Not sure what you're implying. Also, oops, I meant "take up" smoking.
absolutely. In fact, I encourage to put together a movement on a state by state basis in which you work to getting that through a great majority of state legislatures.......you know, like the way the CONSTITUTION has to be amended.
Until then, it's not an issue.
leftists make up their own bizarre wishs/interpretations of the second amendment all the time. The fact is clear- us owning guns is protected by the bill of rights.
Even in a fantasy world where the second amendment doesnt exist, anti-gun legislation would still have massive uphill battles.
Bump.
I have to wonder about this Batman guy. Reports are that his mom instantly recognized him as the perpetrator. If true, it would seem she had recognized some degree of maladaptive behavior in him...which, from what we know now, was untreated.
I think this just underscores the fact that we need better public awareness and willingness to seek and refer for mental health evaluation and treatment when a problem is suspected or recognized.
Umm...for the presence of a treatable condition maybe? Apparently, this guy was banned from a shooting range after he called and left a "nonsense" message which disturbed the owner of the range so much he told his employees not to let the guy some there...supposedly.
If true, how about instead, the range owner calls someone and gets the guy evaluated. If that phone message was strange enough for a layperson to recognize it as "off" and possibly dangerous, I think a reasonably competent psychiatrist could tell whether something was going on that might warrant treatment or not.
Not saying we should do risk assessments on these people, but a simple mental health screening by even a social worker when there is a concern might do a world of good in identifying people at risk earlier in the course of their disease.
I think as someone said earlier, in the absence of obvious psychosis, impairment in reality testing, etc not much can be done. He's not wanting treatment after all. And I doubt he is going to admit "yeah, Im planning to shoot up a theatre tommorrow"....
Ironic, just the day after the shooting some guy get pulled over doing over 100 and essentially does just that.
"State Police in Maine say they arrested a man driving erratically Sunday morning with a cache of weapons in his car, including an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns and several boxes of ammunition, CBS Boston reported.
Courtois also allegedly told authorities when he was arrested that he was en route to Derry, NH to shoot a former employer
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57478159-504083/batman-link-in-arrest-of-maine-man-with-guns/
in the absence of obvious psychosis, impairment in reality testing, etc not much can be done.
Yeah. But, from the reports from the shooting range owner, he may have HAD obvious psychosis.
All I'm saying is that it would be nice to do a basic screening exam on people when people in the public have these kind of suspicions and some evidence.
It could start with a call: "This weird guy called and said some weird stuff."
Then, move to an investigation: "Hello School A? I'm wondering how Person X has been doing lately?"
At this point, for this guy at least, we may have had reports of erratic behavior, a recent drastic decline in school performance despite earlier stellar efforts...which should be enough to get him in front of a mental health professional of some type for a Q&A session to see if there might be some illness that could be treated.
I don't have all the answers here, and I'm not saying that psychiatrists should be the Ultimate Solution, but we should have better community screening for mental disorders.
The trouble is that is exactly how the stasi worked, by relying on people who had contact with the general public informing on each other. Open to all sorts of abuse however well intentioned...all it takes is someone to take a dislike to you for any reason and bingo you get a file opened....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
I don't have all the answers here, and I'm not saying that psychiatrists should be the Ultimate Solution, but we should have better community screening for mental disorders.
I don't know how you'd screen people like that without having citizens informing on each other and then forcing evaluations. I think it'd be a civil liberties nightmare, clog up an already overly clogged mental health system and in the end not do much good.
The thing that makes me sad is that this amount of people get shot and killed in this country on a daily basis and this doesn't get nearly as much attention. And quite honestly, I'd rather fix that ongoing problem than screen every odd duck out there in a vain attempt to prevent these much rarer occurrences.
..you can't "fix" evil. what you do is continue to do what we are doing- when evil goes out and does evil things, you try to catch them.
I think we can do better at one thing as far as catching evil before it does evil things--and that has to do with being alert about domestic violence. Basically you've got 3 Auroras happening in this country every day, rarely with mass media coverage. If victims can know their fears will be taken seriously, before it escalates to murder (and often, murder-suicide), we *might* make a dent in that number.
so will screening in general at a PCP level for other mental illness become the norm at some point?
I fear doing so will severely cut civil liberties or label people with an incorrect diagnosis. Most PCPs I know that screen for mental illness use a screen that's not reliable or valid. Some of the PCPs I find doing this are diagnosing way too many people with bipolar disorder.
The most accurate factor in predicting future violence is prior significant violence, but in the Holmes case, we did not see it.
That, or because he was an intelligent individual, he was just better at hiding it/explaining it away.
Some infectious diseases must be reported....
But to apply this to psychiatry, the problem here is there isn't very good data showing that mental illness in general causes violence.
the problem I see with domestic violence is that there is no way for the criminal justice system, social servive system or whatever to protect one of the *real* fear female victims have, which is that they are afraid of being left if they "tell" and/or leave their abuser......
Neither me nor law enforcement nor an women's support agency can make an abusive husband or boyfriend stay with his wife he has been abusing.....
