Virginia shootings

[Boggit]

You guys are falling into the very trap the left and/or gun grabbers are hoping you will fall into. That is, they have you asking yourself, "how can someone with a history of mental illness obtain a firearm...something must be broken with the gun laws and the system for background checks."

Can someone point to me information establishing that Bryce Williams had a history of treatment for a diagnosed mental illness? I keep reading reports that state there was a history of violence indicative of mental illness, but no confirmed evidence that any mental illness had been specifically identified and treated. I am confident that had there been such, he would not have been able to legally purchase a firearm.

There is a tremendous difference here and it is not just semantics. The failure in the system was in not diagnosing his illness and getting him the necessary treatment. When there is no history of treatment, all the background checks in the world will make no difference.

Once again, this is a problem with diagnosing and treating mental illness, not with adding further laws that will only serve to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Stay focused on the real issue.

Sorry, that's what I thought I was trying to say. You said it better. :)

Except I thought it was established he had a problem. I stand corrected.

I'm with you on the mental illness detection and treatment issue. I'm not in favour of preventing sane, law abiding citizens from having firearms. They are not the 'villains of the piece'. My concern is that after so many similar shootings to Charleston, and Virginia where the perpetrator was known to be 'lacking a full deck of cards', that each time there has been a failure to identify the risk they pose to the public, and a firearm has been issued with fatal consequences. I'm not against background checks if they stop a nutcase getting a firearm.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'll re-emphasise that I'm with you on letting law abiding (and sane) citizens to own/access guns - just not the crazies... and that goes back to your comment about detection and treatment (and I'd add about looking VEEERY carefully at the applicant for a firearm once those facts are known).

I'm not saying anyone with a history of mental illness should be debarred ownership of a handgun, but I think strict checks and assessment are in order before they can legally obtain a firearm to reassure the public that the system is reasonable in terms of risk assessment and thought out with the safety of the general public in mind. Previous mental illness doesn't automatically make a killer, but I'd like checks to be more stringent when it is determined... which circles back to what you rightly say about detection and treatment - as it's the first step in the process.

[Jarhead0331]

It seems to me that any system of background checks more expansive than what is already in place is not very practical, while also running the risk of abuse and of violating the Constitutional rights of the applicants.

You simply can't have some government bureaucrat speaking with an applicant's, family, friends, physicians, employers, co-workers, etc. for information that subjectively could establish a basis for rejection. How about requesting confidential documents, ie. medical, financial, legal, etc. in order to search for a basis to deny an application? It is a dangerous slippery slope.

People just need to be more responsible and proactive in making sure those with mental health issues are evaluated and treated when necessary. This is a responsibility of family, local law enforcement, etc.

There are going to be acts of violence committed with firearms. Always. So long as guns exist, people will use them to kill other people. I believe the benefits of having an armed law abiding populace outweighs the dangers associated with having a disarmed law abiding populace where only the government and criminals have guns. More laws bring us closer to that end result. Someone who wants to use a gun to commit a crime is going to get a gun. it does not matter how many laws you make, because only the non-criminals are going to abide by them. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are limited and they certainly do not, in my opinion, justify enhanced restrictions on Constitutional rights.

You don't treat mental illness by banning guns.

I recently saw a billboard with a quote from Kenneth Cole of all people. It said something like, "40,000,000 Americans suffer from mental illness. Some can access health care...all can access guns. #GunReform."

This is completely illogical to me. It starts off with the premise that there is problem with a lack of access to healthcare for persons with mental illness, yet ends with suggesting that banning guns is a solution. It isn't. Ban guns all you want, those people will still not have access to the necessary healthcare. Its a bait and switch argument. I dug a little deeper and learned that Kenneth Cole is married to Maria Cuomo. The sister of NY governor, Andrew Cuomo, the anti-constitution, ignoramus who gave us the SAFE Act. The fact of the matter is, people who use the mental health angle in connection with guns have no interest in treating mental health. Their only interest is in banning guns.     

