Has defunding public mental health hospitals caused mass shootings?

[gardenmom5]

The bolded is a crime.  As an example, there was a Black Lives Matter activist in the news in the past couple weeks trying to incite violence against police officers.  My understanding is that after a couple days she was arrested and charged with something akin to inciting terrorism.  It does seem to be haphazardly applied though.  A poor woman gets charged, while "famous" people who have made similar statements are not.

 

the pretty white girl who egged her boyfriend to commit suicide isn't "poor".  she's on trial for it too. 

[gardenmom5]

 The NRA though would sure like us to believe that gun violence is due to mental health illness and not the prevalence of guns though.

 

and Switzerland has mandatory owning gun laws - but they dont' have the shooting rampages we do - so there must be other factors.

[Momling]

Does our lack of mental health care *cause* mass shootings? No, it's a way politicians deflect attention from the real problem of gun control.

 

Do we need to address and improve and fund mental health care in the country? Absolutely!

[LucyStoner]

and Switzerland has mandatory owning gun laws - but they dont' have the shooting rampages we do - so there must be other factors.

Well, in Switzerland everyone is liable for what their gun is used for. A Swiss man explained to me once that in Switzerland, you do not keep your gun in a manner that puts you in a position for someone else, like a child, to take it and use it. Also the rifles which are part if their "mandatory gun ownership" (which is really mandatory military service) are issued as part of compulsory military training. You don't walk in and get a gun you have no idea how to use safely.

 

I don't think you can compare the fact that nearly every Swiss male has a gun with the prevalence of easy access to handguns to just anyone who wants to buy or steal one in the US.

 

Also: http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12

[Joanne]

No, they are not conflatable issues. The mentality of mass killers is not the kind of mental illness addressed by institutionalization.

 

Here is a good article of recent mass shootings that includes good history and data - I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.

 

http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

 

There is an industry that homes the population you are talking about - group homes and personal care homes. The industry standard is horrid. HORRID.

 

Finally, not an insignificant part of the problem is money provided through SSDI. Many payees (people who get the payment for the mentally ill to assist them) are not using that money with integrity. Payees can be the individual, designated family member or guardian or an institution. A lot of poor choices are made behind that.

[umsami]

and Switzerland has mandatory owning gun laws - but they dont' have the shooting rampages we do - so there must be other factors.

 

1) Switzerland does not have mandatory gun owning laws.  If that was the case, 100% of the homes would have guns.  They do not.  

 

2) Switzerland requires an extensive background check....including a recent police report.  There are no private sales without a background check like we have here.  Negative is it's a Canton-based system (like a US State).  No national database/registry as far as I know.

 

3) Switzerland regulates ammunition as well.  They basically collected 99% of the outstanding ammunition issued to military at home a few years ago.  It is tightly regulated.  So while a soldier can keep his gun at home, he can't keep any ammunition.  

 

4) Also, most men do compulsory military service so those who hold weapons have training in it.  This training goes a month or so each year during their twenties....so they are evaluated (so to speak) annually during their twenties.  The weapons that many own are their service weapons.  Now, though, they need to provide justification for buying their service weapon at the end of military service.

 

5) People are prosecuted for improper uses of weapons, military weapons, etc.

 

6) The culture/mentality around owning guns is completely different than the U.S.  In Switzerland, it's about protecting one's country in case of war. 

 

A good article: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

 

They have a very low murder rate, although suicide via gun is an issue.  They highly regulate their guns *and* ammunition.  People owning guns have generally been taught in the military how to use them.  Any questions about mental stability, etc. would eliminate a person's ability to keep a gun.   

 

I would love to enact all of Switzerland's regulations here.  I'd love if gun owners, especially men in their twenties who seem to perpetrate mass shootings, were evaluated for lack of a better term annually for a month or so to see if it was really safe for them to keep a weapon.  Of course, we don't have forced military conscription.  And are unlikely to do so.  But I wonder if we did, and we required some service before keeping a gun...and a commander could flag somebody's file for not being able to own a weapon, if that would help.  They also ban many types of guns and ammunition.  

