PDA

View Full Version : Mental Illness


USMCM16A2
07-28-2012, 11:31 AM
Folks,


One thing that seems to be coming to light, is that the Colorado shooter Holmes was seeing a Psychiatrist at the University. To what extent did the Doctor feel Holmes was a threat if at all we may never know. But it makes one thing abundantly clear, that mental illness is a subject that needs to be dealt with. I believe somewhere, someone, knew Holmes was going to pop.
How could be handled? Does one call the local PD? Do they go to the ER? How can it be done in a way that protects the Public right of Safety, but protects the patients Second Amendment Rights. , , and , are running around like chicken little, with their chicken**** legislation, but lets propose a bill that does some good, no way.
I believe most shooters here are ok with strengthening the back round check system, and finding a way to whereby people who need mental help can access it. This is what the anti-gun morons should be paying attention to. Lets treat the disease, not the symptom. A2

littlejake
07-28-2012, 12:09 PM
There is always risk in living in a relatively free society. Which would you prefer -- a Nanny state that says, "don't worry, we'll assure your safety, you don't need a gun" -- or a society based on the original intent of the Constitution?

The People have permitted infringement of their rights by the TSA. As for me, I'd rather see TSA dismantled; and I'll take my chances when I fly. What does that have to due with the 2A..

Well, it's the same as settling for restrictive gun laws in the name of public safety.

The events in Aurora are more an example that the Brady Law is another failed law.

I'm do not agree with "strengthening" the background check; I'm for eliminating it.

If you open that door a little wider; and the next thing you know, they'll find a reason, in your background, to deny you.

Summary: I disagree with your statement: "I believe most shooters here are ok with strengthening the background check system..."

hornswaggled
07-28-2012, 12:19 PM
Tough call. On the one hand, if someone has been diagnosed with severe schizophrenia, it's probably a safe bet that person should not be permitted to buy or possess firearms... or a knife... or a car... or gasoline for that matter. But would that too easily extend to someone seeking help from a doctor or counselor for an anxiety disorder or depression? What if somebody just lost a family member and needs to be on Zoloft for a while? What about a returning vet needing treatment for PTSD symptoms? What are the rules, and do we start digging into epidemiological studies for a guideline?

Fundamentals
07-28-2012, 12:26 PM
Someone in another thread early on mentioned the likelihood that Holmes would have done a lot more damage had he not had access to guns, via building more dangerous bombs. He can't get access to a firearm, so he builds a pipebomb, or a propane tank bomb. In this case, his having a gun limited casualties, as even a halfway messed up bomb can be deadly. The victims are only so lucky he couldn't clear the jam.

As others have mentioned, once you push this particular snowball down the hill, where does it stop?

If anything, blame the mail carriers for not delivering that package containing his journal on time. :chris:

six seven tango
07-28-2012, 12:28 PM
Well, I guess I just don't fall into that "most shooters" bracket.

I've seen too many instances, just on this board, where people are having there rights delayed/denied for a little nothing blip in their past. Get arrested, but never charged with a crime? Under the current CADOJ, your DROS, and your RIGHT to purchase a firearm, just got indefinately delayed. And this isn't even law; it's just the AG's illegal policy.

Under the OP's suggestion, all I can foresee is someone having their RIGHTS suspended/revoked on the whim of some shrink just because he/she was feeling a little depressed, or whatever, and sought help.

Sorry, no support on this one from me.

RJohnson
07-28-2012, 12:34 PM
An interesting question I saw a talk show host ask was is there a connection between mental illness and an obsession for collecting weapons patterned after military assault weapons.

GaryV
07-28-2012, 12:41 PM
How can it be done in a way that protects the Public right of Safety, but protects the patients Second Amendment Rights.

The problem is, the way things are set up now, it can't be. There's very little middle ground between free access to firearms and a lifetime ban. But maybe these kinds of incidents are simply the price we have to pay in order to live in a free society. As Hornswaggled pointed out, people with a history of mental illness could wreak havoc with any number of items that are part of our everyday lives. And realistically, depriving someone of these simply because they have some psychological problem is unrealistic, especially if the person is generally functional.

Most people experience some form of emotional imbalance during their life, due to job loss, failure at school, failed or failing relationships, loss of friends or family, etc. Most of us deal with it and get on with our lives. There's no 100% effective way to determine who among us won't. The problem with tying deprivation of rights to treatment is that the vast majority of those who seek treatment won't lose it and will remain within the bounds of acceptable behavior, so depriving them of some right simply discourages people from seeking treatment and actually increases the risk that they will go off and do something destructive.

