Debating mental illness and gun violence

[Epic Beard Man]

As social workers when examining a client's case, we often perform what we call a psychosocial on the client, gathering as much information regarding the client's psychological profile, social behaviors, and other pertinent information. As of late, in relation to the recent school shooting, I've been reading a few scholarly articles on any correlation between mental disorders, and gun violence. Now, as someone who is involved in the psychiatric field of social work, I will say professionally there is a high incidence of those who suffer from severe depression, are highly at risk of in home violence when guns are readily available. By readily available, I'm referring to easy access. When it comes to mental disorders one thing we need to get clear, 1 and every 4 persons walking this earth is suffering from a mental disorder.

When talking about mental disorders wee need to understand there are levels concerning disorders from minor ones like generalized anxiety disorder, to clinical depression. But a general understanding of mental disorders typically refers to the behavior and/or mental pattern that causes distress or impairment of personal functioning. DSM typically allocates severity based on the progression and duration of the symptoms (a baseline is usually 6 months). But when it comes to gun violence and looking at mental disorders how can we have a debate concerning the subject without violating someone's constitutional rights? What makes a person not allowed to own a gun with a mental disorder? Are wee looking at school shootings as a litmus test to draw the line on gun ownership when one has a mental disorder?

If I have bipolar disorder and it is controlled through various medications and behavioral therapy, why would I be restricted to own a gun in comparison to someone with a mild case of generalized anxiety disorder? Certainly this is a slippery slope. On one end we are trying to circumvent the deaths of people both in the home and outside, but we also do not want to isolate people with mental disorders as "others" especially if some have their symptoms under control. For the latter it would seem not only unconstitutional but also a violation against HIPAA and gun shops refuse to sell guns to those with a psychiatric diagnosis.

 

[suncowiam]

As social workers when examining a client's case, we often perform what we call a psychosocial on the client, gathering as much information regarding the client's psychological profile, social behaviors, and other pertinent information. As of late, in relation to the recent school shooting, I've been reading a few scholarly articles on any correlation between mental disorders, and gun violence. Now, as someone who is involved in the psychiatric field of social work, I will say professionally there is a high incidence of those who suffer from severe depression, are highly at risk of in home violence when guns are readily available. By readily available, I'm referring to easy access. When it comes to mental disorders one thing we need to get clear, 1 and every 4 persons walking this earth is suffering from a mental disorder.

When talking about mental disorders wee need to understand there are levels concerning disorders from minor ones like generalized anxiety disorder, to clinical depression. But a general understanding of mental disorders typically refers to the behavior and/or mental pattern that causes distress or impairment of personal functioning. DSM typically allocates severity based on the progression and duration of the symptoms (a baseline is usually 6 months). But when it comes to gun violence and looking at mental disorders how can we have a debate concerning the subject without violating someone's constitutional rights? What makes a person not allowed to own a gun with a mental disorder? Are wee looking at school shootings as a litmus test to draw the line on gun ownership when one has a mental disorder?

If I have bipolar disorder and it is controlled through various medications and behavioral therapy, why would I be restricted to own a gun in comparison to someone with a mild case of generalized anxiety disorder? Certainly this is a slippery slope. On one end we are trying to circumvent the deaths of people both in the home and outside, but we also do not want to isolate people with mental disorders as "others" especially if some have their symptoms under control. For the latter it would seem not only unconstitutional but also a violation against HIPAA and gun shops refuse to sell guns to those with a psychiatric diagnosis.

I have the solution. We amend the second amendment.

 

[Mindmaster]

If I have bipolar disorder and it is controlled through various medications and behavioral therapy, why would I be restricted to own a gun in comparison to someone with a mild case of generalized anxiety disorder? Certainly this is a slippery slope. On one end we are trying to circumvent the deaths of people both in the home and outside, but we also do not want to isolate people with mental disorders as "others" especially if some have their symptoms under control. For the latter it would seem not only unconstitutional but also a violation against HIPAA and gun shops refuse to sell guns to those with a psychiatric diagnosis.