[MarkW]

the pretty white girl who egged her boyfriend to commit suicide isn't "poor".  she's on trial for it too. 

 

When's the Jenny McCarthy trial for all the recent Measles deaths?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Gotcha. Yes, a substance abuse treatment facility is not the best place for a person with schizophrenia even if the schizophrenia patient is abusing alcohol or other drugs. Is that the type of scenario you mean? 

 

Yes, exactly. 

[TeacherZee]

+1 and JACKPOT.   It would be impossible to prevent all mass shootings, but society would benefit, IMHO, if a lot of very dangerous people were held in state mental hospitals, as they were when I was young. However, that is expensive and there were many patients who were abused and that is not "PC".  For those reasons, it is unlikely that will be implemented again.  Huge numbers of people with severe and very dangerous mental illness are on the street. That said, from what I saw on the TV news a few days ago, the Oregon shooter had no criminal record and no record of treatment for mental illness.  The majority of people who have some kind of Mental Illness are not a danger to other people, but some are extremely dangerous. There are no simple solutions to complex issues.

 

ETA: RE: Weapons free towns.  Take a look at the violent crime rate in Chicago. They have gun laws that make it difficult or impossible for law abiding people to own guns. Criminals do not pay any attention to laws, so they are heavily armed.

 

What exactly do you mean with the bolded? I am very confused because the way I read it you are saying that the abuse of mentally ill people is perfectly acceptable and those who are protesting against it are doing so with some sort of political agenda.

 

As to the rest of the discussion I will say post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

Other countries have also dismantled their asylum system without having an increase in gun deaths. 

[AimeeM]

 

 

I would love to enact all of Switzerland's regulations here.  I'd love if gun owners, especially men in their twenties who seem to perpetrate mass shootings, were evaluated for lack of a better term annually for a month or so to see if it was really safe for them to keep a weapon.  Of course, we don't have forced military conscription.  And are unlikely to do so.  But I wonder if we did, and we required some service before keeping a gun...and a commander could flag somebody's file for not being able to own a weapon, if that would help.  They also ban many types of guns and ammunition.  

Except that it would also ban from ownership anyone who isn't PHYSICALLY fit enough to serve in the military... and just because you aren't physically fit enough to serve in the military, it doesn't mean you aren't generally fine physically, and certainly physically capable of properly handling a weapon.

[MarkW]

What exactly do you mean with the bolded? I am very confused because the way I read it you are saying that the abuse of mentally ill people is perfectly acceptable and those who are protesting against it are doing so with some sort of political agenda.

 

As to the rest of the discussion I will say post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

Other countries have also dismantled their asylum system without having an increase in gun deaths. 

Seriously, what the heck Lanny?

[MarkW]

Switzerland also has social programs and assurances that a very large chunk of the US population would scream bloody murder about being outright communism that will ruin our soil and corrupt our children, so, it's hardly apples to apples. You can't cherry pick variables.

[Katy]

Switzerland also has some of the very best mental healthcare in the world.

[FaithManor]

To be clear, if we did bring something back it wouldn't look exactly like the old system. There are a TON of regulations now that would completely prevent it from looking anything like it used to. I know that for sure from nursing.

 

Many of these people were clearly disturbed and had violent tendencies, delusions, and paranoia that the people in their lives were well aware of previously, which is much different than more common depression or bipolar disorders, etc.

 

Bringing them back would also dramatically decrease homeless and prison populations.

I do not think it would reduce shootings. But it would help families and communities to have access to appropriate residential care. Taking care of my father who still hallucinates and has delusions is exhausting. It is going to take years off my life.

 

My aunt is paranoid schizophrenic and won't stay on her meds. She is a danger to everyone around her in addition to herself, and there is nothing her community can do to be safe from her.