The only answer I see is to improve the mental health care system so that those who really are at significant risk get better and more timely treatment, and increase carry in the general population so that when someone does crack and go postal, there is always at least one armed person there who has a chance to stop them. But short of locking everyone up who has the slightest stressor in his life, mass killings simply can't be prevented.

RMP91
07-28-2012, 12:42 PM
This also brings up an interesting point...

It was believed that Cho Seung Hui, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre was Autistic.

Would this mean that all Autistic people, people with Aspergers Syndrome, and High Functioning Autism (such as myself) should not be permitted to possess firearms?

I think not, it's all case by case basis in my opinion. You can't just make a blanket statement about a medical/neurological condition.

USMCM16A2
07-28-2012, 12:42 PM
RJ,


Or mental illness and cops who keep coming to forums pissing on peoples discussions. A2

2nd Shot
07-28-2012, 12:45 PM
On the surface, it sounds like a good idea to strengthen the background checks for mental problems. The problem with that, is what qualifies? What's a mental problem, and what's a normal reaction to stress? What's to stop an anti gun therapist from enabling a lifelong prohibition on gun ownership because you went through a bad breakup, or suffered the loss of a loved one, served in a war, or the like and was trying to do the right thing by talking to somebody? Maybe they just don't think you need to have something like that. Thanks for doing the right thing and seeking help, you bad person, you. Here's a big dose of social stigma, oh and, hand over all your guns. Doctors orders.

That leads to the biggest problem here: Do you really think that somebody who is distrustful and hateful of other people enough to consider violence is going to just walk into the therapists office and tell them all about it? I would have figured that these people are somewhat secretive in an effort to avoid detection.

MudCamper
07-28-2012, 12:56 PM
You like guns. You want to buy more guns, or more ammunition. You must be mentally unstable. We must take away your rights to own any weapons, permanently. It's for the benefit of society.

What you propose is a slippery slope from hell.

Gray Peterson
07-28-2012, 1:02 PM
Federal law currently affords due process in re mental health. It requires a judge to commit, and you are allowed due process as well as a defense (which if one is indigent, must be paid for by the state via the public defender system).

California has pre-Heller laws on the subject matter which is why the 5150 gun prohibition is likely unconstitutional (though it probably won't be litigated for a few years, the lack of clean plaintiffs).

There are three things about a mental illness that would effect the ability to own or use a firearm: If your reality is warped (which schizophrenia causes), or you have suicidal or homicidal ideations (yes I put them separate).

Unfortunately, a lot of folks who are less educated on the subject than they should be are trying to make policy on the issue. Crime victims, victims of stalking and sexual assault, sometimes have lifelong trauma's and depression which are not in any way elucidated by suicidal or homicidal ideation at all, and they seek treatment or take medication to manage anxiety from those attacks. These people are not dangerous to us.

Up here in Washington, when there was an attempt to put in a California style mental health gun prohibitions, the therapists & psychiatric lobby up here reacted with fury against it. Reason: They believed that gun prohibitions based on diagnosis would cause people to not come in if they really need it because the increased stigma against getting help. That would cause a feedback loop of people with access to weapons who would not look for treatment and cause the very things they sought to prevent. The anti-gunners were extremely shocked by this because they thought their anti-gun therapist friends (there were a couple) spoke for the majority when talking to them in their social circles in urban Seattle. They didn't.

The 5th amendment requires that you get due process before losing a liberty or property. Anything less is unconstitutional, period.

wjc
07-28-2012, 4:35 PM
You make a good point about mental illness but that has to be balanced with the persons rights under the Constitution.

Personally, unless you're a documented straight out whack job, I wouldn't hamper the persons rights at all.

We used to be known as "...the land of the free, home of the brave."

Fundamentals
07-28-2012, 5:47 PM
Another thought, how many times have people been perfectly fine, and then a startling event in their life makes them crack up? Perhaps that is what happened to this man. He got his CCW when he was saner, and for one reason or another, just went batty.

wjc
07-28-2012, 6:15 PM
Another thought, how many times have people been perfectly fine, and then a startling event in their life makes them crack up? Perhaps that is what happened to this man. He got his CCW when he was saner, and for one reason or another, just went batty.

To expand on this idea...

Many people have a moral compass to keep them on the straight and narrow. I would suggest that a "bad moral compass" let him down and not the events he had to deal with...I've had many bad events in my life. Even some that
could force most to want to commit mayhem. I didn't do it because I think I have a pretty good moral compass.

