Yet another school shooting

[Husqvarna]

1. Can mental health professionals 'fix/cure' folk who would go on a shooting rampage?

most definitly not fix it 100%

without linking and counting the statistic we can clearly see the Europe has less of these horrible events.

partly probably cultural, of course there is bullying and so on in Europe to but it is way bigger of an issue in America, to the point that it is a cliche part of movie/tv that jocks do this and that against nerds

We don't have as much guns as you do but we have them, even in "socialist" countries
but then on the otherh and us gun-pro folks we don't believe that access to guns raises crimes commited with them right?

the US lacks one major thing that most of Europe practises thou: UHC...
I put that forth as the deciding difference
a more comprehensive system catches more people early on
I know guys who have had their guns taken away from them, 2 cases of abuse problems (and both got them back after a couple of years and treatment) they are both glad it happened. and a couple of old geezers who started to show signs of dementia/alzheimers

unfortunalty the issue gets locked up in partisan posturing nad bickering. if people look at it logically and rationally it is the way to go, the rest of the free western world has done it you know, but then on the otherh and you still adhere to the silly notion of feet, inches, miles and all that nonsense, when there is a perfectly rational and logical system used by the rest of the world, but you wanna be obtuse.

[Husqvarna]

I work in a school btw

and support CCW(even if it isn't an option in my country)

for practical reason I can't see how I could carry thou. I work with mostly special needs ADHD and other kids on the spectrum, I am physical with them on a regular basis when they are in affect.

Everything got highlighted last year when a psycho attacked a school with a sword. we have lockdown procedures and whatnot. i dunno how others feel but were I in a school, that I know is atleast 10 minutes away from police help there is an obligation to hopefully do as that PE teacher did, I mean you can't lock yourself in a classroom and see kids running in the halls?

[armoredman]

I deal with SMI, (Significantly Mentally Ill), incarcerated persons daily. When it comes down to, "Is the person doing the crime mentally ill and have we done all we can to help them", my answer is simply, "I don't care." Mental health care should be available to those who need it, but we also don't need to stigmatize those who are not mentally ill and/or force "treatment" or drugs on those who don't need it. One meeting with a counselor led to me being rather dramatic when they suggested Ritalin, which I recall was a factor in almost all of the school shootings in the past decades, IIRC. Identify and assist those who are having issues, address and punish bullying, and arm the good people - but remind them they are NOT law enforcement. I would much rather there be an armed and trained teacher/janitor/Administrator on my son's campus than just gun-free-zone signs and good wishes.

[buck460XVR]

School shootings is an issue that cannot be solved by debate within pro-firearms community

I doubt very much if school shootings are an issue that can be completely solved by any means. We had a School shooting in my school back in 1969, which killed our principle. It is not a new phenomenon. What we can do by discussion within and outside the pro-firearms community is reduce the chances and reduce the risk to the children. Most schools now have procedures in place to restrict access to the buildings during the school day. Unfortunately, many schools(generally all high schools) become community buildings, open to the public after school hours, because of school athletics and other events. This is where I expect to see a increase in school shootings. Most of the time you have a high amount of folks concentrated heavily in a gymnasium or an auditorium as opposed to spread out in every classroom. These are the situations where a true terrorist is looking for, high numbers of soft targets in a small area, as opposed to a angry student who is looking for revenge against a few.

[Pond, James Pond]

One meeting with a counselor led to me being rather dramatic when they suggested Ritalin

It is an impression outside the States, between the media, the entertainment industry etc that suggests that the medical profession have a tendency to be very "free" with prescription drugs.
What I mean is that the default treatment for any condition will involve a prescription slip when other approaches/therapies could suffice.

Would that be accurate in your experience?
I mean generally, not only psychiatric treatment (although that is the one that is featured most frequently in film and TV: "troubled protagonist struggles with demons of past traumas but finally triumphs.")

[44 AMP]

What I mean is that the default treatment for any condition will involve a prescription slip when other approaches/therapies could suffice.

