incapable of recognizing and adhearing to social norms and, more importantly, people who are incapable of responding to consequences or being deterred by them, do you want these people to be able to purchase guns without any safeguards in place?

I’m not asking for your hysterics, or whatever it is you you’re intimating. I’m simply asking for intelligent, thoughtful ideas from gun right supporters that don’t sound worse than what is being being proposed by gun control rights advocates. Requiring a person who was diagnosed with mental illness two years ago to keep a journal of their negative thoughts and anxieties just so they can purchase a hunting rife does not seem reasonable to me. At all. Nor does requiring said person to stand in front of a judge and prove they aren’t violent or scary. That sounds a whole lot worse than a Home Arsenal Act.

The truth is more people would be personally and negatively affected by “anti-mental illness” legislation than they would be by anti-gun laws. I don’t give a flying fuck about gun rights, but I do care about my rights to be as eccentric or asocial as I want or have to be. A weird but law-abiding person shouldn’t have to worry about being thrown in a jail cell just so that non-weird people can sleep better at night.

I’m asking for people to explain how guns rights trump the rights of individuals to be individuals.

Can you do this for me, Robert? Or are you just going to continue to insist that mentally ill people need to be regulated somehow?

[Fear_Itself]

@Robert163

I’m not against the idea of tangents. And, technically, I think It was Monstro who first mentioned employment and privacy. I think she has a valid point, btw. I’m just trying to figure out specifically what I am responding to in regards to your remarks, or, are you playing “devils advocate” and have no specific comment?

My comment is that in most states, which are “at will” employment states, if an employer is concerned about employee psychological stability and gun ownership, they are free to ask potential employees to waive medical confidentiality and take a psychological test that may include their feelings about gun ownership. And potential employees are free to decline, and walk away from a job opportunity.

I don’t know if that is where this tangent was going, but that was the gist of my comment.

[monstro]

@Robert163

I think, using layman’s terms, Utility. Boys/people will get aggressive from time to time. This is on a different category than shooting 5 or more people at one time. I think in all such situations we need to take a balanced, holistic approach. (I don’t mean new age holistic, I mean, to address all components of the situation but in balance.)

People will suffer from mental illness from time to time, as well. Even the diagnosis of a developmental disability can come and go, depending on the practitioners involved and how much progress an individual makes.

Apart from his internet history, what were the Oregon shooter’s warning flags that he was a dangerous guy? He possessed lots of weapons, but lots of people possess lots of weapons and don’t shoot up people. He was asocial. So are many Dopers (including yours truly). He apparently had a temper. So do lots of people.

The vast majority of people with his profile live normal, law-abiding lives.

[John_Mace]

@monstro

Um, if you know the thread is about mental illness, why did you ask me that question?

Because I had no idea what you intended the cops to do. Maybe you planned for them to give the guy a psychological evaluation. All you said was they should knock on his door.

This is my thread. I’m going to talk about whatever I want to talk about in it, thankyouverymuch.

Well, we can all talk about whatever we want, not just you. The OP doesn’t get special privileges. I was just noting that we were straying off topic. I never said anything about what you could or couldn’t do.

[Robert163]

@monstro

Can you do this for me, Robert? Or are you just going to continue to insist that mentally ill people need to be regulated somehow?

I’m not sure my mind is made up 100% either way. I think all of your points are valid. I also think it is a valid point that mentally ill people can be more prone to violence. But not all mentally ill people, of course, not even the majority of them.

I thought we were having a discussion here. I am not immune to your concerns. I’ve said and I repeat that I think they are all valid.

[Robert163]

@Fear_Itself

My comment is that in most states, which are “at will” employment states, if an employer is concerned about employee psychological stability and gun ownership, they are free to ask potential employees to waive medical confidentiality and take a psychological test that may include their feelings about gun ownership. And potential employees are free to decline, and walk away from a job opportunity.