 

I do not think it should be easy to committ someone. The evidence needs to be strong. But the option should be available and the processstandardized so the family can reasonably navigate those waters. My father hallucinated about demons and satan giving him direct orders - as a result of paraneoplastic syndrome - and tried to kill my mom and himself. We have no recourse. We couldn't even legally keep him out of the house.

 

Dd once was barely able to save the life of a stabbing patient - third near fatal attack by his schizophrenic wife who stole the knife from the neighbors - and despite her delusional need to kill her caretaker, a 72 hour psyche hold was the most residential care he could get. DD has seen so many situations like this. Spouses, siblings, parents, children abused and killed by the mentally ill relative,it doesn't make the news because it isn't sensational, doesn't produce ratings. But it happens more than mass shootings do and the powers that be do not give a damn.

 

His psychiatrist, his psychologist, his doctor, his oncologist, my own mother, community mental health, police, courts,...in their eyes my life, my marriage, and my kids are all expendable. So yah, I am 100% in favor of state mental hospitals being re-opened.

 

I hate this country, and when he has dies, I am moving to another nation that actually has health care and gives a rip about families, communities, and people in general.

[MarkW]

If we brought something back, it would have to be heavily socialized and a large portion of the population is dead set against that. It would be a battle.

 

Otherwise, it would just ruin the finances of families unfortunate enough to have a chronically and acutely mentally ill member in them, sort of like nursing homes also ruin people's savings and eat into their childrens'.

 

There's a lot of political landscape in the US that needs to move for this to happen.

 

I stopped treating my Crohn's 6 months ago because I just can't afford the $1000/month it costs to do it in the US "system". In any other first world country, it wouldn't cost me over 25% of my salary simply not to die of something easily treatable that I was born with. Only in the US is this a thing. Well, and places with unstable or fascist governments.... good company?

[6packofun]

I hope this is on topic enough for this thread, but some friends and I were discussing what mental health programs would have to be enacted to actually make a difference in gun violence.  The whole thing is *daunting* to say the least.

 

Do we start with mental health screenings as a requirement of purchasing a gun?  If so, who decides which mental illnesses disqualify one?  Depression?  Well, ANY depression, only severe or mild, too? What if something can be controlled with medication?  Probably no, because then we'd have to have a system to ENSURE that people are taking their meds, right?  OK, so what about everyone living in a household WITH someone who has a mental issue deemed unsafe?  Are they automatically disqualified?  Should they be held responsible if someone's mental health status changes and something terrible happens before care is sought?  And what about those mental challenges that tend to run in families?  What about those on the spectrum? Are they "less empathetic" *enough* to warrant being on The List?  And then, who is going to go and COLLECT all of the guns from people who got them before these laws and programs are put in place? It's not fair for them to have them while others with the same conditions do!  So, in a way, for those who actually advocate for the fewest people qualifying to have guns as possible, this route may actually be their best bet if they can get enough support behind it. (I'm not one of those, but I doubt Americans will want to give the govt. that control over all of this.)

 

I only blather on about all of this because I used to really support the idea that we focus on mental health as it related to gun violence.  But the more I think of it, the more I think that we need to make the mental health system better, period.   We truly don't know how much, if at all, that would reduce gun deaths.  Families need to start really taking care of one another, but is "education" alone going to do that?  It all seems out of reach.  But maybe that's just my depression talking.  :mellow:

[Matryoshka]

Well, in Switzerland everyone is liable for what their gun is used for. A Swiss man explained to me once that in Switzerland, you do not keep your gun in a manner that puts you in a position for someone else, like a child, to take it and use it. Also the rifles which are part if their "mandatory gun ownsership" are issued as part of compulsory military training. You don't walk in and get a gun you have no idea how to use safely.

 

Wait, are you saying that Switzerland has a well-regulated militia? Which is actually what the 2nd amendment provides for, not "every loon who wants one gets gunz!!"  How, in fact, is anything about our gun-culture 'well-regulated"?  The words are right in the Constitution.  Why aren't those words paid more attention to when gun regulation comes up??

[Joanne]

Why aren't those words paid more attention to when gun regulation comes up??