Absolutely true, in my experience. They will put you on a pill, (or a combination of pills) to see what happens. If the problem is cured, great. If not, they will "adjust" your meds until the problem is cured, or they kill you in the process.

Pills are cheap (for the DOCTOR, they don't take up the Dr's time) and easy, they just write a prescription.

As to school shootings, I think ONE of the reasons they seem to happen so often these days (besides the effect of a 24/7 TV news cycle) is that we have been so "successful" in the last couple generations, at stamping out the lesser forms of violence. Kids who got bullied used to be able to fight it out.

Sometimes it was supervised, in a boxing match, more often it wasn't, but there was a fight. Someone won, someone lost, either way, the issue usually got resolved. That simply isn't allowed today (generally), because fighting is "bad".

The trouble is, that life, and school in particular is a pressure vessel. And when you take away the "relief valve" pressure just keeps building up, until the vessel explodes.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Husqvarna

the US lacks one major thing that most of Europe practises thou: UHC...
I put that forth as the deciding difference
a more comprehensive system catches more people early on
I know guys who have had their guns taken away from them, 2 cases of abuse problems (and both got them back after a couple of years and treatment) they are both glad it happened. and a couple of old geezers who started to show signs of dementia/alzheimers

Having access to universal health care is one thing but that is wholly different than universally mandating certain mental examinations. Do people voluntarily submit themselves to mental tests or does the government make them?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by pjp

It is an impression outside the States, between the media, the entertainment industry etc that suggests that the medical profession have a tendency to be very "free" with prescription drugs.
What I mean is that the default treatment for any condition will involve a prescription slip when other approaches/therapies could suffice.

That's a bit broad, but not necessarily untrue.

One difference may be that we only get some classes of drugs from medical docs. We don't go see a pharmacist for routine ailments. Unless it is an over the counter drug (cough medicine, aspirin, allergy pills), we see a doc who must first write a prescription. Pharmacies only dispense.

Docs write a lot more prescriptions for pills than they once did in part because pills do so much more than they once did. Modern anti-depressants and anti-clotting drugs have saved many lives.

There was a time when docs may have prescribed pain meds too freely. There are quite a few safeguards in place in my state, so many that we sometimes see the opposite problem - a doc who is reluctant to treat real pain because he doesn't want to endanger his license or be taken in by drug seeking behavior.

I do have reservations about how we medicate children sometimes, but I don't place the blame on docs. We make little boys sit in boring classrooms, give them only modest exercise, and then are shocked when they become difficult for a teacher to handle. I know that drugs can be a real help to some children, but wonder whether schools give them a sufficient option to be a bit odd or difficult without medicating them.


ETA:

Originally Posted by 44AMP

Sometimes it was supervised, in a boxing match, more often it wasn't, but there was a fight. Someone won, someone lost, either way, the issue usually got resolved. That simply isn't allowed today (generally), because fighting is "bad".

This is a peeve of mine. Teachers of children in grammar and middle school, almost invariably women, do not understand that for boys "violence" can be a legitimate dispute resolution mechanism. Boys tend to be socially accepting, but require some sort of hierarchic ordering mechanism. Even the lowest ranking member of a group of boys is still a member of that group, whereas girls might simply exclude that individual from all interaction.

When it is handled properly, conflict and resolution between boys can be the basis of mutual respect and even friendship. Alienation and social disengagement are going to be a problem whether a lad finds a firearm or not.

[buck460XVR]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

As to school shootings, I think ONE of the reasons they seem to happen so often these days (besides the effect of a 24/7 TV news cycle) is that we have been so "successful" in the last couple generations, at stamping out the lesser forms of violence. Kids who got bullied used to be able to fight it out.

Sometimes it was supervised, in a boxing match, more often it wasn't, but there was a fight. Someone won, someone lost, either way, the issue usually got resolved. That simply isn't allowed today (generally), because fighting is "bad".

The trouble is, that life, and school in particular is a pressure vessel. And when you take away the "relief valve" pressure just keeps building up, until the vessel explodes.