In Illinois, this won't save you. They will deny you the firearm, but will not share the information as to why. (This doesn't break HIPAA restrictions.) The gun seller doesn't know why you've been rejected, just that you are. I think if you're seeking any treatment that involves medication, you shouldn't have a firearm. It's not just that you could harm others, but yourself as well.

I don't see how this is discriminating toward anyone, it's just applying common sense - if someone manifests a mental issue, we treat it appropriately. By definition, an illness is the absence of normalcy, so it makes sense to deal with it in the way that keeps the majority of society safe. With mental issues, these are a unique case and the effects can easily bleed over into the lives around them - it's just damage control, really.

 

[Mindmaster]

I have the solution. We amend the second amendment.

Or, we just make California "gun-free" and all the bleeding heart liberals can live there. They'll be surprised when the gun-free doesn't do anything for the murder count or anything else.

 

[suncowiam]

Or, we just make California "gun-free" and all the bleeding heart liberals can live there. They'll be surprised when the gun-free doesn't do anything for the murder count or anything else.

It could work with the following stipulations:
1) Close its borders and secure all import.
2) Ban guns and manufacturers.
3) Confiscate all guns.
4) Strengthen laws and increase punishment against individuals violating gun laws.

I expect a delay in results because it will take time for enforcement to lower the gun count. After gun possessions go down dramatically, we will see a correlated decrease in gun violence. This would be like pretty much how all other countries lowered their gun violence by enforcing their near-ban of guns.

Then all of the rest of the US would continue to be the prime counter example of how not to handle gun violence. That's how other Western developed countries look at us now...

 

[Mindmaster]

It could work with the following stipulations:
1) Close its borders and secure all import.
2) Ban guns and manufacturers.
3) Confiscate all guns.
4) Strengthen laws and increase punishment against individuals violating gun laws.

I expect a delay in results because it will take time for enforcement to lower the gun count. After gun possessions go down dramatically, we will see a correlated decrease in gun violence. This would be like pretty much how all other countries lowered their gun violence by enforcing their near-ban of guns.

Then all of the rest of the US would continue to be the prime counter example of how not to handle gun violence. That's how the west of the Western develop countries look at us now...

You do realize that no where that has banned guns has eliminated violence or murder right and most of them have seen a rise, right? Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries Property related crimes in all non-gun owning areas always go up, so be careful what you ask for.

Admittedly, my statements were somewhat sarcastic, but it would make more sense to beta test these ideas on a willing subject rather than apply them nationwide. If their state doesn't want them, they don't have to have them. There are states like Alabama which prove you can have high ownership and extremely low gun crime, for example, that refute the notion in the first place. But, I rather leave it to the states to decide what is right for them and give us the choice of whether we want to be subjected to those rules or not.

 

[suncowiam]

You do realize that no where that has banned guns has eliminated violence or murder right and most of them have seen a rise, right? Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries Property related crimes in all non-gun owning areas always go up, so be careful what you ask for.

Admittedly, my statements were somewhat sarcastic, but it would make more sense to beta test these ideas on a willing subject rather than apply them nationwide. If their state doesn't want them, they don't have to have them. There are states like Alabama which prove you can have high ownership and extremely low gun crime, for example, that refute the notion in the first place. But, I rather leave it to the states to decide what is right for them and give us the choice of whether we want to be subjected to those rules or not.

Oh yes. I meant to reply to that when you originally posted it.

Too bad all that data is terribly outdated. Look at all the references, particularly the dates. I even tried to dig up some the references and couldn't find them to get more details.

No, that site is at best out dated.

Japan has always been leading by prime example. Australia has always been successful after their ban. UK has turned around drastically after 2004.

Here are my statistics which are all up to date:
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
Australia has eliminated mass shootings — here's what the US can learn
The research is clear: gun control saves lives

My statistics are with in 1-2 years. Can't say the same for yours so now what?

 

[suncowiam]

You do realize that no where that has banned guns has eliminated violence or murder right and most of them have seen a rise, right? Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries Property related crimes in all non-gun owning areas always go up, so be careful what you ask for.