NRA

[Pam in CT]

I hope this is on topic enough for this thread, but some friends and I were discussing what mental health programs would have to be enacted to actually make a difference in gun violence.  The whole thing is *daunting* to say the least.

 

Do we start with mental health screenings as a requirement of purchasing a gun?  If so, who decides which mental illnesses disqualify one?  Depression?  Well, ANY depression, only severe or mild, too? What if something can be controlled with medication?  Probably no, because then we'd have to have a system to ENSURE that people are taking their meds, right?  OK, so what about everyone living in a household WITH someone who has a mental issue deemed unsafe?  Are they automatically disqualified?  Should they be held responsible if someone's mental health status changes and something terrible happens before care is sought?  And what about those mental challenges that tend to run in families?  What about those on the spectrum? Are they "less empathetic" *enough* to warrant being on The List?  And then, who is going to go and COLLECT all of the guns from people who got them before these laws and programs are put in place? It's not fair for them to have them while others with the same conditions do!  So, in a way, for those who actually advocate for the fewest people qualifying to have guns as possible, this route may actually be their best bet if they can get enough support behind it. (I'm not one of those, but I doubt Americans will want to give the govt. that control over all of this.)

 

I only blather on about all of this because I used to really support the idea that we focus on mental health as it related to gun violence.  But the more I think of it, the more I think that we need to make the mental health system better, period.   We truly don't know how much, if at all, that would reduce gun deaths.  Families need to start really taking care of one another, but is "education" alone going to do that?  It all seems out of reach.  But maybe that's just my depression talking.  :mellow:

 

Yes, it's hard to draw lines in a sensible place.  

 

FWIW, the legislation originally proposed for CT after Sandy Hook/Newtown included a provision that required that firearms be locked if anyone in the household had a medically determined history of mental illness.  To me this seemed like a reasonable and Constitutionally defensible precaution.  

 

It did not make the final bill that passed, however.

[8circles]

I'm not sure where best to post this article, but I found it interesting.  I don't know anything about this guy, so don't kill the messenger.

 

Not sure I agree with him either, but I'm thinking a lot.

http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

 

 

Here is a good article of recent mass shootings that includes good history and data - I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions.

 

http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

 

 

Great minds!

[G5052]

It's all quite complex of course.

 

My mother battled mental illness most of her life. During the last five years of her life, she talked frequently about killing people she didn't like, including myself. She was also suicidal at times over the years. When my father died, she said she'd kill me if I showed up for his funeral. I decided to come and take measures so that I was never in a dangerous position with her, and thankfully it worked out fine. She never owned a gun, so that was a factor. But she physically abused her children when we were growing up and abused my father during his later years (he also refused help). She sent four people to the emergency room including an aide at her assisted living facility that she hit hard over the head with her cane. If she had continued on that trend, they were going to put her into the state mental hospital. At that point she was also talking about blowing up her assisted living facility and assassinating the director, but when I called them with that information they already knew and felt like it was just words. Then she had a stroke which made her manageable, and she gradually faded away after that.

 

I tried to get her help many, many times, but the reality is that if you are pretty much functioning in life and don't want help, there is nothing that those around you can do.

 

I don't know where the line is for folks, but there are people "out" that shouldn't be. And there are people in between too.

[Katy]

If we brought something back, it would have to be heavily socialized and a large portion of the population is dead set against that. It would be a battle.

...

 

Yes, 100% socialized just like they were prior to 1980-something.  And I'm not sure a large portion of the population would be against that because it wouldn't be affecting everyone else's healthcare, it would affect mental illnesses only. This is why until recently many health insurance plans refused to cover mental health care - the government would pay for it if you were bad enough. Also I think you could make a reasonable argument that it is more cost effective than the current combination of foster care, jail, prison, hospitals, increased police, actual medical expenses, and homeless population expenses that our society already covers.  It would certainly be more effective.

 

I hope this is on topic enough for this thread, but some friends and I were discussing what mental health programs would have to be enacted to actually make a difference in gun violence.  The whole thing is *daunting* to say the least.