Well......... according to statistics and the National School Safety Center since 1994, there has been a significant decline in school-associated violent deaths. Actually there were more incidents of school shootings in the 40s, 50s and 60s, then there has been lately.......you know, back when boys were allowed to "duke it out" and relieve that pressure. Easier access to high capacity semi-automatic weapons has sometimes led to more deaths per incidence, but still overall, deaths have declined. Much of this is because of the new protocols installed by school districts as to access to buildings during the school day when kids are present. Folks with swipes/keys are monitored and have had background checks, otherwise folks need to be "buzzed" in by someone at the door, looking thru bullet proof glass or using a security camera. Schools also have regular "active shooter" drills and training and the idea of just hiding in place is no longer the SOP. The ideas being implemented were brought about by both pro-gun folks and non-gun folk working together for the safety of our children.

While school shooting incidents don't happen as much as they used to, we hear about them more(seems the news shows just pound and pound on these incidents) and for longer durations of time. IMHO, this is what drives many to become an "active shooter". The idea of someone who feels unnoticed and ignored, getting their 15 minutes of fame.

[DonnonGT]

There was a scare at my nephew's school last week. A kid that my nephew knew for years called several kids one evening last week and told them not to come to school the next day, that he was going to shoot the place up. He contacted another kid who he knew had access to firearms and asked for a gun. It's unclear if he got his hands on one or not.

Several of the kids that he had contacted reported the message to their parents. The school was open the next day, but with a heavier police presence and warning emails having been sent to all the parents. The kid who made the threats wasn't there. The police were in the loop by the morning, but details on how things were being dealt with are pretty scarce.

It was a tense day, but no one got hurt. That's a win, I guess. It is such a shame that kids today have to grow up in this sort of world. Where do things go from here?

[armoredman]

I knew people with rifles in the trucks at school, to go target shooting or hunting after work. We had an on campus ROTC rifle club. We never had a school shooting while I was there. We had some fights, but they were quick, dirty ,and done. This was a few years over 30 years ago.
Yes, Mr. Pond, we DO have doctors who prescribe as therapy - I still deal with it for certain loved ones. I hate it. What we used to call "hyper" is now ADD or ADHD and has to be medicated...when they started talking various meds for my highly intelligent but slightly odd duck kid, I set the foot down and that was the end of it.

[ThesNazud]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Absolutely true, in my experience. They will put you on a pill, (or a combination of pills) to see what happens. If the problem is cured, great. If not, they will "adjust" your meds until the problem is cured, or they kill you in the process.

Pills are cheap (for the DOCTOR, they don't take up the Dr's time) and easy, they just write a prescription.

As to school shootings, I think ONE of the reasons they seem to happen so often these days (besides the effect of a 24/7 TV news cycle) is that we have been so "successful" in the last couple generations, at stamping out the lesser forms of violence. Kids who got bullied used to be able to fight it out.

Sometimes it was supervised, in a boxing match, more often it wasn't, but there was a fight. Someone won, someone lost, either way, the issue usually got resolved. That simply isn't allowed today (generally), because fighting is "bad".

The trouble is, that life, and school in particular is a pressure vessel. And when you take away the "relief valve" pressure just keeps building up, until the vessel explodes.

I agree sadly with the 'fight it out'. We just went through this with my youngest, as she was given a three day suspension. The principle didnt want to suspend her, but had to due to the automatic suspension policy the school has. Short story, a boy who had been bulling my daughter and running his mouth all last year, and especially this year on the bus now that big sis isnt there due to HS and MS bus schedules called her a Bitch, then dared her repeatedly to hit him... Well she did, a one shot jab bloodied his nose and ended it before it could begin...

[spacemanspiff]

Hugs are better than Drugs!

Well, not all drugs. The kids who suffer mental deficiencies need some drugs.

Hugs are better than SOME Drugs!

