Printable View
BTW, my personal physician is as crazy as an outhouse rat. Yeah, he's a good enough sawbones. But he's certainly NOT King Solomon when it comes to judgement & common sense. I would never let him look after my dogs while I was on vacation. And you want him in charge...of what?!?
I question the efficacy of this approach. How do we know beyond an educated guess which mental disorders would lead a person to commit violent crimes or go on rampages? I don't think we do know that. Just because someone is autistic or bipolar, for example, doesn't mean that the autism or bipolar disorder, or any other disorder they've been diagnosed with, was the direct cause of such an awful action as a school shooting. There are many different presentations and sub-classifications of mental, behavioral, and emotional disorders that it would impossible to single out one or a few different diagnoses and anoint them as "red flags" for gun ownership. That would infringe on the rights of many to potentially reduce incidents like these without clear discernible data to support it.
I'm going off the cuff here, but in situations like this, I think these people are a "special breed." No mental screening tool or assessment could accurately and reliably predict a person doing such horrific things (without the problems of under- or over-diagnosis). Correct me if I'm wrong on that. But the mental health approach is so vague, so broad, with such a morass of published research and clinical observations that we couldn't possibly create an effective screening tool to stop situations like this massacre. That's my guess, anyway, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
And a poster above commented that no physician would want that kind of liability. He is absolutely right. Physicians already have enough to worry about in that regard.
I don't know what we can do to prevent these tragedies.
A psychological condition is just another reason why someone might do something like the shooter did. Some are suicidal and/or full of hate for some reason external to themselves. People do things like this for many reasons and not all of them can be diagnosed or helped or anticipated. The downside to living in a free society is that people are "free" to do horrible things if they put their mind to it. There isn't one cure-all solution to this problem, but having better security procedures at the school and an armed staff could have minimized the damage. I don't think adding more red tape to the process of acquiring firearms is the solution.
Ever been to a trial where two psychologists are asked to evaluate the same person? I'm betting dollars against navy beans for as many beans as you can count that those two highly-educated, fully-accredited, experts on the human mind...didn't agree.
My ER docs, if they think you are a danger to yourself or others, can put you on a "72 hour hold". Basically you are under arrest in a hospital and they are read their rights (like a psych really understands his rights). The police don't want them if they try to escape or become violent because they don't have room in the jail. Basically the hospital winds up paying for a mental health facility to 'treat' and they release them back into the public... where they wind up back at the hospital again when they can't cope, etc., etc., etc.
George
All good points...... But the current, and I will say the future biggest obstacle to the sane crowd having freedoms like we enjoy today is the few anti social crowd, which the anti- gun crowd will continue to use to their advantage.
If some solution isnt found, i fear we will soon be like much of the rest of the world. No guns for the populace.
I will state it again....... The main problem is mental health, or lack there of......
Yeah, I agree. Mental health issues are going to be the main source of suffering in the 21st century. I think that only medical R&D coupled with social services will lead to a light at the end of the tunnel.
I agree with you but want to point out that this type of result is an effect of our adversarial methodology for reaching a judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost tracker
It happens with forensics testimony, pathology testimony, fingerprint analysis, and many other forms of evidence evaluation.
Every serious trial has testimony from competing experts. Sometimes some of them know what they are talking about. Sometimes the winner is just the guy who is a fast talker.
Yep, adversarial expert witness tactics are tools for both prosecution & defense. But at least in matters of forensic, pathology & fingerprint evaluation there are clear, objective pieces of physical evidence from which the jury may attain an amount understanding. They can SEE the crime scene photos, autopsy reports & shell casings. Yet my point, relating to psychological evaluation, is that there is a complete absence of such tangible evidence. It's ALL subjective. As such, the evaluation process overall becomes almost arbitrary.Quote:
I agree with you but want to point out that this type of result is an effect of our adversarial methodology for reaching a judgment.
Let's start with folks that come in the hospital and claim they are suicidal - they should NOT be covered by HIPPA regulations. They need to be reported to a government organization (probably police) where they can be flagged if they try to buy a gun.
George