I don’t know if that is where this tangent was going, but that was the gist of my comment.

hmmm…

You pose an interesting question but I am not qualified to answer. I suspect if I did have an answer it would be tied to what your job responsibilities were, and the more authority or responsibility you had, or the worse things could get if you did your job poorly, the more need for scrutiny, in the most general terms.

How to address all the moral and legal mechanics, I do not know enough to say.

[Voyager]

The Republican candidates who keep bringing up mental health issues clearly don’t understand false positives. Since a tiny fraction of people with problems are violent, any remedy which will stop shooters will also affect lots of the innocent - hundreds or thousands to one.
Then there is the what to do about it problem. The Louisiana shooter was stopped from buying a gun one place - but easily bought it elsewhere. Without universal checks and ids nothing is going to change.
More money for mental health would be great, especially of we started institutionalizing the mentally ill homeless again. The non-mentally ill homeless would then have more access to resources, which would be a win-win.
I don’t see a lot of proposals by Republicans to increase spending to anywhere near the necessary levels.

[Robert163]

@Voyager

The Republican candidates who keep bringing up mental health issues clearly don’t understand false positives. Since a tiny fraction of people with problems are violent, any remedy which will stop shooters will also affect lots of the innocent - hundreds or thousands to one.

Agreed, 100%

Then there is the what to do about it problem. The Louisiana shooter was stopped from buying a gun one place - but easily bought it elsewhere. Without universal checks and ids nothing is going to change.
More money for mental health would be great, especially of we started institutionalizing the mentally ill homeless again. The non-mentally ill homeless would then have more access to resources, which would be a win-win.
I don’t see a lot of proposals by Republicans to increase spending to anywhere near the necessary levels.

also agree

[Bone]

Monstro - are you aware of what the law is regarding firearms and mental health? What constitutes a prohibited person and what does not? Most posts in this thread so far don’t give the impression that the rules are known.

[Bone]

@Fear_Itself

My comment is that in most states, which are “at will” employment states, if an employer is concerned about employee psychological stability and gun ownership, they are free to ask potential employees to waive medical confidentiality and take a psychological test that may include their feelings about gun ownership. And potential employees are free to decline, and walk away from a job opportunity.

I don’t know if that is where this tangent was going, but that was the gist of my comment.

I think an employer would be hard pressed to justify this type of screening. There would have to be a demonstration that the questions are job related. Medical inquiry is also troublesome due to privacy. Unless it’s related to fitness to perform the job this would also be a risky play. And even then - disparate impact analysis would likely not go in the employer’s favor.

If an employer did this I think they would quickly be hit like a piñata of lawsuits where they would burst open paying out settlements.

[Robert163]

@Bone

Monstro - are you aware of what the law is regarding firearms and mental health? What constitutes a prohibited person and what does not? Most posts in this thread so far don’t give the impression that the rules are known.

what are the rules?

[not_what_you_d_expect]

When I’ve talked about this with other people, what I’ve heard is that access to mental health care is not always easily accessible or affordable. So I think that’s a part of what some people may mean.

I also think that our attitude about the mentally ill needs to change. Too many people are too ashamed and/or embarrassed to seek help. And it’s no wonder to me why they might feel that way.
People with problems are laughed at, made fun of, called names, etc.

So I think it’s a matter of making sure that help is available and not seen as a personality flaw in those who seek it.

[John_Mace]

@Voyager

The Republican candidates who keep bringing up mental health issues clearly don’t understand false positives. Since a tiny fraction of people with problems are violent, any remedy which will stop shooters will also affect lots of the innocent - hundreds or thousands to one.
Then there is the what to do about it problem. The Louisiana shooter was stopped from buying a gun one place - but easily bought it elsewhere. Without universal checks and ids nothing is going to change.
More money for mental health would be great, especially of we started institutionalizing the mentally ill homeless again. The non-mentally ill homeless would then have more access to resources, which would be a win-win.
I don’t see a lot of proposals by Republicans to increase spending to anywhere near the necessary levels.

Is it only or mostly the Republicans who are proposing mental health reform?