Wait....Hugs are better than Guns!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

It is an impression outside the States, between the media, the entertainment industry etc that suggests that the medical profession have a tendency to be very "free" with prescription drugs.
What I mean is that the default treatment for any condition will involve a prescription slip when other approaches/therapies could suffice.

Would that be accurate in your experience?

I think your question was directed at Armoredman but I'll chime in, if Imay, to comment that I think too many psychiatrists rely on psychotropic medcations. In the U.S. psychologists are not allowed to prescribe controlled medications, but a great many psychologists have developed "professional relationships" with psychiatrists. The psychologist thinks a patient needs chemical therapy. Psychologist sends patient to psychiatrist, who helpfully writes a prescription. Patient continues working with psychologist, and periodically sees the psychiatrist when it's time to renew the prescription.

I believe the term is "racket."

[armoredman]

Yes, that IS the correct term, indeed.

[Pond, James Pond]

The psychologist thinks a patient needs chemical therapy. Psychologist sends patient to psychiatrist, who helpfully writes a prescription. Patient continues working with psychologist, and periodically sees the psychiatrist when it's time to renew the prescription.

Hmmm....

I'm pretty sure there is something in the Hypocratic Oath that might not gel with that practice....

If the case, it certainly empowers a culture of pill-taking over other therapies that may work just as well, if a bit longer, without being pharmaceutical.

[Metal god]

This mental health issue has been talked to death . I remember reading somewhere that the vast majority of people on meds do to mental issues have never and will never commit a violent act in there life time . That percentage if I recall is so high it need not have a number here .

So now IMHO we get into a privacy issue similar in some ways to the carry debate . If I'm on meds to regulate my mental stability and have never shown signs of violence . Who's business is it to know what's going on with me . If doctors are required to submit info on everyone on meds . That could easily be turned around to infringe on many rights . Just because a person carry's does not make them dangerous nor does having mental issues .

As far as does a good guy with a gun in a mass shooting cause more injuries . Simple thought experiment . You have a guy holding any number of unarmed hostages ( lets say 50 people ) He has 100rds of ammo with him and starts shooting . How many people can and will likely get killed or injured ? ( In theory all of them ) Same situation but this time one or two of the hostages unknown to the shooter are armed . The shooter starts firing . Now how many people get killed or injured ? ( IMHO not even theory , less then all of them ) regardless of how the shooting ends up .

[JohnKSa]

I remember reading somewhere that the vast majority of people on meds do to mental issues have never and will never commit a violent act in there life time .

This is true. But it needs some context to be really useful information.

First of all, one could make the same statement about many different large groups. It's true in general that in most large demographics, the vast majority of the demographic will never commit acts of violence against others.

Second, "mental illness" is a term that casts a wide net. There are many different kinds of mental illnesses and grouping them all together when answering the question obscures the issue.

The real question is:

Do some types of mental illness predispose a person to commit violent crimes at a rate higher than the general population and, if so, what types?

The answer is that there are certainly some types of mental illness that, if not properly treated, predispose people to commit violent crimes at rates FAR higher than what is encountered in the general population, especially if alcohol and illegal drugs are involved.

The links below have a lot of good information; I've provided a few sample quotes, but anyone interested in the topic should read the articles rather than assume the sample quotes are completely representative. This is a complicated topic and it shouldn't be oversimplified.

http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.o.../violence/1381

Psychosis “was significantly associated with a 49%–68% increase in the odds of violence.”

A study of 961 young adults in New Zealand reported that individuals with schizophrenia and associated disorders were two-and-one-half times more likely than controls to have been violent in the past year.

Men with schizophrenia without alcoholism were 3.6 times more likely to commit a violent crime than men without a psychiatric diagnosis. Men with both schizophrenia and alcoholism were 25.2 times more likely to commit a violent crime.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsle...s-and-violence

Rates of violence (convicted of at least 1 violent crime over a 30+ yr period)
General population = 4.25%

Schizophrenia without substance abusive disorder = 8.5%
Schizophrenia without substance abusive disorder = 27.6%
Bipolar without substance abuse = 4.9%
Bipolar with substance abuse = 21.3%

http://www.propublica.org/article/my...-mental-health

"People with serious mental illness are 3 to 4 times more likely to be violent than those who aren't. "

The association of some types of mental illness with violence should not be exaggerated; but it also shouldn't be dismissed.