Admittedly, my statements were somewhat sarcastic, but it would make more sense to beta test these ideas on a willing subject rather than apply them nationwide. If their state doesn't want them, they don't have to have them. There are states like Alabama which prove you can have high ownership and extremely low gun crime, for example, that refute the notion in the first place. But, I rather leave it to the states to decide what is right for them and give us the choice of whether we want to be subjected to those rules or not.

To be fair to you, I wouldn't support a gun free zone in California if it can't control its borders and aren't willing to enforce all the current laws.

That's not gun control at all. This is why Chicago is failing.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't want to derail the OP with another general debate on gun control.

Concerning the OP, let the experts define the proper processes. Don't let a policy that was defined centuries ago with no knowledge of psychological health define it now. Amend it to meet the times!

If you're the expert then what do you think? Just don't please just state the current policies as if its some kind of bible. I want medical opinions, not an interpretation of the second amendment.

 

[idav]

As social workers when examining a client's case, we often perform what we call a psychosocial on the client, gathering as much information regarding the client's psychological profile, social behaviors, and other pertinent information. As of late, in relation to the recent school shooting, I've been reading a few scholarly articles on any correlation between mental disorders, and gun violence. Now, as someone who is involved in the psychiatric field of social work, I will say professionally there is a high incidence of those who suffer from severe depression, are highly at risk of in home violence when guns are readily available. By readily available, I'm referring to easy access. When it comes to mental disorders one thing we need to get clear, 1 and every 4 persons walking this earth is suffering from a mental disorder.

When talking about mental disorders wee need to understand there are levels concerning disorders from minor ones like generalized anxiety disorder, to clinical depression. But a general understanding of mental disorders typically refers to the behavior and/or mental pattern that causes distress or impairment of personal functioning. DSM typically allocates severity based on the progression and duration of the symptoms (a baseline is usually 6 months). But when it comes to gun violence and looking at mental disorders how can we have a debate concerning the subject without violating someone's constitutional rights? What makes a person not allowed to own a gun with a mental disorder? Are wee looking at school shootings as a litmus test to draw the line on gun ownership when one has a mental disorder?

If I have bipolar disorder and it is controlled through various medications and behavioral therapy, why would I be restricted to own a gun in comparison to someone with a mild case of generalized anxiety disorder? Certainly this is a slippery slope. On one end we are trying to circumvent the deaths of people both in the home and outside, but we also do not want to isolate people with mental disorders as "others" especially if some have their symptoms under control. For the latter it would seem not only unconstitutional but also a violation against HIPAA and gun shops refuse to sell guns to those with a psychiatric diagnosis.

Its a really good question. Since the recent gun incidents and talk of mental stability I started remembering some of the laws that require people with mental disorders causing violence to stay on their meds. This is also a slippery slope but if there were a way to guarantee someone, lets say with schizophrenia, would stay on their meds would we still want to allow them gun access?

I don't mind the idea @Mindmaster mentioned about keeping HIPAA compliant but it is also a slippery slope to track people. If the state mandated the DMV state issued id's (I'm official cause I have residence thats provable) that have now become national norms make so that everyone is potentially on a watch list and that can become ugly.

Honestly, just like my hate of airport inspection, I want to say I am willing to sacrifice a little safety for more freedom, but to a point of course. More laws means the terrorists win, I'm not scared but to not be scared we have to have the capablity to protect ourselves in times of increased violence. If it's obvious that a person is a danger to society generally I have no issue stripping them of their second amendment rights or they violate the rest of the rights of people to live happy safe lives.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You do realize that no where that has banned guns has eliminated violence or murder right and most of them have seen a rise, right? Gun Facts | Gun Control and Crime in non-US Countries Property related crimes in all non-gun owning areas always go up, so be careful what you ask for.

Admittedly, my statements were somewhat sarcastic, but it would make more sense to beta test these ideas on a willing subject rather than apply them nationwide. If their state doesn't want them, they don't have to have them. There are states like Alabama which prove you can have high ownership and extremely low gun crime, for example, that refute the notion in the first place. But, I rather leave it to the states to decide what is right for them and give us the choice of whether we want to be subjected to those rules or not.