...but that's just supposition on my part.

dave_cg
07-28-2012, 9:33 PM
To expand on this idea...

Many people have a moral compass to keep them on the straight and narrow. I would suggest that a "bad moral compass" let him down and not the events he had to deal with...I've had many bad events in my life. Even some that
could force most to want to commit mayhem. I didn't do it because I think I have a pretty good moral compass.

...but that's just supposition on my part.

Don't confuse a broken moral compass with mental illness. They are two very different things. I once had an excellent employee who had one of the best moral compasses around, an all-around great guy -- as long as he was on his medication. He changed doctors -- the doctor "tuned" his meds -- and he had a break. As a supervisor I had 3 days of hell until we got him to the right kind of help, and he had 3 months of medical leave to recover. It wasn't his fault. He own body's chemistry was his worst enemy.

When somebody is fighting internal demons the moral compass doesn't have a chance to influence the course. With healthy people, yeah, then the moral compass is in play -- and I'm sure we've all known plenty of healthy but nasty people.

For the record, as much as a like the guy that I mentioned above, he is exactly the kind of person that should not have a firearm.

DEVOREGUNNER
07-28-2012, 9:42 PM
My wife is a director of the local chapter of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) and when we heard of this tragedy we both concurred it had to be mental illness related. Adult onset mental illness most commonly occurs in the late teen to early twenty years. If they are an adult it is almost impossible to get treatment unless a professional makes the diagnosis or witnesses state that the person is a threat to his/herself or others. Even then the person can only be held for 72 hour observation. Often when law enforcement is called, if the person is not observed by the officer(s) to be a threat they are seldom taken in for observation.

Often loved ones or family see the signs and are either in denial, overwhelmed by shame/embarrassment/guilt or just do not know where to turn for help. Often the mental illness is masked by alcohol or drug use.

Most of the people on the street and homeless suffer from mental illness of one kind or another and use drugs and/or alcohol to self medicate. We as a society ignore the mentally ill and shun them. The only State Mental Hospitals in the country today are for the “Criminally Insane”. They only get locked up and treatment after they have committed a crime. More than 15% of the jail and prison population suffers from mental illness and what kind of treatment do you think they get?

Have you ever been awakened by a bad dream? The answer is yes, your brain did not know the difference between the vividly imagined and the real. The same thing is going on in the mentally ill person or drug induced person’s brain. They simply do not know the difference between the imagined and the real.

Some real eye opening numbers on mental illness can be seen here: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publi...ca/index.shtml

A classic example of the Government and societies priorities being a “Little Screwed Up” is how far would the cost of the High Speed Train in California go toward helping those with mental illness and how many lives and how much misery would be stopped?

People are screaming for the death penalty for the Colorado shooter. If he was just pure evil as many murders are I would say go for it. I think he is just one of many with adult onset mental illness that has and will continue to fall through the cracks unnoticed until something tragic happens.
Rant off.

kaligaran
07-28-2012, 9:44 PM
Being able to turn people over if you think they are crazy will just turn into something like the salem witch trials. I'm sure a lot of my co-workers think I'm crazy because I love guns. I've never committed a crime, not violent, nor have I ever threatened anyone. Those are the types of things that are red flags. Not just 'man this person is crazy and might snap'.

Someone that needs Zoloft for losing a family member is a bad example imo(from previous post). I would argue said person doesn't need Zoloft at all and is improperly diagnosed because medications attempt to address a chemical imbalance. Losing a family member is situational depression and happens to everyone. It's natural to get depressed when depressing things happen to us. We're an over-medicated nation in general.

its mcgavin son
07-28-2012, 10:52 PM
There is always risk in living in a relatively free society.

Aside from the sheer wealth of firearm information and laws here, this is the smartest post I have seen in a long time.

In fact, this response unequivocally has a very detailed scholarly background and continues to generate debate among researchers.. Augment this argument with the ethical disconnection between psychiatrist and patient and this event unfolds as nothing but predictable.

Oh, and speaking of the psychiatrist, I would burn my credentials if I were him/her

pratchett
07-28-2012, 11:14 PM
There isn't a better way to address gun ownership and mental illness other than the following:

a) Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective?

b) Have you ever been held not guilty by reason of insanity?

c) Have you ever been involuntarily held for monitoring by mental health professionals?

d) Have you ever been judged incompetent to stand trial?