[ratatoskK]

@MsWhatsit

I would like to see us move toward a social norm that it is not okay to keep guns in a house where a mentally ill person lives or stays. I don’t know if laws are the way to accomplish this or not. I just would like it to be a norm the same way that, say, looking both ways before you cross the street is a norm.

I strongly suspect that people with a history of abuse or mental illness histories are far, far more likely to turn guns on themselves than they are to use them to defend themselves from violence, so that argument does not hold much water with me.

I completely agree.

But furthermore, there are plenty of people not diagnosed with mental illness who are prone to violence. The root problem is that there are too may guns all over the place, too easy to get, too easy to buy automatic weapons, etc. If the only guns were hunting rifles then the hunters could do their hunting but it would be harder for someone to go out and commit mass murder.

[Voyager]

@John_Mace

Is it only or mostly the Republicans who are proposing mental health reform?

The Republicans are proposing it as a solution to gun violence. Democrats mostly want to do stuff about actual guns.
I’m not sure the broader mental health issue is on anyone’s radar.

[Bone]

@Robert163

what are the rules?

Here is a thread on this same topic from 2013. Post #2 and #40 have detailed information. Or you know, google.

At a minimum, mental health reform should include nationwide mandatory reporting to NICS. Right now NICS submission by states is voluntary, though the NRA has pushed legislation offering incentives to states who submit data. This took the form ofThe NICS Improvement Amendments Act Of 2007

How does the NIAA improve the information available for NICS checks?
The NIAA seeks to improve the information available to the NICS, so that the system can more accurately identify prohibited persons, by:

Enhancing the Brady Act requirement that federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the NICS; and
Providing incentives to states to submit complete information to the Attorney General on persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms through:
Authorizing new grant programs for state executive and judicial branch agencies to improve information available to the NICS; and
Providing for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program penalties for states that do not comply with the Act’s record completeness goals.
To the top

What does the NIAA do?
FOR STATES: The NIAA has provisions that encourage states to meet specified goals for completeness of the records submitted to the Attorney General on individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. The records covered include automated information needed by the NICS to identify felony convictions, felony indictments, fugitives from justice, drug arrests and convictions, federally prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments, domestic violence protection orders, and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence.
The Act provides for a number of incentives for states to meet the goals it sets for greater record completeness.

First, the Act allows states to obtain a waiver, beginning in 2011, of the National Criminal History Record Improvement Program’s (NCHIP) state matching requirement for NCHIP grants, if a state provides at least 90 percent of its records identifying the specified prohibited persons.
Second, the Act authorizes a separate grant program to be administered consistent with NCHIP, for state executive and judicial agencies to establish and upgrade information automation and identification technologies for timely submission of final criminal record dispositions and other information relevant to NICS checks. Up to 5 percent of the grants may be reserved for Indian tribal governments and judicial systems.

Finally, the Act provides for discretionary and mandatory Byrne grant penalties for non-compliance with record completeness requirements: during the 2-year period beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 3 percent may be withheld in the case of less than 50 percent completeness; during the 5-year period beginning 5 years after the date of enactment of the Act, up to 4 percent may be withheld in the case of less than 70 percent completeness; thereafter, 5 percent must be withheld in the case of less than 90 percent completeness (although the mandatory reduction can be waived if there is substantial evidence of the state making a reasonable effort to comply).

Of course, since reporting is voluntary and the enforcement provisions of this Act haven’t been taken, reporting is still low.

TheGAO did a studyto look at reporting to NICS. The findings are not great.

Most states are not providing noncriminal records, such as those related to positive drug test results for persons on probation. On May 1, 2012, DOJ data showed that 30 states were not making any noncriminal records available. Four of the 6 states GAO reviewed raised concerns about providing records outside an official court decision. Two states also noted that they did not have centralized databases that would be needed to collect these records. DOJ has issued guidance for providing noncriminal records to NICS.

There is no one solution to gun violence, or any violence. This is one of the areas that the NRA and me personally would support. Improve mental health record reporting.