 

Do we start with mental health screenings as a requirement of purchasing a gun?  If so, who decides which mental illnesses disqualify one?  Depression?  Well, ANY depression, only severe or mild, too? What if something can be controlled with medication?  Probably no, because then we'd have to have a system to ENSURE that people are taking their meds, right?  OK, so what about everyone living in a household WITH someone who has a mental issue deemed unsafe?  Are they automatically disqualified?  Should they be held responsible if someone's mental health status changes and something terrible happens before care is sought?  And what about those mental challenges that tend to run in families?  What about those on the spectrum? Are they "less empathetic" *enough* to warrant being on The List?  And then, who is going to go and COLLECT all of the guns from people who got them before these laws and programs are put in place? It's not fair for them to have them while others with the same conditions do!  So, in a way, for those who actually advocate for the fewest people qualifying to have guns as possible, this route may actually be their best bet if they can get enough support behind it. (I'm not one of those, but I doubt Americans will want to give the govt. that control over all of this.)

 

I only blather on about all of this because I used to really support the idea that we focus on mental health as it related to gun violence.  But the more I think of it, the more I think that we need to make the mental health system better, period.   We truly don't know how much, if at all, that would reduce gun deaths.  Families need to start really taking care of one another, but is "education" alone going to do that?  It all seems out of reach.  But maybe that's just my depression talking.  :mellow:

 

No, not depression or OCD or anything that's not immediately dangerous to others.  We're looking at mainly two types of psychiatric conditions with mass shooters: things similar to schizophrenia or bipolar combined with paranoid delusions, hallucinations, an inability to function, isolation, and an obsession with sex death, shooters, and notoriety. AND/OR unfortunately, certain disorders like high functioning autism that when also combined with an inability to function, isolation, delusions, obsessions with sex, death, shooting, and notoriety.  I wish for the latter they would come up with another diagnostic name for that combination so there's not additional discrimination against autism.  But those are the issues involved with mass shootings.

 

In many cases families are aware a child isn't functioning well in advance of them attempting a crime.  If there were assistance available for parents of a mentally ill child with an obsession with murder OTHER than waiting for them to commit a crime or handing them over to foster care, that would be better for everyone.  Those with schizophrenia or bipolar who aren't as likely to be violent could have cheaper outpatient treatment:  a visiting nurse to give them daily meds, for example.

 

It's all quite complex of course.

 

My mother battled mental illness most of her life. During the last five years of her life, she talked frequently about killing people she didn't like, including myself. She was also suicidal at times over the years. When my father died, she said she'd kill me if I showed up for his funeral. I decided to come and take measures so that I was never in a dangerous position with her, and thankfully it worked out fine. She never owned a gun, so that was a factor. But she physically abused her children when we were growing up and abused my father during his later years (he also refused help). She sent four people to the emergency room including an aide at her assisted living facility that she hit hard over the head with her cane. If she had continued on that trend, they were going to put her into the state mental hospital. At that point she was also talking about blowing up her assisted living facility and assassinating the director, but when I called them with that information they already knew and felt like it was just words. Then she had a stroke which made her manageable, and she gradually faded away after that.

 

I tried to get her help many, many times, but the reality is that if you are pretty much functioning in life and don't want help, there is nothing that those around you can do.

 

I don't know where the line is for folks, but there are people "out" that shouldn't be. And there are people in between too.

 

I'm so sorry.

[MarkW]

I have an out of pocket max of $5000. In the theoretical situation that I pay $1000/month for my medication every month for 5 months, I will get it "free" the rest of the year.

 

That's great and all, but I'd hardly call it accessible.

 

Meanwhile my health insurance deduction would remain around $800/month for the entire year, which includes both my premium and the funds that go into my HSA to "recoup" that $5000.