[Metal god]

First of all, one could make the same statement about many different large groups.

I agree and is part of my point . I keep hearing how we need to fix the mental health issue . As long as we have privacy rights ( which we should ) involving medical records . We won't solve the issue . This is way above my pay grade , how ever the Aurora and sandy hook shooters were both being seen by the appropriate doctors . In each of those states there were laws in place for doctors to report possible issues there clients may have and nobody did , at least not adequately .

Second, "mental illness" is a term that casts a wide net. There are many different kinds of mental illnesses and grouping them all together when answering the question obscures the issue.

Again this is my point . If I had any mental disability I would not want anyone to know so I would not get caught up in that wide net . I guess the devils in the details sort of speak as to how or what each person problems are and how it's reported and who has access to that info .

If we had universal health care I'd assume the government would have access to all your records . Since they're footing the bill for your treatment . They will clearly have all your info . Does that sound good to anyone here ?

What about employers that pay for health care . Shouldn't they have the right to know if some employees may be more disruptive then others . What about this new thing going around called unconscious bias training . Which test if you are unconsciously raciest . So now we have employers judging you based on something you don't actual consciously believe .

Or as so many politicians do . They just start changing the definitions of what does and does not constitute a mental illness in order to lump the groups they want into a place they can control them .

This is a complicated topic and it shouldn't be oversimplified.

Correct , WAY to complex an issue to think keeping track of the people on prozaq will help anything . As soon as we let the government into are heads . They will never leave . IMHO this is a privacy issue not a gun or mental health issue .

[44 AMP]

how ever the Aurora and sandy hook shooters were both being seen by the appropriate doctors . In each of those states there were laws in place for doctors to report possible issues there clients may have and nobody did , at least not adequately .

Turn the clock WAY back to 1986, and look at Patrick Purdy, who's mass murder in a Stockton schoolyard (with a semi AK) kicked off the whole "assault weapon" hysteria.

He was on prescribed meds for mental issues (from at least one doc, maybe more), he was also doing "street drugs". He was receiving monthly disability checks from the govt, because he was "mentally disabled and unable to work."

And yet, he went through California's 14 day waiting period and background checks to purchase a handgun. TWICE!!! (he bought his AK in Oregon)

Why was he able to pass background checks, twice??? (and buy two handguns)

Because the law didn't ALLOW his mental condition to be reported to the people doing the background checks, it was a PRIVACY issue.

Supposedly this has been fixed, but has it really???

The Sandy Hook shooter was "under care", but that didn't stop him. MAYBE his condition would have prevented him from legally buying a gun, but that point is moot, considering that he MURDERED HIS MOTHER AND STOLE THE GUNS he used to shoot up the school murdering many others.

Sweeping the issue under the rug of "mental illness" does us all a huge disservice.

[armoredman]

I do remember on leftist group that wanted to have coffee drinking labeled a mental illness several years ago. If you let the Left control what diagnosis count and what they can diagnose, you could end up with the desire to own a firearm is a sign of mental illness.
The scumbag who shot Rep Giffords up the street from me was a known loopie and yet passed all of his background checks with ease.
Also, I have EXTREMELY dangerous mental health cases at work who manufacture weapons out of nothing.If they can't buy it, like the Sandy Hook murderer, they will kill without a second thought to get what they need/want. To some of them it's the same as turning off a light switch. We know their medical/mental health issues, and they are the extreme case, but, as posited above, what about the guy who took Welbutrin or Chantrix to help stop smoking? Welbutrin is a mental health medication. Now it's on his medical history that he was prescribed a mental health related medication...does this flag?

