Mental issues and firearms

[hartcreek]

Shootingthebreeze is part of the problem. She posted this in an earlier post.

I work as an Occupational Health Nurse at GM Flint MI once or twice a week. I live in East Lansing MI. This was in the local news in Flint. A GM employee went into GM Assembly Flint and used a handgun to commit suicide. Now GM has a zero tolerance for handguns in the plants and in GM parking lots but it happened. This employee apparently developed a crisis point due to some circumstances which were not identified soon enough and used the easiest means to attempt suicide-a handgun.
That has caused a serious concern with nursing relating to what bozos could be carrying concealed in the plants when they should not be.

If she and her other mental health co workers had been doing their work in a way that workers sought out help the incident might have never happened.

 

[WestKentucky]

Post #2 says a lot. To further that however I will add that if a person is in such state to murder, commit suicide, or even for this point rob the 5 year olds lemonade stand, they will use whatever weapon is available. Limiting the tool simply changes the tool. Mass shooters turn into guys who drive cars through crowds. Gunshot suicides turn into drug overdoses, slit wrists, or the intentional 120mph car vs tree. To say that a person in such condition is not capable of possessing a weapon is absurd, deny them access to all weapons and attempt rehabilitation. Sadly there are too often no signs for prevention, or signs are misinterpreted. Act improperly and you can create that which you wish to avoid.

There is no cure for this social illness. As long as there is man, there will be misbehavior of varying types. The misbehavior is defined by what is considered normal and acceptable.

 

[CLP]

Friend of mine is diagnosed with depression but is well controlled on medication. She has a carry permit but rarely carries just because she doesn't perceive a daily threat. I have no problem with this, it's her choice.

Now should her rights be taken away due to her diagnosis? If doctors had their way, we would all have some sort of disorder and feed the pockets of drug manufacturers.

I've actually read accounts of doctors wanting to classify gun ownership as a mental disorder. I guess you would fall into that category.

Now should her rights be taken away due to her diagnosis?
No

If doctors had their way, we would all have some sort of disorder and feed the pockets of drug manufacturers.
Readers take note, the preceding statement is by definition paranoia. It is an irrational fear. However, we always consider the context because it means something completely different if coming from someone who is psychotic, uninformed, or using hyperbole.

I've actually read accounts of doctors wanting to classify gun ownership as a mental disorder.
I've read of accounts of aliens abducting people and probing them

 

[Sniper66]

As a retired psychologist who practiced for 40+ years in numerous settings including state institutions, community mental health, and private practice, I can tell you there is no evidence anywhere demonstrating that mentally ill people are more likely than the general population to commit a crime with a firearm. Hence the dilemma. But, one thing is certain; if Uncle Sam starts to define who can and cannot own guns, more than they already do, law abiding American people will suffer the consequences. We absolutely must err on the side of freedom and liberty. It has become all too easy for others to sacrifice the rights of gun owners in an effort to feel 'safer'.

 

[CLP]

Dementia is another blanket term that covers many different conditions, and many levels of imparement.

I regularly interact with several people who have been diagnosed with dementia. They range from having the mental competence of a 2 year old, to completely understanding what is going on, with good memory, but with bulbar palsey that leaves the individal a drooling "non-verbal". They all have exactly the same 290.x code. Some I wouldn't trust to make a peanut butter sandwich with a plastic knife, but one I would hand the keys to my car with the only concern being that if the person was stopped by an idiot cop, said cop might beat and/or shoot the person for not being able to talk or reaching for the tablet that is how the person writes messages to the world. In other words, I think police officers are a bigger public safety hazzard than this person in a 3800lb high powered vehicle.

So no, I don't think that a diagnosis of dementia is by itself reason for a person to give their guns away...though there are cases where I would take (without even telling the person) away guns to give to family members and consider my actions ethically correct even if they were technically theft.

Why would I do that? Not out of concern the people would hurt themselves, but concern that someone less honest than me would simply take the things and nobody would find out until a son/daughter went looking for the heirloom they were promised.

"I regularly interact with several people who have been diagnosed with dementia. They range from having the mental competence of a 2 year old, to completely understanding what is going on, with good memory, but with bulbar palsey that leaves the individal a drooling "non-verbal". They all have exactly the same 290.x code...."

Problems...let's see... dementia is characterized by progressive cognitive decline. Yes, people who are diagnosed early will appear higher functioning than others. Also, people's rates of declines differ. Also, the "x" in 290.X is quite significant. In fact, it's ridiculously significant. The presentation of someone with 290.10 is vastly different than 290.42...


"So no, I don't think that a diagnosis of dementia is by itself reason for a person to give their guns away..."
Unfortunately, there will come a point in time with every patient with any form of dementia where they will cross the Rubicon of unsuitability for firearms ownership. Sorry, that's just how it is with irreversible progressive cognitive decline.

 

[CLP]

Where do you draw the line is my big question

That is the question. I don't think there's much argument that there are people who are severely mentally ill enough that such a line should exist.