These are objective criteria. There is, unfortunately, no way to slice the pie further without destroying the rights of people who pose no danger to anyone. Otherwise, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Jerry Brown get to decide what constitutes mental illness for the purposes of owning guns.

nicki
07-28-2012, 11:18 PM
Here is an interesting link, it deals with psych drugs and shootings.

http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

I don't know what the answers are, but it seems to me that we are going to have deal with the issue of people who are taking medications that have side effects that cause people to be violent, homicidal and suicidal.

A friend of mine was prescribed some meds for anxiety and depression and he stopped because they made him feel suicidal.

Considering where he was going to school at, could it be possible that he and other so called "highly gifted" students were being given some new drugs to increase their intelligence and he had a bad side effect?

Seems strange to me that a 24 y/o healthy male would even have a regular doctor, much less a psychiatrist.

I don't like lifetime bans, but I know that if I had to take meds that had a potential side effect of making me violent, homicidal or suicidal, I probably would temporarily get rid of my guns until I was finished with the meds or if they were meds I had to take forever, making sure I wasn't having those side effects.

The mental health system unfortunately has a track record of being abused by governments as a way of locking up political protesters and others that have been deemed politically or morally incorrect.

While many will point to the former Soviet Union, we had problems here in this country in the past.

Our mental health care system does need serious overhaul, there are things it does right and there are serious things it does wrong.

Perhaps the Aurora tragedy may spur honest discussion with a focus on real solutions.

If this was actually done, the the lives saved and the overall improvement in the mental health care of the American people would mean that the lives lost wouldn't be for nothing.

Nicki

Wrangler John
07-29-2012, 11:42 AM
This is a difficult topic with no clear answers. We do know that certain factors can lead to development of mental illness in the late first to second decade of life. Here is one link to a discussion on schizophrenia.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/hypo.php

There is a growing body of evidence that current MRI imaging studies can identify brain abnormalities associated with schizophrenia, it remains to determine how the existence of abnormalities actually predict active schizophrenia. This is one such article:

http://www.ijri.org/article.asp?issn=0971-3026%3Byear=2006%3Bvolume=16%3Bissue=3%3Bspage=299 %3Bepage=301%3Baulast=Parkar

The above article concludes: The considerable heterogeneity of schizophrenia has laid a Herculean challenge in the identification and specification of brain lesions. However, what can be declared beyond doubt is that schizophrenia is a brain disease. Moreover, what can also be acknowledged is that these brain lesions can be identified using mid field scanners too. Indeed, if 'psychiatrists and radiologists start talking to each other', it should not be long before the enigma of schizophrenia and the biological explanations for its transcultural variations are unveiled.

So, if at some point schizophrenia can be accurately diagnosed by objective means, then it becomes possible to limit access to firearms without involving subjective analysis, or in the absence of active symptoms or irrational behaviors. This would also be the case for other activities which would threaten the public safety. Diagnosis of a brain abnormality would become no more stigmatizing than that of an aneurism or tumor, it would however provide a means of early warning. However, the road to just how society would administer the requirement for mandatory imaging and study, with regard to individual rights, would be the more difficult part.

Scott Connors
07-29-2012, 11:53 AM
Here is an interesting link, it deals with psych drugs and shootings.

http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

]It should be noted that the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International is controlled by the Church of Scientology, which has a long-standing animosity toward psychiatry. Anything that it puts out should be regarded carefully and critically.

I don't know what the answers are, but it seems to me that we are going to have deal with the issue of people who are taking medications that have side effects that cause people to be violent, homicidal and suicidal.

A friend of mine was prescribed some meds for anxiety and depression and he stopped because they made him feel suicidal.

Antidepressants do not make people suicidal. It takes 4 to 6 weeks for the patient to receive any benefit insofar as mood is concerned, but they often experience an increase in energy much sooner, which allows them to act on the urges they already possessed. That is why mental health professionals monitor this window of danger very carefully. Unfortunately, GP physicians will prescribe antidepressants without doing this monitoring.

Considering where he was going to school at, could it be possible that he and other so called "highly gifted" students were being given some new drugs to increase their intelligence and he had a bad side effect?

Also, children and adolescents are at increased risk because of impulsivity and lack of understanding of consequences.

Seems strange to me that a 24 y/o healthy male would even have a regular doctor, much less a psychiatrist.

I don't like lifetime bans, but I know that if I had to take meds that had a potential side effect of making me violent, homicidal or suicidal, I probably would temporarily get rid of my guns until I was finished with the meds or if they were meds I had to take forever, making sure I wasn't having those side effects.

