Does it strike anyone as important that the CT shooter had Aspergers and it is often treated with...

[HereSince1628]

107. In 2008 SCOTUS reaffirmed it was OK to deny 2A rights to criminals and the mentally ill

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:59 PM - Edit history (3)

Many people are behind the curve on this part of the argument, because we assume there is privacy about health records and Dr./Patient confidentiality. Pro-gun groups and conservative think tanks have grasped onto that.

Most states don't but some states do have mental health reporting requirements and they are used in permitting gun ownership.

People seem not to understand that for the mentally ill this is mostly NOT about interfering with a desire to buy a firearm. It's about having their name in a national database of dangerous untrustworthy people, and the institutionalization of discrimination and stigma that may follow that will seriously negatively impact their lives.

For the mentally ill, Pandora's box has already cracked open. The struggle is to keep the lid from swinging wide open.

In the past few days there has been an awfully lot of conflation, mixing together, of things which aren't really the same.

All mental illnesses are not equal with respect to risk of violence. Most of the people posting that mentally ill shouldn't have guns can't even name the mental illnesses most associated with criminal violence or list the 5 mental illness associated with higher rates of crime, almost no one can list the 5 mental illnesses LEAST likely to be associated with violence.

Most American's expect policy about risk reduction to be based on actuarial assessments of risk across the population. But that aspect of the arguments has been cast aside with regard to the mentally ill.

Just as most gun owners don't ever criminally shoot people, most mentally ill never do criminal violence. Indeed, most mentally ill don't do violence at a higher rate than the general population. But even gun owners and the NRA don't seem to want the same actuarial approach that is used to communicate minimal actuarial risk of gun-owner violence to be used for determining gun policy toward the mentally ill.

That's an inconsistency in approach that's hard to understand, let alone justify. Is that ignorance of the facts or a desire to point gun restrictions at a different group or a manifestation of already existing stigma about the mentally ill?

If the general population knows little about mental illness they know even less about psychopharmaceuticals. The same psychopharmaceutical can be used for more than one mental illness which have different characters, and which have different risks of criminal violence.

The posted commentaries on DU seem confused about whether the drug is an indicator of a threat from mental illness. or whether the drug itself is the threat. Or, whether it's seen as some admixture of both and perhaps other factors.

There are concerns about SSRIs and associations with increased impulsivity. suicidality and violence especially in young people. And government and industry are trying to get a handle on that. The media is full of stories alerting the public and professionals about the concerns. No one argues that there aren't concerns.

But do the concerns rise to the level of formally identifying a depressed woman in her 40s as a dangerous person who is untrustworthy with respect to bringing violence into society?

I think that most people would prefer that to be a judgement made after consideration of the specific risks rather than a consequence of digital flag on a filled Rx or a mandated reporting of a DSM or ICD billing code into medical records