 

Katy - it seems to me like absolutely anything paid for with taxes in this country that isn't the military industrial complex becomes horrendously controversial and propaganda laden. I'm assuming I'll just die of Crohn's. People here actually believe that national healthcare is evil or broken or has sinister hidden costs. The statistics don't bear any of it out, but half the country assumes it's all true. Despite the US being the ONLY first world country which doesn't provide this.

 

Millenials in the US are searching on Google for how to perform minor surgeries at home themselves with home sterilized, improvised "instruments". This is not defensible.

[MarkW]

Reasonable relative to...?

 

In Canada, France, and the UK, they have superior outcomes to US healthcare across the board with the single exception of exotic end stage cancer treatments for people who can afford them out of pocket that are more readily available in the US. Meanwhile, their per capita cost is as much as 50-75% less than ours. Myths about wait times, death panels, etc, are all unsubstantiated. Ever try to see a neurologist in the US? Good luck.

 

It hardly seems reasonable relative to that, Heigh Ho, but I'm biased I guess since I'm dying of the US healthcare "system".

[MarkW]

So, are you saying that conditions in other first world, Western countries aren't relevant for comparison? I'm not sure what the utility is of comparing two broken systems to each other.

[MarkW]

What is the AFA? Do you mean the ACA? Is the AFA some sort of snarky version I'm not aware of?

 

Anyhow, we can certainly compare large healthcare systems with millions of participants to one another, because we can carve out the specific costs of each using available economic data. It's perfectly valid to compare healthcare in the US to that in the UK, or Canada, or France, or most of Europe.

 

We're losing, by the way, on every measure. The only thing propping up private health insurers in the US are millions of dollars in lobbying, Joe Lieberman, and people who buy the propaganda.

 

I spent 6 years working for a private health insurer (Cigna) and I've been working for a major hospital system for over ten years. Let me assure you: private insurance was already going sky high BEFORE the ACA was enacted. My current deductibles, out of pocket, and copays were very nearly where they are now two years before the ACA was even passed. It can't be blamed for what is squarely the effect of having a very expensive system of middlemen between Americans and their doctors and medications.

[MarkW]

If you're worried about your tax burden in the US, you should be looking squarely at the absurdly oversized US military, larger than the next 26 largest national militaries in the world and as large as the next 7 combined, which hasn't fought a defensive war since the 1940s and which government contractors and their pet congressmen are making trillions of dollars from. It's a propaganda machine slash money funnel, and that's nearly all that it is.

 

People who complain about taxation in the US never seem to have a problem with that, but healthcare? Oh no. We should let people die of preventable diseases while we have contractors piling up useless tanks that the Army has publicly stated they don't want or need, and that's just the most recent, most blatant public example.

[6packofun]

It's all quite complex of course.

 

My mother battled mental illness most of her life. During the last five years of her life, she talked frequently about killing people she didn't like, including myself. She was also suicidal at times over the years. When my father died, she said she'd kill me if I showed up for his funeral. I decided to come and take measures so that I was never in a dangerous position with her, and thankfully it worked out fine. She never owned a gun, so that was a factor. But she physically abused her children when we were growing up and abused my father during his later years (he also refused help). She sent four people to the emergency room including an aide at her assisted living facility that she hit hard over the head with her cane. If she had continued on that trend, they were going to put her into the state mental hospital. At that point she was also talking about blowing up her assisted living facility and assassinating the director, but when I called them with that information they already knew and felt like it was just words. Then she had a stroke which made her manageable, and she gradually faded away after that.

 

I tried to get her help many, many times, but the reality is that if you are pretty much functioning in life and don't want help, there is nothing that those around you can do.

 

I don't know where the line is for folks, but there are people "out" that shouldn't be. And there are people in between too.

 

Oh my, I'm so sorry.  Your last line is absolutely correct.  :(

[TechWife]

Yes, 100% socialized just like they were prior to 1980-something.  And I'm not sure a large portion of the population would be against that because it wouldn't be affecting everyone else's healthcare, it would affect mental illnesses only. This is why until recently many health insurance plans refused to cover mental health care - the government would pay for it if you were bad enough. Also I think you could make a reasonable argument that it is more cost effective than the current combination of foster care, jail, prison, hospitals, increased police, actual medical expenses, and homeless population expenses that our society already covers.  It would certainly be more effective.