The mental health system unfortunately has a track record of being abused by governments as a way of locking up political protesters and others that have been deemed politically or morally incorrect.

Look at the movie "Changeling" for an example of this.

While many will point to the former Soviet Union, we had problems here in this country in the past.

Our mental health care system does need serious overhaul, there are things it does right and there are serious things it does wrong.

Perhaps the Aurora tragedy may spur honest discussion with a focus on real solutions.

If this was actually done, the the lives saved and the overall improvement in the mental health care of the American people would mean that the lives lost wouldn't be for nothing.

Nicki

Replies in post.

nicki
07-30-2012, 4:18 AM
Didn't know the connection to the Church of Scientology. I knew from other sources that many mass shooters had psych issues.

That list of events I linked to happen to be a nice easy one to post listing dates of many mass shootings.

I also got a spam e mail about a ZOLOFT lawsuit and when I did a quick google check there have apparently been a lot of bad side effects.

A meds have potential bad side and adverse effects, the problem we are having is people are flipping out and then they are injuring and killing a lot of innocent bystanders.

If Big Pharma executives know this, they should take action, but something tells me they aren't, in fact, my gut tells me that there may be cover ups.

Kinda funny how the MSM does big stories on guns, but little if anything on meds. I am sure it has nothing to do with the advertising revenue for prescription meds, right.

Nicki

sakosf
07-30-2012, 8:34 AM
I think antidepressants have been over prescribed in this country. There was a recent segment on 60 Minutes regarding a Harvard study that showed for many, with mild or moderate depression, these drugs do little. Severe depression being an exception. There is already a move in some of the European countries toward less use of these type of drugs. There are other ways to treat depression.....such as exercise and therapy or group therapy to learn to recognize negative thinking patterns & about core beliefs & learned behavior that can feed a depression. Anxiety problems can be helped in the same way......such as exposure therapy. I have friend I have known 30 years who has been taking Prozac for a long time, prescribed by a psychiatrist at his HMO. The result being he is now over weight, with blood pressure & cholesterol problems and sometimes when we go somewhere together, he needs to find a restroom FAST, since one of the side effects of the medicine is bouts of diarrhea. His doctor thinks the side effects are manageable. This friend had a bad childhood

For what I would call true mental illness, schizophrenia being a prime example, treatment with with anti psychotic drugs is about the only thing that will help. I am not comfortable with someone properly diagnosed with a mental illness such as schizophrenia having access to guns, even if they are taking medicine. On the other hand, I do not want someone to lose a right with out some sort of due process

nicki
07-30-2012, 2:31 PM
The reality is America has a serious drug problem with prescription drugs and it is bankrupting our country.

Rather than fixing people's health problems, our health care system is getting people to become dependent on drugs.

The psych drugs are only part of the problem btw.

For those who are on meds, here is a song for you.

Here are the lyrics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQL8w9kBiR0&feature=related

Here is a cool outdoor video the band made of this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm6Gibj8Ro4

Bottom line, we got to get Americans off these drugs, they are killing us and this is the real public policy that we need to change.

Of course with a society full of people who have a "Victim mindset", it is easier to take "pills" and blame others for one's problems rather than face the reality that we are responsible for where we are in our lives and since we are responsible, it is our job to fix ourselves.

The LIBTARDS of course promote the VICTIM mindset because when you are a victim, all of your life problems are someone else's fault.

Now go "Pop a Pill" and be happy now.

Nicki

frankrizzo
07-30-2012, 11:59 PM
California has pre-Heller laws on the subject matter which is why the 5150 gun prohibition is likely unconstitutional (though it probably won't be litigated for a few years, the lack of clean plaintiffs).

I would consider myself to be a very clean plaintiff. One 5250 from the mid-90s, no arrests or criminal record, engineering degree, works in industry, married and a homeowner. No permanent mental health problem, just a brief and extremely stressful period that led to some mistakes and the 5250.

The only downside might be that I currently live in Oregon, so it would be tough for me to show up to court in person more than once or twice.

vincewarde
07-31-2012, 1:04 AM
I don't have all the answers (or perhaps even any of them) - but I think it is interesting that so many of the recent mass shootings at least seem to be linked to failures in parts of our mental health system.

In the Virginia Tech shooting, it was the fact that - supposedly in the interest of patient privacy - mental health commitments were not being entered in the NICS database. This allowed the shooter to pass a background check even though he was a prohibited person.