[LongBlade]

Well put, JH.

[Staggerwing]

We need full access to comprehensive mental health care for everyone. We also need to stop publicly stigmatizing those folks who actually decide to utilized mental health care if we want to avoid discouraging others from doing the same when they most need the help. Not everyone who may be dangerous will seek therapy but it's sad to find out how many perpetrators of multiple homicides actually sought help earlier on and were discouraged by some kind of bureaucratic rigmarole.

[panzerde]

Absolutely spot on, Stagger. My wife is a psychologist and my MS is in a mental health field. She is currently just about singlehandedly trying to establish wrap-around systems of care in our county to counteract the wretched lack of good mental health services. My degree was intended to offer preventative and proactive therapeutic services, but the year I graduated the state government closed all of the state hospitals, dumped all of the mentally ill residents on the street, and my professional accrediting organization refused to certify my degree unless I also did the equivalent of a second degree that was clinical. Because only reactive approaches are worth considering.

Most states in the US did the same thing with their state hospitals. These days it's pretty much impossible to "institutionalize" someone; there aren't institutions and insurance doesn't pay for long-term mental health treatment for the most part.

So ultimately I think most of the laws intended to screen out mentally ill and potentially violent people aren't worth much. The tools to identify and treat people don't exist, so you aren't ever going to know when you do your background check. If you want less gun violence, you need functioning mental health services. Those effectively do not exist in the US.

On the flip side, we should probably try and do something about stuff like this, too: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/cop-shot-responding-to-wrong-house-gbi-leading-inv/nnWKr/

[Bison]

It's been the case with most of the shooting where it's "discovered" after the fact that the individual has mental illness.  The reality is that most were known to have issues, but never sought help nor did their immediate friends and family members help them get help.  So they aren't in the system.  The background check system works perfectly fine.  What it cannot do is prevent people from obtaining a weapon they shouldn't have been able to obtain in 20/20 hindsight judgement.  It's no more effective then laws that create "gun free zones" prevent criminals from violating that law.  It's like there is no logic left in the country.

[Boggit]

Big +1 to Staggerwings point, but also to Panzerde - You made some pretty thought provoking comment. O0

[Centurion40]

I recently saw a billboard with a quote from Kenneth Cole of all people. It said something like, "40,000,000 Americans suffer from mental illness. Some can access health care...all can access guns. #GunReform."

This is completely illogical to me. It starts off with the premise that there is problem with a lack of access to healthcare for persons with mental illness, yet ends with suggesting that banning guns is a solution. It isn't.

But it is the soft target with the political cache!

I totally agree with everything that has been said.  I work in social welfare.  If we had better access to effective mental health services, I truly believe that there would be fewer people on welfare.

[Boggit]

I agree with Jarhead that banning guns does not resolve mental health problems. I just wonder what practical measures realistically can be taken to prevent psychotic people from obtaining firearms, which are after all a more convenient method to use as a lethal weapon than say a knife, or other hand to hand weapon in comparison. It is certainly easier - generally speaking - to stop someone with a knife or baseball bat than someone armed with a firearm.

I take on board the point that it would be great if people spotted the psychotic types before the event and intervened, but realistically that doesn't always happen - the evidence being the likes of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Charleston and Virginia... As I said before I have no problem with ordinary responsible citizens owning guns, but as a parent what would you think (God forbid!) if it was a close member of your family getting shot (lethally or otherwise) by a psychotic person who had legitimately obtained their means to hurt (assuming it was a firearm)?

As has been said before - 'guns don't kill, people do' (although accidents with firearms can be just as unpleasant), I don't see that failing to enquire into the mental state of an applicant wishing to obtain a firearm because it is onerous, or inconvenient is anything but socially irresponsible. Sure, I get the privacy issue, but there's a balance to be drawn between a no questions asked approach and overly irrelevant fishing expeditions into private lives, in order to keep legal firearms in the hands of the responsible.