Who thinks banning guns (in the limited places that has happened) removes gun violence?

Increased gun control in Australia has removed all mass shootings, though.
0 since they were introduced.

 

[Mindmaster]

Who thinks banning guns (in the limited places that has happened) removes gun violence?

Increased gun control in Australia has removed all mass shootings, though.
0 since they were introduced.

True, but I think the problems are cultural not firearms based. I mean you can kill people with cars by running them over at events. https://worldisraelnews.com/car-ramming-incident-australia-kills-3-injures-15/

The implements used will change, but there are always crazy people. They will find a way to stay crazy... The problem isn't ban-all-the-things solvable, it's identifying the mental patients that perpetuate these acts, and dealing with them properly.

 

[Curious George]

As social workers when examining a client's case, we often perform what we call a psychosocial on the client, gathering as much information regarding the client's psychological profile, social behaviors, and other pertinent information. As of late, in relation to the recent school shooting, I've been reading a few scholarly articles on any correlation between mental disorders, and gun violence. Now, as someone who is involved in the psychiatric field of social work, I will say professionally there is a high incidence of those who suffer from severe depression, are highly at risk of in home violence when guns are readily available. By readily available, I'm referring to easy access. When it comes to mental disorders one thing we need to get clear, 1 and every 4 persons walking this earth is suffering from a mental disorder.

When talking about mental disorders wee need to understand there are levels concerning disorders from minor ones like generalized anxiety disorder, to clinical depression. But a general understanding of mental disorders typically refers to the behavior and/or mental pattern that causes distress or impairment of personal functioning. DSM typically allocates severity based on the progression and duration of the symptoms (a baseline is usually 6 months). But when it comes to gun violence and looking at mental disorders how can we have a debate concerning the subject without violating someone's constitutional rights? What makes a person not allowed to own a gun with a mental disorder? Are wee looking at school shootings as a litmus test to draw the line on gun ownership when one has a mental disorder?

If I have bipolar disorder and it is controlled through various medications and behavioral therapy, why would I be restricted to own a gun in comparison to someone with a mild case of generalized anxiety disorder? Certainly this is a slippery slope. On one end we are trying to circumvent the deaths of people both in the home and outside, but we also do not want to isolate people with mental disorders as "others" especially if some have their symptoms under control. For the latter it would seem not only unconstitutional but also a violation against HIPAA and gun shops refuse to sell guns to those with a psychiatric diagnosis.

Please also give critical thought to the potential stigmitization and discouragement for seeking help that such laws could impact.

 

[idav]

True, but I think the problems are cultural not firearms based. I mean you can kill people with cars by running them over at events. https://worldisraelnews.com/car-ramming-incident-australia-kills-3-injures-15/

The implements used will change, but there are always crazy people. They will find a way to stay crazy... The problem isn't ban-all-the-things solvable, it's identifying the mental patients that perpetuate these acts, and dealing with them properly.

Nobody denies the fact that murder will continue. To suggest it is to consider people naive. A person can kill with a pencil that doesn’t mean we ban or restrict pencils. However to compare a pencil to a firearm would be disingenuous to the real risk of firearms in comparison. Besides cars is a bad example which the US makes more laws, restrictions and liscensing mandates because of the risks cars pose. In comparison it’s common sense to have reasonable firearm restrictions and mandates.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

True, but I think the problems are cultural not firearms based. I mean you can kill people with cars by running them over at events. https://worldisraelnews.com/car-ramming-incident-australia-kills-3-injures-15/

The implements used will change, but there are always crazy people. They will find a way to stay crazy... The problem isn't ban-all-the-things solvable, it's identifying the mental patients that perpetuate these acts, and dealing with them properly.

It's not a 'one or the other' proposition. And cars are both licensed, registered, regulated, and less likely to be used in a school corridor, as well as having a civil purpose certain classes of weapons simply don't.

Prior to gun law changes (over 20 years ago) we had a spate of mass shootings, culminating in 35 people being killed by a lone gunmen with an AR-15 and a second rifle. After that, none. Not one. That is pretty remarkable.

