Chicago Tribune Editorial: Guns and the mentally ill

Status
Not open for further replies.

Neo-Luddite

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,257
Location
Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0221edit1feb21,0,3974371.story

(I added bolding)


Guns and the mentally ill
February 21, 2008



Steven Kazmierczak told a friend that he had been discharged from the military for psychological reasons. He'd also reportedly spent time in a Chicago psychiatric treatment center in the late 1990s. But those incidents weren't enough to get him on a state database that is supposed to bar the mentally ill from holding gun permits or owning guns.

We don't know if there was anything in his history that should have landed him on that list. Nor do we know if any existing laws should have stopped Kazmierczak. No law that attempts to peer into a person's mind, to predict and prevent violence, will ever be foolproof.

In the aftermath of Virginia Tech massacre last year, people demanded that cops ... doctors ... pols ... campus officials ... someone ... do something to prevent another tragedy.




And they did.

- Virginia targeted a huge loophole in that state's law that allowed a mentally unstable killer to assemble an arsenal of weapons.

- Congress beefed up the government's ability to stop the mentally ill from buying guns. The law, signed by President Bush in January, compels states to turn over records to the federal screening database on anyone who has been found to be a danger to himself or others, and involuntarily committed to either inpatient or outpatient services. The goal: Expand the federal database to include an estimated 2 million or more people, including felons and the mentally ill, who cannot legally buy firearms.

At the time of the Virginia Tech shootings, only 22 states provided any mental health information to the federal database, according to the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. It needs to be 50.

The feds are providing up to $250 million a year to help states comply. Illinois, which has its own statewide screening database, is set to start routinely providing to the feds this year the records of those who can't legally buy a gun. A strong federal database is crucial to keep ineligible gun buyers from crossing state lines to purchase guns.

- Starting June 1, mental health professionals in Illinois will be required to report violent, suicidal or threatening patients. That's much broader than the previous law, which required such reporting only for those admitted to public mental health institutions. With that alert, Illinois State Police can stop a person from legally buying a gun. If a person has a gun, police can seize it.

Some health professionals say they are uncomfortable with the new law because it shifts more of the reporting burden onto their shoulders. They worry about discouraging people from seeking treatment and about violating patients' privacy. Public safety isn't served if people are discouraged from getting treatment. That could create a dangerous subset of people who don't get counseling, don't get medication, don't get monitoring, but do get guns.

It's not just about databases and new laws. Remember -- someone always knows something. That's what Gary Slutkin, a violence prevention expert at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says. There are always warning signs of dangerous mental instability detected by parents, brothers, sisters, friends. Unfortunately, most people just don't know how to interpret them, or what to do. They may fear the consequences of alerting school authorities, police, or doctors. So they say nothing.

Say something.
 
I posted about my concerns regarding this new IL law about six months back. The issue comes down to the fact that the new ILLINOIS law will allow virtually any mental health care provider to add a patient to the FEDERAL 'no gun' list while absolving them from all liability.

This new law went largly unnoticed here until the murders at NIU--now the spotlight is on it somewhat. It may be of special concern to Illinois veterans who may need help for PTSD. What action can be taken to modify how the law is implimented I am not sure.
 
Lets just assume that everybody is mentally ill unless they can prove otherwise...

That ought to fix that nasty gun problem... :scrutiny:
 
Precisely, Romma

"Lets just assume that everybody is mentally ill unless they can prove otherwise..."---Romma

:) Precisely Romma, and that is precisely the problem.

One of the obvious difficulties with the field of "mental health" is that the standards of "health" or "normalcy" are so vaguely defined.

I am not an expert, but the idea that a person acting "calm" or "non-threatening" or being able to identify the DATE and TIME is not a very good indicator of "health".

When we consider the idea that potentially dangerous person is an "Angry" person, we have difficulties also, because it is not a crime or misdemeanor to simply be "angry". It is not a crime to be "paranoid" either.

I could be wrong, not being either a psychiatrist or a lawyer, but the state is limited in what it can do, needing to address violations of LAW, but not of REASON, per se. For that matter, we do not even teach LOGIC and REASON in public schools. And I don't think the fields of psychology and psychiatry should have a broader power to intrude upon broader propositions of "mental health".

In my life, I deal with people on a day to day basis, that act, as far as I can tell, to be just plain nuts. They might be religious, morally principled, highly educated, or hard working, but still they just act "nuts". I still have no problem with the idiots carrying a weapon for self defense. Their "nuttiness" consists in judgements in values, that do not require loss of life.

The best answer in any case, is just to have an armed citizenry, and let them share in the policing.

The difficulty with Mental Health issues, if I catch your drift, is that everyone who desires to own a gun, could so easily be questioned and determined to be either "Mentally Ill" or "Mentally Unhealthy" or merely a generalized "threat to the public safety".


Long-winded, but.....what else would expect from a nut?:neener::neener:
 
the other issues concerning "Mentally Ill"

It's a PANDORA's BOX, and all the plagues will emerge


Other issues that are relevent to the issue of the "Mentally Ill' and guns do not necessarily come to mind right away, but these are important for the public awareness.

The issue is the vague concept of "Mental Illness" but what about the fact that EIGHTY PERCENT of Americans use alcohol to some degree?

Then there are the issues concerning Psychotropic Drugs to treat vague maladies such as "Depression". [Depression is repressed anger]. Therefore, if a person suffers from "Depression" they can get a prescription Drug such as PROZAC or many other alternative medicines. Nothing prevents this person from driving, neither does it qualify as a "Mental Illness" in the sense that records are kept in a national or state database. No crime has been committed.

However, Psyhcotropic (mood altering) drugs DO act upon the areas of the brain which also regulate violent behavior. Sometimes such persons treated with these drugs can ADVERSELY react and explode INTO violent behavior. That's the problem with such drugs.

