Mental health and gun control

Post Reply New Topic

In a recent letter, republican senator Kelly Ayotte stated:

Given the connection between mental illness and the horrific tragedies at Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech, I also cosponsored and voted for the Mental Health Awareness and Improvement Act. This bipartisan measure includes provisions of legislation I helped introduce that seek to improve mental health first aid training and increase the effectiveness of mental health care across the nation. .

Together with the rest of the NRA, she also asks for "closing loop holes on mental health records"

This is wrong.

The presumed connection between mental illness and those tragedies is that the young white mails had mental health diagnosis, especially aspergers. But just as their shared racial background is not a causal factor, nor is there any evidence that people with Aspergers are prone to the kind of premeditated violence shown in these situations. These weren't meltdowns. These were planned actions. Obviously ASDs can do this too. But if anything studies suggest the inverse relationship: people with ASD are more likely to be a victim of such violence.

Its dangerous

More then 200,000 mental patients were killed in Europe between 1935 and 1945, because a crazy government decided that they were a burden to society. Hundreds of thousands more were involuntary sterilized. That happened especially in those countries like Germany, Holland, and Austria were good mental health care made it easy to trace the victims. Up to 30.000 inmates of prisons and mental institutions were sterilized in the US under legislation adopted in 1917. They were a burden to society.

I found an estimate that 98% of pregnancies involving Down are now terminated. A genetic test for Autism may not be possible. But if it does, what could be the consequences? Could insurance companies deny care based on "elective birth"? Would parents be stigmatized for "bringing such kids into the world" like some of my friends have been told who have three CF kids? Would silicon valley grind to a halt in 30 years as new talent disappears.

Its bad mental health policy

It seems attractive to get more funding for mental health care now the massacres attract attention. But is that worth the stygmatisation, the loss of doctor/patient privilege implied in central mental health records.

Longer term , with exploding health costs, it seems unavoidable that central records are used to control such costs. And the most cost effective solution is prevention! But even if not, it can be used to justify cuts because these were choices that parents made.

It's bad gun control policy

Gun control requires keeping records on gun sales, not on the state of mind of citizens. We should not sacrifice the privacy of doctors and patients to avoid having the keep records on the relation between owners and their guns. Tracking gun ownership, ensuring safe keeping, universal tracing are all part of succesful policies that allow Switserland to have gun ownership rates comparable to the USA without any of the related crime and death statistics. Gun control should be focused on guns.

Its unconstitutional

Protecting the second amendment by giving up on protection of the mentally ill under the fourth is the wrong choice. The interests of the mentally ill are much more pressing and critical then those of the gun owners. We should not protect our own freedoms by limiting those most vulnerable in our society. We should protect the whole constitution, not just one of the amendments.

Its bad for America

Innovation and change in this nation over the last 150 years has been driven by people on the spectrum. We should learn how to integrate and support Aspergers in our society, not making it into a public safety risk let alone a tragedy. And its not just aspergers: Many successful leaders during crisis like Lincoln and Churchill had serious episodes of depression, which is said to have taught them a realistic response to the kind of challenging situations that they faced so well. And many of our political and business leaders, leading surgeons would probably score high on scales for psychopathy, because a emotional detachment is critical to making the kind of decisions they face. Normality is a spectrum and we can't afford loosing the outliers.

Lets speak out!

We should speak out now. E.g. http://hansaspergerjunior.blogspot.com/ ... nd+control. But not just on our own fora, but in papers, iin gun control discussions and in response to those who try to make gun violence a mental health issue. Pls. join that struggle now.

The poll doesn't really make sense...

I don't think this is the first step towards reverting to inter-war eugenics. I also don't think it is right to claim that innovation is driven by autistic people.

However, it's definitely not right to so firmly link gun violence to mental health in such a way that those of us diagnosed with mental illnesses and neurological disorders are deprived of our right to medical and personal privacy for the sake of legislation that would not have prevented any of the recent sprees.

The point about eugenics is a valid point, as it describes just how bad things have been for people like us in the past. Will it be like that again? Who knows? But this law is taking away progress and freedoms that we have won in the time since those things happened.

I don't think autism is the issue. Autism is not a psychiatric disorder. The folks who killed had other psychiatric conditions. I think we should develop a screening process that screens for violent tendencies as a requirement to purchase a gun. And I think people with a history of psychosis should be put on a "no buy" list.

I didn't see anything this law does that is cause for concern.

This.

For those with a history of psychosis, we should violate our privacy rights, by possibly violating the 4th amendment, even if there is no history of harm?