 

[Ed Ames]

"I have strong personal reasons for believing the mental health approach of the US is dangerously out of whack. It leaves sick people, and their families, without any effective means of getting help they desperately need."

Another incorrect statement- I'm seriously not trying to be troublesome. But in reality it's issues with insurance companies forcing the hands of physicians to discharge people who are not completely stable from a psychiatric perspective. There's also a persistent shortage of beds. I typically house patients in the ED for up to 48 hours before I can get them placed in a bed. They receive minimal psychiatric care during that interval.

Sorry, CLP, but I disagree. This has nothing to do with insurance. It has nothing to do with bed shortages. It has to do with fundamental flaws in how mental health patients are treated. You can research the history of the issue for yourself. Start with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

Here's the system as I have seen it in action: Fairly well-off parents with full insurance have a child who begins developing behavioral problems. At around 14 the term paranoid schizophrenia starts being used.

Parents going to doctors for help? Worthless. Parents going to the courts for help? Worthless. The teen being arrested in a mentally disordered state? That got 5150 48-72 hour evals, at which point he walked away. Hospitals? He walked out and their response was, "We have no right to keep him against his wishes." Eventually the kid is 21 and no longer covered under his parents' insurance. That is 7 years of nothing useful happening, but it doesn't end there.

After another few years of walking out of California hospitals, about 8 years of homeless because he didn't trust people who were trying to help him, and about 2 years of jail time taken in dribs and drabs through that, he decides to hitchhike around the country and has an episode in Maine...except in Maine they have an atypical system where they actually commit people.

Six months and some haldol later he is moved to an outpatient setting with a nurse visiting every few days, and 15 years later he is still doing fine, working even.

The health care system failed that kid, badly, for 15+ years. It left him sexually assaulted, with a criminal record, homeless, et cetera ad nauseum. You are of course free to think that is somehow an insurance problem or a shortage of beds. You can believe fluoridation is for mind control, too. It's a free country. You have a right to be wrong.

 

[WestKentucky]

As always, attack the issue, not the person.

I disagree wholeheartedly with a few of the posts on this thread, but a few are getting personal. Shootingthebreeze has posted a topic for discussion that is undoubtedly a controversial topic. Let's discuss the points. Should legislation and legislators on accord with alphabet agencies determine who the 2nd amendment applies to, and under what circumstances it applies. Opinions and rationale is great. Saying that a fellow member is part of the problem is not acceptable because they disagree with your point of view. Also attacks on character are not good either as the last few posts seem to be. Pointing out flawed logic is ok, but to criticize a persons knowledge in an area in which they are a professional again is not ok. Keep it clean folks. Some of us are here to discuss topics which we have a common interest in, not in measuring ourselves against each other in bickering battles.

 

[CLP]

Sorry, CLP, but I disagree. This has nothing to do with insurance. It has nothing to do with bed shortages. It has to do with fundamental flaws in how mental health patients are treated. You can research the history of the issue for yourself. Start with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

Here's the system as I have seen it in action: Fairly well-off parents with full insurance have a child who begins developing behavioral problems. At around 14 the term paranoid schizophrenia starts being used.

Parents going to doctors for help? Worthless. Parents going to the courts for help? Worthless. The teen being arrested in a mentally disordered state? That got 5150 48-72 hour evals, at which point he walked away. Hospitals? He walked out and their response was, "We have no right to keep him against his wishes." Eventually the kid is 21 and no longer covered under his parents' insurance. That is 7 years of nothing useful happening, but it doesn't end there.

After another few years of walking out of California hospitals, about 8 years of homeless because he didn't trust people who were trying to help him, and about 2 years of jail time taken in dribs and drabs through that, he decides to hitchhike around the country and has an episode in Maine...except in Maine they have an atypical system where they actually commit people.

Six months and some haldol later he is moved to an outpatient setting with a nurse visiting every few days, and 15 years later he is still doing fine, working even.

The health care system failed that kid, badly, for 15+ years. It left him sexually assaulted, with a criminal record, homeless, et cetera ad nauseum. You are of course free to think that is somehow an insurance problem or a shortage of beds. You can believe fluoridation is for mind control, too. It's a free country. You have a right to be wrong.

"This has nothing to do with insurance. It has nothing to do with bed shortages. It has to do with fundamental flaws in how mental health patients are treated."
I disagree. You made a comment stating, "...the mental health approach of the US is dangerously out of whack. It leaves sick people, and their families, without any effective means of getting help they desperately need." I'm telling you exactly what is wrong with the system that leads to people with a wide range of mental illnesses from obtaining proper treatment. I deal with it daily. Lack of beds and refusal to pay for services by insurance companies. Yet you refer me to legislation that protects the liberty of severely mentally ill people? It's a non sequitur. That legislation is good. It protects people's civil liberties. It prevents people from being punitively hospitalized- a once common occurrence.