There are a lot of people in the mental health field that have trouble differentiating between the mentally ill and the just-plain weird. The thought of taking any steps to having John Q. Public more entitled to report individuals for odd beliefs or mannerisms scares the bejeezus out of me. The 0.01% of the valid catches would not justify the 99.9% of the nonsense.I actually don't think if matters whether they're violent or not. It just seems that we could identify and treat more people (and be more aware of current patient went off treatment) if the general public would help out and say, "hey, there's this strange guy down here..."
Whether they're violent or not...if they're psychotic, they should be treated.
I couldn't summon up the energy to refute yet another one of his posts. Thanks for taking the time to do so eloquently and thoughtfully.Its a hard situation, but sitting back and washing our hands of the matter and vaguely blaming the victim for not leaving is not the best care we can offer.
I actually don't think if matters whether they're violent or not. It just seems that we could identify and treat more people (and be more aware of current patient went off treatment) if the general public would help out and say, "hey, there's this strange guy down here..."
Whether they're violent or not...if they're psychotic, they should be treated.
CNN, looking to do some "quality" news, decides to break a story on Holmes' psychiatrist along with her picture...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/27/justice/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The comments are telling of some "average american" sentimental of psychiatrist responsibility...
"The doctor should be in jail too"
"death penalty for both of them"
"Apparently she wasn't a very good psychiatrist."
"This woman could avoid all this mess but like many other psychiatrist, she just want to analyze the money paid by the medical insurance. Possibly, she sleep well after this tragedy, it is sad."
I actually don't think if matters whether they're violent or not. It just seems that we could identify and treat more people (and be more aware of current patient went off treatment) if the general public would help out and say, "hey, there's this strange guy down here..."
Whether they're violent or not...if they're psychotic, they should be treated.
"hey, there's this strange guy down here..."
CNN, looking to do some "quality" news, decides to break a story on Holmes' psychiatrist along with her picture FRONT and CENTER...gee, looks like America has a new "bad guy" in this case.
And just how will you get someone who's "strange' to agree to an evaluation where he'll be sent to a hospital, have to wait possibly for hours, and then get billed for it?
Hmm, Hey Joe, you're odd. I have a goon-sqaud here to make you go to the hospital against your will. You'll be there for 12 hours. When you walk out you'll get a bill for a few hundred bucks. I'm doing this because I don't like that Justin Bieber picture on your desk. It just weirds me out. No grown man should like Justin Beiber.
Interesting. The tradeoff is an interesting debate, including what ultimately can be considered justification for removal of basic civil liberties. Varies by state. Should suspicion be enough? If psychosis is a criteria for treatment over objection, how much psychosis? Just having AH? Paranoia? How about if it's drug induced psychosis? How about if it MIGHT be drug induced? I'd actually be curious to read responses on these questions.
.
CNN, looking to do some "quality" news, decides to break a story on Holmes' psychiatrist along with her picture FRONT and CENTER...gee, looks like America has a new "bad guy" in this case.[/I]
So I think that since we can't predict who is going to commit violence let alone who is going to recover from schizophrenia
Well we can predict future violence, though in general the accuracy is not spot-on.
With today's level of what we know, our accuracy is better than a layman, but not much better. IF certain things happen, then the accuracy goes up--but those things need to happen and they don't always do.
In the Holmes case, the notebook would've been very good reason to act, and I believe enough to have gotten him held for at least 72 hours, but the problem was the doctor didn't get a hold of it until after the event happened.
Well we can predict future violence, though in general the accuracy is not spot-on.
With today's level of what we know, our accuracy is better than a layman, but not much better. IF certain things happen, then the accuracy goes up--but those things need to happen and they don't always do.
In the Holmes case, the notebook would've been very good reason to act, and I believe enough to have gotten him held for at least 72 hours, but the problem was the doctor didn't get a hold of it until after the event happened.
And just how will you get someone who's "strange' to agree to an evaluation where he'll be sent to a hospital, have to wait possibly for hours, and then get billed for it?
Hmm, Hey Joe, you're odd. I have a goon-sqaud here to make you go to the hospital against your will. You'll be there for 12 hours. When you walk out you'll get a bill for a few hundred bucks. I'm doing this because I don't like that Justin Bieber picture on your desk. It just weirds me out. No grown man should like Justin Beiber.
For example, explaining that schizophrenia is not the same as having "multiple personalities" and bipolar does not simply mean "mood swings."
I could envision a system where at least people could make reports, which could then be enough to not detain anyone, but to at least make sure they hadn't recently purchased large quantities of weapons and ammo. If something else dings during the investigation, THEN the person's civil liberties could be infringed upon and held for an eval.
In short, a type of "waiting period" system for ammo? For guns, if certain things are on your record, you can't get a gun, well you can't legally.
The legal system and medical system's records are usually separate and with good reason. I see where you're coming from with this. The problem is how do you effectively bridge them to create such a new system? It'll take legislative action. Correct me if I'm wrong because my post is based on what I think you mean and I may have misinterpreted you BTW: that Bieber comment, I was being semi-sarcastic. No offense meant, just wanted to highlight that I don't think it's realistic to force people to have evaluations simply because they're weird.