In the Giffords shooting, the problem was not with reporting requirements - or even with the mental health system per se, but with the interface with law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are the people who actually see bizarre behavior and have the power to compel the person to submit to an evaluation. If the police fail to take action, someone can get significantly worse and eventually very bad things can happen. the shooter in the Gifford case had over 20 contacts with law enforcement that involved bizarre behavior on his part. After the campus PD failed to act, instructors got him expelled from school until he could produce a psychiatric clearance. The local S.O. had many contacts (I believe over 10) under similar circumstances and never acted. The sheriff blamed weak gun laws - when in my view he shold have been asking what was wrong in his department and how he could fix it.

Then there is the latest incident - in which the shooter was undergoing treatment and for whatever reason, the clinician failed to pick up on the true condition of the patient.

I wonder why there is not more focus upon the failures in the total mental system? Instead, the focus of the MSM seems always to go to gun control.

glbtrottr
07-31-2012, 7:35 AM
Federal law currently affords due process in re mental health. It requires a judge to commit, and you are allowed due process as well as a defense (which if one is indigent, must be paid for by the state via the public defender system).

California has pre-Heller laws on the subject matter which is why the 5150 gun prohibition is likely unconstitutional (though it probably won't be litigated for a few years, the lack of clean plaintiffs).

There are three things about a mental illness that would effect the ability to own or use a firearm: If your reality is warped (which schizophrenia causes), or you have suicidal or homicidal ideations (yes I put them separate).

Unfortunately, a lot of folks who are less educated on the subject than they should be are trying to make policy on the issue. Crime victims, victims of stalking and sexual assault, sometimes have lifelong trauma's and depression which are not in any way elucidated by suicidal or homicidal ideation at all, and they seek treatment or take medication to manage anxiety from those attacks. These people are not dangerous to us.

Up here in Washington, when there was an attempt to put in a California style mental health gun prohibitions, the therapists & psychiatric lobby up here reacted with fury against it. Reason: They believed that gun prohibitions based on diagnosis would cause people to not come in if they really need it because the increased stigma against getting help. That would cause a feedback loop of people with access to weapons who would not look for treatment and cause the very things they sought to prevent. The anti-gunners were extremely shocked by this because they thought their anti-gun therapist friends (there were a couple) spoke for the majority when talking to them in their social circles in urban Seattle. They didn't.

The 5th amendment requires that you get due process before losing a liberty or property. Anything less is unconstitutional, period.


What a helpful story and frame. Thanks!

I know quite a few people with mental illness who also are gun owners and have a right to self defense. People with anxiety attacks, people with post traumatic stress disorder, bipolars, etc. None of them have suicidal ideations that I know of.

Until we have a complete catalog of mental illnesses that is all inclusive (and god knows the DSM certainly isn't) along with a reliable instant litmus test for the same catalog, these would be rights denied unreasonably.

Incidentally, I do not believe that Holmes, the colorado shooter, has the kind of condition or mental illness that would warrant his classification as mentally insane. If we classify all homicidal individuals / murderers as mentally ill, no murderers would be likely to be tried or prosecuted by statute, and all would automatically be unfit to stand trial by reason of insanity.

efillc
08-01-2012, 5:24 AM
In the Virginia Tech shooting, it was the fact that - supposedly in the interest of patient privacy - mental health commitments were not being entered in the NICS database. This allowed the shooter to pass a background check even though he was a prohibited person.
This is incorrect. While Cho did have a adjudication hearing, the judge permitted him to seek outpatient voluntary treatment. Only involuntary commitments are reportable and will DQ someone from gun ownership under the Brady Law, and Virginia has always reported those.

Further, FFL's in Virginia call into the state system, not NICS, and that system also checks the state court databases for involuntary commitments.

automatikdonn
08-01-2012, 7:27 AM
He was under MK ULTRA.... Seems that a student with no job and parents who were not funneling him thousands of dollars would have a rough time affording all the ammo and equip (of all people in the US gun owners know how much this stuff costs). Also why didn't he shoot at the police too, he goes into a theater and shoots 50+ people and just calmly surrenders to the police. He had bombs made from binary liquids of which the information on the internet will just get you blown up. This guy was trained, and knew exactly what he was doing....

I know I'm am about to get flamed, and thats ok. I'm just the crazy conspiracy theory guy.... But think about it, it just doesn't add up and if you don't think the FBI or gov hasn't done this in the past i encourage you to research yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all