Sure, improve reporting for those with actual court orders requiring commitment and close the loopholes, requiring background checks for all purchases, but attempting to predict violence on a diagnosis-by-diagnosis basis and forcing open patients' medical records crosses the line. Unlike how in, say, epilepsy where there is an inherent danger in driving if it's untreated, violence to self or others is not inherent to any mental illness. Outside of substance abuse cases, violence to others occurs in well less than 10% of those with mental illness, not much more than the general population, and there are many factors that go into that violence, well beyond the illness itself.

I think a significant number of posters here have more diagnoses than just autism. Plus, how many times have these sprees happened with people immediately speculating that the shooter was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome?

The popular perspective, as inaccurate as it may be, tends to lump autism in with mental illness.

Also, people who deal with psychotic disorders are no more likely to be violent than anyone else diagnosed with a mental illness - and like others diagnosed with mental illness, are more likely to be targeted for violence. The only correlation between psychosis and violence I am aware of is also correlated with substance abuse. Substance abuse itself is highly correlated with violence with or without psychosis, so it is not exactly accurate to claim that psychosis = violent.

A rare few individuals with an ASD/other mental disorder killing people is the same thing as the rare individuals without such doing it.

People shouldn't be punished for the acts of the rare few and bad.

The idea of demonizing people with disabilities and MH conditions is a slippery slope leading to losing even more freedoms gained through the neurodiversity movement, and also people with MI are more likely to be victims, not attackers.

BTW, this isn't just about autistics because neurodiversity is about the rights of everyone. Bipolar, schizophrenic, etc.

For those with a history of psychosis, we should violate our privacy rights, by possibly violating the 4th amendment, even if there is no history of harm?

Sure, improve reporting for those with actual court orders requiring commitment and close the loopholes, requiring background checks for all purchases, but attempting to predict violence on a diagnosis-by-diagnosis basis and forcing open patients' medical records crosses the line. Unlike how in, say, epilepsy where there is an inherent danger in driving if it's untreated, violence to self or others is not inherent to any mental illness. Outside of substance abuse cases, violence to others occurs in well less than 10% of those with mental illness, not much more than the general population, and there are many factors that go into that violence, well beyond the illness itself.[/quote]

First, my proposal goes WAY beyond anything in the bill. No, it doesn't violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights. No more than prohibiting someone from getting a driver's license because he or she has a history of seizures. Even if it did, I highly doubt it would require more than intermediate scrutiny, if that, and that can be overcome with a showing of a compelling state interest, which is the case here. Besides, it's not like anyone is proposing doing this on any and all civilians; it would only be a requirement if you choose to buy a gun.

Methinks that generalizing mental illnesses that way is a tad misleading. Depression, autism, and Downs Syndrome are examples of conditions where violence is almost nonexistent.
Schizophrenia, Antisocial Personality Disorder, Bipolar I, Borderline Personality Disorder (in men), and anything with psychosis attached are frequently violent. And people with these conditions frequently abuse drugs, which leads to more violence. The diagnostic criteria to some of these conditions can be met in part by a history of substance abuse.

Anyway, I don't propose using a label alone to disqualify someone. I think it's important that we screen each individual for violent tendencies as part of the background check required to get a gun. I am sure there are already tests out there for this sort of thing. At least require a psychiatric interview and a projective test or two.

Your information on schizophrenia and bipolar is wrong, and no there is no evidence of compelling state interest in this, because violence is not inherent to either schizophrenia or bipolar. I don't know as much about the personality disorders, but others can fill in.

And no no no psychosis is not usually violent.

Schizophrenia being frequently violent is a popular (and wrong) stereotype, unfortunately.

Not so.

http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/conseque ... -study.pdf
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/6/490.full
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.1000120
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article ... eid=209569

Those studies state what I already said, that this is mostly correlated with substance abuse, which is itself an indicator of possible violence.

It is a mental health issue, but what concerns me is the criteria that you would use to determine if someone is violent or not. Take schizophrenia for instance. There are schizophrenics out there who wouldn't hurt a fly. They're being treated for their condition and they follow their doctor's orders. They should be able to get a gun just as easily as anyone else. Then there are people like my uncle. He refuses treatment and uses alcohol to medicate himself. My mom (his sister) says it's best to hide the knives around him. It would be an extremely bad idea to give him a gun. My point is that I'd be wary of a system that simply uses a diagnostic label to decide who can buy a gun.

Not so sure substance abuse nessisarily causes violence either, I know in my experiance it seems to be more of a way of self harm.