A sound insight on preventing mass shootings......

[aljdewey]

This article made some excellent points that really resonated with me: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/robbins-mental-health/index.html

Excepts about the Elliot Rodger shooting event:

He had legally purchased three guns, passed a federal background check and met several other requirements in one of the most liberal states with the toughest gun control laws in the country. California was one of eight states that passed major gun reforms in the wake of 2012's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a lone gunman killed 20 children and six adults.

In fact California's gun control laws received an "A-" grade from both The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In this climate, how did Rodger succeed in his lethal plan? It wasn't the gun laws, it was the lack of common sense mental commitment laws.

A 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit aimed at removing the stigma of mental illness and barriers to treatment, analyzed the state of mental commitment laws state by state, looking at both the "quality of involuntary treatment (civil commitment) laws which facilitate emergency hospitalization during a psychiatric emergency and the availability of court orders mandating continued treatment as a condition of living in a community."

On virtually all counts, California received an "F" (it got a "C" on emergency evaluation). In Rodger's case, a friend concerned about alarming videos he'd posted on YouTube had alerted a county mental health staff member, and police had conferred with his mother, but this was not enough to get him committed.

Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

Indeed, the Treatment Advocacy Center's report describes the exact situation police found themselves in when they conducted that "well-being" check on Rodger:

"But what if the person is neither threatening violence against anyone nor at any apparent imminent risk of injuring himself? What if the concern spurring the family member to seek help is simply that the person is suffering, tormented by terrifying delusions, yet somehow unaware that he is ill? Do we as a society have reason to intervene? To answer 'yes,' we must believe there is a compelling societal imperative beyond preventing imminent injury or death.

The truth is that commitment laws shouldn't be a stopgap to prevent imminent harm, but rather seen as an essential tool to help a loved one needing treatment before things reach the imminent harm stage.

 

[aljdewey]

This article was even scarier to me because there were no seemingly apparent warning signs from those around him:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/us/minnesota-attack-teen-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Had it not been for the observant person who called the police, this may not have been prevented at all.

 

[Indylady]

Mental health care is really an important issue. I've never reported anyone myself but recently found out a friend from undergrad was committed for a short time because of a likelihood he might hurt himself or others a few years ago. He wasn't a very good friend, but regardless, was a friend. I always thought felt something strange about him and even remember feeling so weird and a little creeped out studying alone with him one evening that I told him I had to leave early and go somewhere, even though I didn't. He'd be so happy go lucky some days, and easily irritated and upset other days. Soon, I just started to avoid him and didn't see him around too often. I still don't what happened to get him committed, or any other details really. I just wish I'd been a little more in tune with my gut feelings; I don't really know what I could have done.

 

[lulu]

Very interesting article-thanks for posting.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I am only familiar with the laws in my state but I am sure many other states are similar. Here, if someone is brought for an involuntary "hold" they have a hearing within 72 hours not counting weekends or holidays. The only way "out" is if the attending psychiatrist does not feel the patient is or was a danger (for example comments were made while intoxicated). Most chapters are not dropped but if they are it is usually what is called a "settlement agreement" where the patient agrees to keep all appointments, take meds, no drugs or alcohol, no weapons, etc for 90 days. If the person violates this agreement within that time frame the county can bring the person BACK to the hospital for a second hearing. For the patient that does go to the hearing the doctor gives testimony and recs. Patients are either discharged from court OR they may require a second hearing so they come back to the hospital. A second hearing is 2 weeks from the first to allow the patient time to build a case in their defense. So many times people are held involuntarily for longer than 3 days. Then they sign a similar agreement as I already mentioned. There is also something called a 3-party petition in where 3 people (usually family members) attest the person had mental illness and needs treatment. Mental health patients do have rights and it does become a slippery slope when we generalize. In the worst of cases patients can be mandated to long term treatment in a state hospital. Counties are overworked and understaffed so people do fall through the cracks.

I agree that there is SO much wrong with how we treat, fund, and educate people with mental illness. I have treated patients with guns but unless the county/courts/police are involved our hands are tied. Obviously we encourage removal of any weapons but I am sure not everyone complies. I have heard some pretty scary stories and it seems fairly easy to obtain a gun. Right to privacy unfortunately is a double edged sword. I honestly don't know what the answer is.

 

[perry]

I have been totally shocked by the number of obviously mentally ill people who are not in treatment. Not that all treatment must be hospitalization (halfway houses work very well for many people - if they have them). But, the way the state and the counties have largely closed something like 90% of all mental health facilities - and mostly dumped those people into society without any kind of adequate care. In many cases, this was not about cost of care; it was mandated "rights" of people that prevents effective identification and treatment.

Have a great day,

Perry