 

 

No, not depression or OCD or anything that's not immediately dangerous to others.  We're looking at mainly two types of psychiatric conditions with mass shooters: things similar to schizophrenia or bipolar combined with paranoid delusions, hallucinations, an inability to function, isolation, and an obsession with sex death, shooters, and notoriety. AND/OR unfortunately, certain disorders like high functioning autism that when also combined with an inability to function, isolation, delusions, obsessions with sex, death, shooting, and notoriety.  I wish for the latter they would come up with another diagnostic name for that combination so there's not additional discrimination against autism.  But those are the issues involved with mass shootings.

 

In many cases families are aware a child isn't functioning well in advance of them attempting a crime.  If there were assistance available for parents of a mentally ill child with an obsession with murder OTHER than waiting for them to commit a crime or handing them over to foster care, that would be better for everyone.  Those with schizophrenia or bipolar who aren't as likely to be violent could have cheaper outpatient treatment:  a visiting nurse to give them daily meds, for example.

 

 

I'm so sorry.

 

Where are you getting  your information? Are you a mental health professional or do you have academic knowledge of this area of research? I am asking because you are painting with some extremely broad strokes regarding diagnoses here, while at the same time drawing some really specific conclusions about the issues involved in mass shootings. 

[Joanne]

Yes, 100% socialized just like they were prior to 1980-something. And I'm not sure a large portion of the population would be against that because it wouldn't be affecting everyone else's healthcare, it would affect mental illnesses only. This is why until recently many health insurance plans refused to cover mental health care - the government would pay for it if you were bad enough. Also I think you could make a reasonable argument that it is more cost effective than the current combination of foster care, jail, prison, hospitals, increased police, actual medical expenses, and homeless population expenses that our society already covers. It would certainly be more effective.

 

 

No, not depression or OCD or anything that's not immediately dangerous to others. We're looking at mainly two types of psychiatric conditions with mass shooters: things similar to schizophrenia or bipolar combined with paranoid delusions, hallucinations, an inability to function, isolation, and an obsession with sex death, shooters, and notoriety. AND/OR unfortunately, certain disorders like high functioning autism that when also combined with an inability to function, isolation, delusions, obsessions with sex, death, shooting, and notoriety. I wish for the latter they would come up with another diagnostic name for that combination so there's not additional discrimination against autism. But those are the issues involved with mass shootings.

 

In many cases families are aware a child isn't functioning well in advance of them attempting a crime. If there were assistance available for parents of a mentally ill child with an obsession with murder OTHER than waiting for them to commit a crime or handing them over to foster care, that would be better for everyone. Those with schizophrenia or bipolar who aren't as likely to be violent could have cheaper outpatient treatment: a visiting nurse to give them daily meds, for example.

 

 

.

Katy? This is not accurate clinically OR when you look at the lives and level of functioning of the shooters.

[TechWife]

For those who are interested in discussing mental health care in the US separate from the issue of mass shootings, I have started a separate thread. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Yes, 100% socialized just like they were prior to 1980-something.  And I'm not sure a large portion of the population would be against that because it wouldn't be affecting everyone else's healthcare, it would affect mental illnesses only. This is why until recently many health insurance plans refused to cover mental health care - the government would pay for it if you were bad enough. Also I think you could make a reasonable argument that it is more cost effective than the current combination of foster care, jail, prison, hospitals, increased police, actual medical expenses, and homeless population expenses that our society already covers.  It would certainly be more effective.

 

 

No, not depression or OCD or anything that's not immediately dangerous to others.  We're looking at mainly two types of psychiatric conditions with mass shooters: things similar to schizophrenia or bipolar combined with paranoid delusions, hallucinations, an inability to function, isolation, and an obsession with sex death, shooters, and notoriety. AND/OR unfortunately, certain disorders like high functioning autism that when also combined with an inability to function, isolation, delusions, obsessions with sex, death, shooting, and notoriety.  I wish for the latter they would come up with another diagnostic name for that combination so there's not additional discrimination against autism.  But those are the issues involved with mass shootings.