Gun violence dropped, gun suicides dropped massively, and the expected upswing in other methods for harm or self harm went nowhere near making up the difference.

Guns weren't banned wholesale. There was a voluntary buyback scheme which netted 600,000 weapons (there was less than 20 million of us back then). Certain classes of weapons were banned. And registration regulations, including cool-downs, were beefed up.

There was no negative to this, despite the attempted intervention indirectly by the US NRA (surprise!) via funding for local guns groups.

Long story short, I have my thoughts about US gun laws, but the situations are different. Still, if you start making comments about how 'nowhere that's banned guns has eliminated violence'...a complete strawman...and go on to further suggest that violence generally increases where guns are controlled, I feel compelled to offer our humble country as counterpoint and call you on it.

 

[Stanyon]

It could work with the following stipulations:
1) Close its borders and secure all import.
2) Ban guns and manufacturers.
3) Confiscate all guns.
4) Strengthen laws and increase punishment against individuals violating gun laws.

I expect a delay in results because it will take time for enforcement to lower the gun count. After gun possessions go down dramatically, we will see a correlated decrease in gun violence. This would be like pretty much how all other countries lowered their gun violence by enforcing their near-ban of guns.

Then all of the rest of the US would continue to be the prime counter example of how not to handle gun violence. That's how other Western developed countries look at us now...

California could build a wall and make the rest of the U.S. Pay for it!

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I have the solution. We amend the second amendment.

This has absolutely no relationship to what has been said...

 

[Epic Beard Man]

In Illinois, this won't save you. They will deny you the firearm, but will not share the information as to why. (This doesn't break HIPAA restrictions.) The gun seller doesn't know why you've been rejected, just that you are. I think if you're seeking any treatment that involves medication, you shouldn't have a firearm. It's not just that you could harm others, but yourself as well.

I don't see how this is discriminating toward anyone, it's just applying common sense - if someone manifests a mental issue, we treat it appropriately. By definition, an illness is the absence of normalcy, so it makes sense to deal with it in the way that keeps the majority of society safe. With mental issues, these are a unique case and the effects can easily bleed over into the lives around them - it's just damage control, really.

let me highlight the above:

Only true way for any gun shop to not sell you a weapon is if you have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility beyond the 72 hour threshold. You can be on a 72 hour threshold and still purchase a weapon but if it is determined by a psychiatrist that you are meant to be there involuntarily past 72 hours you cannot buy a gun--or if the court decides you are mentally not competent. The issue here is that federal law does not mandate that mental health status be a part of the background check.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Its a really good question. Since the recent gun incidents and talk of mental stability I started remembering some of the laws that require people with mental disorders causing violence to stay on their meds. This is also a slippery slope but if there were a way to guarantee someone, lets say with schizophrenia, would stay on their meds would we still want to allow them gun access?

I don't mind the idea @Mindmaster mentioned about keeping HIPAA compliant but it is also a slippery slope to track people. If the state mandated the DMV state issued id's (I'm official cause I have residence thats provable) that have now become national norms make so that everyone is potentially on a watch list and that can become ugly.

Honestly, just like my hate of airport inspection, I want to say I am willing to sacrifice a little safety for more freedom, but to a point of course. More laws means the terrorists win, I'm not scared but to not be scared we have to have the capablity to protect ourselves in times of increased violence. If it's obvious that a person is a danger to society generally I have no issue stripping them of their second amendment rights or they violate the rest of the rights of people to live happy safe lives.

Well the thing is gun salespeople hands are tied when it comes to this. They can only look at whether the person has been involuntarily committed past 72 hours or if the state deems the person mentally incapable, but if you are seeing a psychiatrist and are taking psychiatric medications, gun shop salespeople cannot deny you the purchase of a weapon. It is literally impossible if they know you are seeing a "shrink." You can literally walk in to a gun shop and pop some haldol pills in front of the gun salesman and they cannot deny you a weapon.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Or, we just make California "gun-free" and all the bleeding heart liberals can live there. They'll be surprised when the gun-free doesn't do anything for the murder count or anything else.

Gun free just allows the gangs to terrorize more