Your anecdotal example isn't very constructive. "Parents going to doctors for help? Worthless. Parents going to the courts for help? Worthless." Are all courts and physicians worthless. How were they worthless? How are the doctors obeying the law worthless? How are the legislators trying to protect civil liberties worthless? What exactly is a "mentally disordered state"? Does it mean that we should confine someone who's committed no crime and is not an imminent threat to themselves or others? The person you reference sounds like a sick person. It also sounds like a very common outcome. The ongoing discussion has been about liberty. Specifically with respect to the 2A, but are you suggesting we systematically deprive non-threatening mentally ill people of their freedom? People can be committed in all states. I don't know what the laws in Maine are. Glad to hear he's doing better. Sorry to hear you think we need to routinely hospitalize folks and deprive them of their civil liberties and freedom even when they don't pose any threat to anyone. I still think a nationwide shortage of beds and an insurance industry that routinely refuses payment plays a huge role in the mental health problem in this country. Disagree all you want.
By the way, never had a cavity in almost 4 decades. I loves me some fluoride.
I do agree with you. You have the right to be wrong.

 

[jmorris]

I think there are many other things that would also need to be done in conjunction with firearms removal. No access to children, automobiles, sharp objects, shoelaces, bead sheets and such.

Lots of people have done bad things with a lot less in the past. As soon as the first rock was thrown someone was going to get hit with one, just as someone was going to be burned with the invention of fire.

These days it's not "PC" to call things what they are, it seems. So we try to fix things that can't be, then ask why they were not fixed.

 

[stressed]

...what I said-a diagnosed mental condition by a physician and treated by a physician through medication and therapy. This would include a diagnosis of beginnings of mental dementia as well.
Lets be clear on this: not what the neighbor says about another person. A person who develops a mental condition diagnosed by a doctor and who treats this condition.
Depression for example can occur-which makes it more likely for a person who owns a firearm to use a firearm in a suicide or murder suicide. Problem is how to identify if the person has not seen a doctor for the depression.
I think it would be a moral issue on the part of the person who is identified and treated for a diagnosed mental condition to turn over to a close relative his or her firearms in a legal manner. I'm not suggesting turning over weapons to the government/state! One should know who would get ones firearms upon death or disability, like a close family member/son/daughter etc., And I would consider a serious mental illness a serious disability. As I mentioned above what about beginning stages of dementia diagnosed by a physician? I think that would be grounds for relinquishing ones firearms.

Oh, but it is what the neighbor says about you. I can call the law, say I am worried about your saftey and you might kill yourself, police and ambulance will come and put you on 72 hour mental health hold. Guess what? You have just been invoulentary commited. You just lost your gun rights for life for some BS I could have made up.

 

[Ed Ames]

What exactly is a "mentally disordered state"?

One example: The kid decided that he needed to take a lawn chair out of my back yard and use it to smash my windows and car, all the while screaming for me to come out so he could smash me with the chair. Edit: His grievance was that he came home and didn't have his key, so of course that means I stole it from him, never mind the fact that I hadn't seen him or his keys in several days. The total result, despite a history of mental health issues, was that he went to jail for 24 hours on a malicious mischief charge and I got a restraining order which I served to him the next time I saw him.

I am all for civil liberties. I am also highly critical of a system where a sick kid ends up spending more time in jail than in hospitals getting help he needs. You can say that jail vs. hospitalization is somehow protecting his civil liberties, but frankly that seems like a weak argument to me. You can say it's a non sequitur to mention the laws that in reality push sick people into the criminal justice system - without treatment - instead of doing an effective job of providing treatment to unwilling patients, but we are dealing with the unintended consequences of that law.

Another example: He got agitated and punched through a security glass window, severing nerves and tendons in his hand. He had emergency surgery, spent several days under observation, and 6 months in jail for that one.

are you suggesting we systematically deprive non-threatening mentally ill people of their freedom?

I am suggesting that the mental health approach of the US is dangerously out of whack. It leaves sick people, and their families, without any effective means of getting help they desperately need. It was dangerously out of whack in the other direction before, leaving sick people dangerously vulnerable to abuse by the medical profession. There needs to be a middle ground where civil liberties are truly protected (vs. shifting the abuse from hospitals to jails) and sick people are helped vs. being left to fend for themselves on the street or in jail.

 

[CLP]

Oh, but it is what the neighbor says about you. I can call the law, say I am worried about your saftey and you might kill yourself, police and ambulance will come and put you on 72 hour mental health hold. Guess what? You have just been invoulentary commited. You just lost your gun rights for life for some BS I could have made up.

Not quite. 72 hr hold isn't an involuntary hospitalization or commitment. No loss of rights. And unless you were obviously unstable or it was apparent that you were an imminent threat to yourself or others you very likely wouldn't be kept the whole 72 hrs- likely wouldn't even be brought to the hospital to begin with- the police I know do a good job at determining if someone needs to come to the hospital.

 

[Robert]

While mental health has been playing an increasing role in recent events the mission of THR is not to figure out how the mental health profession can best be overhauled. The two subjects have become intertwined but we are, and have always been, a firearms forum.