 

In many cases families are aware a child isn't functioning well in advance of them attempting a crime.  If there were assistance available for parents of a mentally ill child with an obsession with murder OTHER than waiting for them to commit a crime or handing them over to foster care, that would be better for everyone.  Those with schizophrenia or bipolar who aren't as likely to be violent could have cheaper outpatient treatment:  a visiting nurse to give them daily meds, for example.

 

 

I'm so sorry.

 

As a person whose loved ones are affected by high functioning autism, schizophrenia, and bipolar (friends and family), I am....I don't even have the words for how this post makes me feel. You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating these stereotypes and for breezily proposing ways to "deal with" these people you're afraid of.

[Laurie]

.

[Katy]

I have people in my extended family with autism and schizophrenia whom I love too, so those of you who are accusing me of prejudice, just stop. I am completely open to changing my mind if someone can prove I am wrong.

 

Obviously not everyone with those issues are also: not functional, isolated, obsessed with death and shooting, and have shown increasing signs of violence, but the statistics do bear out for mass shootings that those cognitive and mental issues combined with latter factors and being male are absolutely who becomes mass shooters.  It's not a comfortable reality, and obviously MOST people with those issues in isolation without the latter factors aren't homicidal, but stating those aren't risk factors without looking at crime statistics is disingenuous.

 

If I am wrong, please find some statistics that prove I am incorrect and link instead of calling me names.  My opinion started from reading The Gift of Fear and Protecting the Gift (which I learned about here, and which are referenced from FBI crime statistics) and have been confirmed by every mass shooting news story I've seen since reading them.

 

Using public funding to treat mental health issues is not the same as single payer healthcare because it is a public safety issue.  Many people on the far right who are against public health care are FOR increased mental health care so their gun rights will be preserved, and those on the left would rather have people currently in jail that would be better served by mental healthcare getting that care so I suspect on the whole all but the most strident libertarians would support some sort of care, even if it looks remarkably different than in generations past.

[Katy]

I am not talking about involuntary commitments unless it is clear it is needed.  The vast majority of those with such issues are not and will never be homicidal. 

 

But what if it was your son?  What if it was clear he had all of the  above signs and was increasingly obsessed and making bizarre comments that scare you?  He hasn't committed a crime, so the police couldn't do anything.  He's smart enough to not confess his plans, and even though there are enough signs that you could get a POA & have him placed in a private mental health hospital, unless you're in the upper 2%, you cannot afford that.  He's an adult, so him taking a month or two to work at any full time job and he'll have enough money to cobble together a small arsenal of weapons.  Even if you are very well off and have excellent outpatient care, like that Roger something shooter in California, you might be sure  your kid is capable of something like that, and you might be begging people to intervene, and be powerless to stop him because in many states current laws make it quite difficult.

 

What if your formerly responsible daughter goes to college and has a meltdown that makes the pasts of Amanda Bynes and Britney Spears look tame, but you don't have the showbiz bank accounts to cover the costs of hospitalization when she clearly needs inpatient care?  She's likely never going to be a danger to anyone but herself, but no one in this country is going to help you.

 

Yes, you can be functional and have mental health or cognitive development issues.  The functional are not who I'm talking about.

[Katy]

I'm somewhat surprised none of the people criticizing me earlier have responded.  Are there no statistics to prove me wrong?

[MomatHWTK]

I'm somewhat surprised none of the people criticizing me earlier have responded.  Are there no statistics to prove me wrong?

  Why on earth would I be expected to provided statistical data in response to an unsubstantiated ill-informed and biased opinion?

[Katy]

  Why on earth would I be expected to provided statistical data in response to an unsubstantiated ill-informed and biased opinion?

 

Not unsubstantiated.  I referenced two books that were sourced from FBI crime statistics.