[Metal god]

Im not saying monitoring of persons with some mental illnesses is a bad thing . I just don't trust the government having that info or even able to access it . At this time the government regardless of party can't be trusted with private damaging information on its citizens . What we do about that I'm not really sure . As stated above by much smarter people then I . This is a complex issue , but giving the government more power is not where I'd start . FISA court , what a joke . At times they went before that court , lied and got what they want and nothing happen when it was found out they lied to get the warrant.

I'm very unhappy with how the patriot act has been used since 911 including the recent unmasking . I can feel my self getting worked up so i think I'll leave it there for now

As far as the sandy hook shooter goes . Yes it is know he stole the firearms from his mother . How ever we don't know how they were stolen . Did he crowbar a safe open or did he have the key or combo ? I don't believe that was ever disclosed as to how specifically he got his hands on those firearms .

"If" he actually had access to the firearms then the term "stole them" IMO is not quite accurate in the context of keep prohibited persons from accessing firearms . Sure in the legal since they were stolen because he was not the owner . How ever if mom did not properly secure them from a known prohibited person then I feel the " he stole the guns " is only partly accurate .

[JohnKSa]

There's not an answer that I can think of that gives me a warm fuzzy.

The best solution from the standpoint of preventing violence is to have the government monitor all mental health records. To say that I think that would be a horrendous idea is an understatement.

The best solution from the standpoint of freedom is to keep the government out of people's health records entirely. I like that idea, but I can also see that there are some situations where it makes sense to allow the government to have some access to some mental health records.

I think I could get along with the idea of the government monitoring the mental health records of persons who have been involuntarily committed due to a mental illness which has been shown to be strongly linked to violence. It wouldn't be something that would make me happy, and I can see how it could be abused, but I don't think I would strongly oppose a measure like that.

What would make me happiest is for people to understand that freedom comes with risk and accept that part of the right to privacy from the government includes the fact that some dangerous people will slip through the cracks and end up killing innocent people. It is, in effect, part of the price we pay for freedom.

[armoredman]

I think you hit the nail on the head there, JohnKSa. Background checks on mental health records should be limited to those who have been involuntarily committed or incarcerated, where the government can show a compelling interest in monitoring those individuals who have a demonstrated inability to follow societal rules/norms. If you have NOT done anything to warrant inclusion, then welcome to dangerous freedom, where you are INNOCENT until proven GUILTY.

[44 AMP]

As far as the sandy hook shooter goes . Yes it is know he stole the firearms from his mother . How ever we don't know how they were stolen . Did he crowbar a safe open or did he have the key or combo ? I don't believe that was ever disclosed as to how specifically he got his hands on those firearms .

I don't see that it matters. Taking something that does not belong to you, without the owner's permission is stealing! (unless you are the govt., but that's a different matter )

How much work he had to do to steal the guns does not matter. Whether he had to crowbar open the safe, or just take the keys off his mother's corpse, the effort he had to expend to steal the guns doesn't matter.

"If" he actually had access to the firearms then the term "stole them" IMO is not quite accurate in the context of keep prohibited persons from accessing firearms . Sure in the legal since they were stolen because he was not the owner . How ever if mom did not properly secure them from a known prohibited person then I feel the " he stole the guns " is only partly accurate .

First, again, if he took them without permission, he STOLE them. I don't see where any other description is accurate. He certainly didn't "borrow" them...

Second, I don't think he actually was a prohibited person, at the time. IT takes a COURT judgment to make you a prohibited person. Either a conviction, or a adjudication by a court. NOT a doctor, or panel of doctors. Doctors can recommend, but cannot rule anyone a prohibited person. Even those locked up as a danger to themselves and others do not become prohibited persons UNTIL a court so rules. (it may be a "slam dunk" ruling for those committed for violence, but until the ruling is made, they are not prohibited persons)

I have never agreed with the commonly held idea today, that the owner is some how at fault because their property was "too easy to steal". To me, that is an idea thought up by insurance companies who want to save money by denying claims. They won't pay, because you "helped" the theft, by "allowing" your property to be stolen.

You might as well say that the murdered children were guilty for being so easy to kill...

its not right, and never will be.