It's like letting a pit bull run wild in the street and then being surprised when a child gets bitten. You can imagine the response of a parent of a bitten child when it is said "oh, I didn't want the expense of buying a muzzle", or "I let him crap in the street 'cos I can't be bothered cleaning up after him." What would you think if you had that answer if it was your kid getting bitten?

Given the number of responsible gun owners vs firearms deaths and wounding in the US, I think on balance the law abiding citizen has a pretty good record. It's the irresponsible, and psychotic owners spoiling things for the responsible that justifies making obtaining a weapon more difficult. Sure it is intrusive to have checks, but if it saves lives isn't the inconvenience worth it? At the same time, does it not make gun ownership by responsible people less assailable by the anti-gun lobby by virtue of being able to say we don't give guns willy-nilly to dangerous people?

I realise the criminal element will deal with unregistered firearms as a matter of course, which skews any debate on checks and balances, but as a general principle do you as a society really want to allow the irresponsible easy, legal access to firearms?

I thought Bison made a particularly good point about mental illness being discovered "after the event", but would not psychological profiling as part of the application for a firearms certificate go some way in catching that loophole? I'm talking general principles here, and I think that Jarhead's point about the risk of abuse is extremely valid, and would need to be taken into account in the redesign of any new regime governing the ownership of legal firearms.

I don't have any political score to settle here. I'm not against guns in the hands of the responsible, it's the irresponsible I worry about. As Jarhead rightly said, "There are going to be acts of violence committed with firearms. Always. So long as guns exist, people will use them to kill other people." For me question is how do you mitigate that sad fact before we see yet another Charleston, Binghampton, Virginia or similar shooting?

[airboy]

It seems that the Virginia shooter, like a lot of mass murderers, was a "grievance collector." 

Read: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122669/injustice-collectors-how-understand-vester-flanagans-manifesto

It is chilling.

[airboy]

Another problem with seriously mentally ill people is their continuing to take their medications.  If you have a serious mental illness, you have to keep taking your meds even if you feel "well."

This is like other serious medical conditions.  Yesterday I had somebody expressing a lot of sympathy because I take diabetes medicine and cholesterol medicine - and will take those medications until I eventually die.  So what?  The meds work.  If I stop taking my meds, my expected lifespan is doing to drop like a rock.

If you have a mental disorder that requires medication - then you also need to take your meds.  Sometimes forever.

I disagree with Jarhead somewhat on background checks.  Yesterday a new law became effective in Alabama.  If you are deemed mentally incompetent then this must be reported by a judge to the FBI gun check registry.   There is a way to regain gun ownership privileges.  But today (and not yesterday) in Alabama judges and mental health professionals are required by law to make the report.  This should have been the law before - but the law became effective yesterday.    In Alabama this law could have never been passed without support and endorsement by the NRA.  But the NRA, like most every other rational person, was in favor of the law.

[panzerde]

Thanks for pointing out that article, Airboy. Chilling and disturbing that minds can grow so badly broken.

[Jarhead0331]

Airboy...I haven't read the law, so I can't opine whether its a valuable addition to the multitude of laws already in existence, or if it creates a dangerous precedent. For instance, how is "mentally incompetent" defined. Who makes the declaration and under what circumstance. How do the procedures for reversal work? What kind of appellate or administrative review and oversight is there? How are all these procedures insulated from politics or agenda? What protections are there for the average citizen, who may be going through a tough period and has been suffering from some depression? How about for veterans who suffer from PTSD? Where is the line drawn between who is mentally competent enough and those who are not?

My primary concern, as I have expressed, is to protect our natural right to keep and bear arms. I have already suggested that I am prepared to tolerate the occasional tragedy, as opposed to the risk of over-regulation and restriction. The law makes this kind of balancing test all the time. These are the pros and cons of living in any society. For some, the scales tip in one direction, for others they tip to the other side.