So, the point here, is that people support the idea of such databases, some gun purchases can be prevented, that would arm a dangerous individual, but it also opens a door to a massive prohibition on gun purchases. Theoretically this can happen, because a vast number of Americans are currently being treated for "depression" with psychotropic drugs. I won't bother to provide a statistic. I've seen them before.

If a school kid was given RITALIN (a form of "speed") to moderate hyperactivity, will that child as an adult, be prevented from possessing a firearm?

The bottom line, is that this is a giant PANDORA's BOX, and I don't think any advocate of 2nd Amendment rights can reasonably go wholeheartedly along with the proposition of databases to identify persons deemed "mentally ill".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's take this "Mentally Ill" Database issue further still.

If we have such a Database, to prevent the "mentally ill" from buying guns and being a danger to society, Why would the American people NEED a right to carry guns? That's right. Because the argument goes like this:

(1) We have a database that keeps firearms out of the hands of "unstable" people


(2) Americans no longer need to defend themselves, and there is no longer a need for an armed citizenry, because the National Database is our new protection against violence and those who would DEPRIVE us of "...LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virtually no psychiatrist uses PSYCHOANALYSIS to treat "mental illness". Psychoanalysis is a minority treatment today. Drugs are the new treatment modality. There are so many people on prescription drugs that it staggers the imagination. My argument would be that if prescription drugs ever become the criteria for classifying a person as unfit for gun ownership. I suggest that this would serve as a very convenient barrier to gun ownership, and do not think for a minute that Anti-Gun people would not jump on this opportunity to bar gun ownership.

This is a tricky issue, where the convenience of a Medical Science, can cause you to forget the greater importance of your LEGAL RIGHT.

We would not want to be as dumb as CHICKEN LITTLE, who was convinced by FOXY WOXXY that the solution to the problem was to "GO-AND-TELL-THE-KING".

This would be like "INFORMATION AGE" B.S. if you ask me. The issue has always been that the "right to bear arms" is a Constitutional (LEGAL) right. If that issue shifts, and changes, becoming some kind of MEDICAL RIGHT, it would be throwing away the most powerful advocacy for our right to legal SELF-DEFENSE.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment was created to protect us from a tyrannical government, a KING.

If we are going to use "ARMS" for self-defense, then lets use the gun, and not a paper database in some government office, because that dog won't hunt.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[and NO, I do not use prescription medications of any kind, nor have I used "street drugs" in over twenty years]
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity:

Due to high stress conditions of their dangerous careers, many law enforcement officers actively seek, or are required by their departments to participate in mental health treatment. Especially after traumatic experiences.

Wouldn't this be considered reason to add them to a federal list of mental health patients? Wouldn't this have a detrimental effect to our police departments?

If you were a person in definate need of help, but knew you would be reported to the feds and placed on a list of "questionable" individuals in regards to firearms purchases, would you seek treatment anyway?
 
No law that attempts to peer into a person's mind, to predict and prevent violence, will ever be foolproof.
Its incredible that the author of the article sees the true problem and fails to discuss any real solutions for innocent people to protect themselves.
 
An analogue: "Most child molestors are men, therefore we should not let men have access to children."

I have actually heard women make this ludicrous argument. The problem with it is that while most child molesters are men, only an incredibly tiny proportion of men are child molesters.

"Most mass-murderers are mentally ill, therefore we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to have access to guns."

This is foolish, stupid, a violation of equal protection, short-sighted, and demonstrates a huge failure to understand mental illness, not to mention math.

It is immaterial that most mass murderers are mentally ill. The vast majority of the mentally ill are not mass murderers. Having a mental illness does not mean one is violent. Having suicidal thoughts does not mean one is violent. Having violent thoughts doesn't even mean one is violent.

The only that makes a person violent is acting with violence. It is incredibly un-American to deny someone their rights because we are afraid of what they might do.

Unfortunately, gun owners cooperate with approaches like these all the time, by agreeing that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns.
 
I've heard several times that the shooter was "discharged from the military for psychological reasons". Is this true??? If so, wouldn't this have been a Section 8 (and thus, a dishonorable discharge)???? This should have immediately disqualified him from purchasing a gun legally.

Is this true or not?????
 
He was (I'm guessing) NOT psych discharged per sey--and in NO WAY is a psych discharge dishonorable--it is usually under honorable conditions.

My bet was he received an ELS (entry level seperation) because he was either not fitting in or because during a background investigation (often NOT completed 100% prior to training) they found out about his psych history and decided to part ways. It was probably an admin discharge under honorable conditions--not a 'bad' dischange or one that prohibits any rights.

But as I said, I'm guessing.
 
Yeah I'm mentally ill and I still have guns:neener: Last time I checked you had to be judged legally insane to be barred from owning them.
 
An analogue: "Most child molestors are men, therefore we should not let men have access to children."

I have actually heard women make this ludicrous argument. The problem with it is that while most child molesters are men, only an incredibly tiny proportion of men are child molesters.

"Most mass-murderers are mentally ill, therefore we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to have access to guns."

This is foolish, stupid, a violation of equal protection, short-sighted, and demonstrates a huge failure to understand mental illness, not to mention math.

It is immaterial that most mass murderers are mentally ill. The vast majority of the mentally ill are not mass murderers. Having a mental illness does not mean one is violent. Having suicidal thoughts does not mean one is violent. Having violent thoughts doesn't even mean one is violent.

The only that makes a person violent is acting with violence. It is incredibly un-American to deny someone their rights because we are afraid of what they might do.

Unfortunately, gun owners cooperate with approaches like these all the time, by agreeing that the mentally ill shouldn't have guns.
Right on!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top