• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man accused of shooting cops dealt with mental health issues

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
OC, thanks for clarifying my confusion...

apology tendered to Law...

ipse
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Well said Charles. You have bared your heart and family before us. Yes I have a son who has depression. He too is brilliant. Can build any computer from scratch. Is on meds but when they run out... oh well.

I guess I should add that I know a 4th person with diagnosed mental health issues: some kind of bipolar. He is a professional associate. Brilliant. Very hard working. Fully functional. Is more self aware than most folks who have never had a mental illness. He is on some kind of medication and sees his doctor regularly. I don't whether he has any interest in guns, but I'd have zero concern about going shooting with him or with him owning guns if he wanted to.

Even among illnesses like "bi-polar" and "schizophrenia" there remain very diverse manifestations. Many (most??) of which do not result in any danger to others nor direct danger to oneself.

But many with serious mental illnesses do get hold of them and murder.

I think it might be more accurate to say that many who commit high publicity mass murder have/had mental illness. I believe the vast majority of those with mental illness are not violent and not a danger to anyone except maybe themselves. Very few persons (mentally ill or not) ever engage in violent crimes. Among those who do, mental illness (and illicit drug use, and certain racial demographics, and men) tend to be over-represented.

In most cases involving those with mental illness, the danger to themselves seems to come in the form of dangers of their lifestyle (eg living on the streets) or diet (including self medicating with street drugs) rather than any overt, deliberate attempt to inflict harm on themselves.

But the point in the beginning was that McPherson was on record of having schizophrenia agreed treatment and no one knows if he actually did. He should have been denied a legal purchase, God forbid he would buy a stolen gun.

If he was ever adjudicated a danger to himself or others he should have been receiving treatment and proper supervision. And in that case, I'd agree that it would appropriate to limit his access to firearms. Of course, mental health care in this country is pretty poor in terms of the public health.

But one big reason for that is our respect for individual rights. Many of us know someone we believe would benefit if only it were easier to force them to accept treatment. I expect most everyone here also recognizes the danger of making it too easy for the powers-that-be (be it government, or the mental health establishment, or family, etc) to declare someone incompetent to make their own decisions and thus eligible for forced treatment.

Let us also consider the danger of complaining someone getting a gun who shouldn't have. There is sometimes some value in pointing out that current laws are not keeping criminals and insane people from getting guns. But that can also be easily flipped into a concession that current laws are not strong enough and therefore we should accept stronger laws. Was it not in the wake of some allegedly crazy person engaging in a mass shooting that the gun grabbers really pushed the "universal background" (aka "Universal Registration") mantra?

In free society, the only (mostly) sure way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill who are a danger to others, is to incarcerate or institutionalize the criminals and mentally ill.

You and I should not have to pass a background check, prove our sanity, or otherwise tolerate any prior restraint in order to exercise our RKBA. That is true whether we want to buy a gun, carry a gun, sell a gun, or even manufacture a gun. (We clearly have a lot of work left to get our laws into harmony with our natural and constitutional rights.)

If we focus on keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, we place our own RKBA at risk, I believe. We should focus on protecting our access to the means of an effective defense against those criminals and dangerously mentally ill who are not receiving proper care. Our secondary message in this area, then, might be that we need better ways to keep the criminals away from civil society and to provide better treatment for the mentally ill.

All the best.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Minority report stuff we are talking here?

We [the state] think you might be crazy so we are going to evaluate you and determine you suitability for further public interaction, or what "individual rights" you are eligible to exercise. Some folks are just fine with this arrangement.

When shrinks are held criminally liable for getting it wrong, prosecutors and judges too, then I will rethink my view of shrinks. There was a brief, yet revealing, conversation with a shrink in the CO sub-forum. Shrinks, like cops, prosecutors, and judges, are loath to hold their counterparts and comrades accountable for getting it wrong. It is far too easy to, them that is, to advocate that "we" write a check to the aggrieved that is backed by the taxpayers...with a gag order tossed in for good measure if they can get one.

I believe there is too much evaluating intentions and not observing outcomes going on.

No cop shop is gunna wanna be "that cop shop" and let you walk around if someone falsely accuses you of being a nut and a danger society.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
I guess I should add that I know a 4th person with diagnosed mental health issues: some kind of bipolar. He is a professional associate. Brilliant. Very hard working. Fully functional. Is more self aware than most folks who have never had a mental illness. He is on some kind of medication and sees his doctor regularly. I don't whether he has any interest in guns, but I'd have zero concern about going shooting with him or with him owning guns if he wanted to.

Even among illnesses like "bi-polar" and "schizophrenia" there remain very diverse manifestations. Many (most??) of which do not result in any danger to others nor direct danger to oneself.



I think it might be more accurate to say that many who commit high publicity mass murder have/had mental illness. I believe the vast majority of those with mental illness are not violent and not a danger to anyone except maybe themselves. Very few persons (mentally ill or not) ever engage in violent crimes. Among those who do, mental illness (and illicit drug use, and certain racial demographics, and men) tend to be over-represented.

In most cases involving those with mental illness, the danger to themselves seems to come in the form of dangers of their lifestyle (eg living on the streets) or diet (including self medicating with street drugs) rather than any overt, deliberate attempt to inflict harm on themselves.



If he was ever adjudicated a danger to himself or others he should have been receiving treatment and proper supervision. And in that case, I'd agree that it would appropriate to limit his access to firearms. Of course, mental health care in this country is pretty poor in terms of the public health.

But one big reason for that is our respect for individual rights. Many of us know someone we believe would benefit if only it were easier to force them to accept treatment. I expect most everyone here also recognizes the danger of making it too easy for the powers-that-be (be it government, or the mental health establishment, or family, etc) to declare someone incompetent to make their own decisions and thus eligible for forced treatment.

Let us also consider the danger of complaining someone getting a gun who shouldn't have. There is sometimes some value in pointing out that current laws are not keeping criminals and insane people from getting guns. But that can also be easily flipped into a concession that current laws are not strong enough and therefore we should accept stronger laws. Was it not in the wake of some allegedly crazy person engaging in a mass shooting that the gun grabbers really pushed the "universal background" (aka "Universal Registration") mantra?

In free society, the only (mostly) sure way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill who are a danger to others, is to incarcerate or institutionalize the criminals and mentally ill.

You and I should not have to pass a background check, prove our sanity, or otherwise tolerate any prior restraint in order to exercise our RKBA. That is true whether we want to buy a gun, carry a gun, sell a gun, or even manufacture a gun. (We clearly have a lot of work left to get our laws into harmony with our natural and constitutional rights.)

If we focus on keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill, we place our own RKBA at risk, I believe. We should focus on protecting our access to the means of an effective defense against those criminals and dangerously mentally ill who are not receiving proper care. Our secondary message in this area, then, might be that we need better ways to keep the criminals away from civil society and to provide better treatment for the mentally ill.

All the best.

Charles
I agree with you Charles. Have a great week.
 
Top