Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
13. The vast majority of the last -6-? Wow that sounds significant!
Sat Jan 9, 2016, 10:51 AM
Jan 2016

Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

It's mind bogglingly silly to make headlines around majorities of six events.

It's beyond mind-boggling when you go to http://www.shootingtracker.com/Main_Page pick 2015 and then start your analysis of their data.

It turns out that for 2015 the mental health status of a majority of shooters -wasn't even known-. There's some question if even half of the names of shooters are known after months of investigations in to the shootings.

I'm all for stopping gun murders, not just mass-shooting. I'm not opposed to efforts that are likely to be effective. But here is what Obama did. He's ordered SS to hand over names of people who receive disability payments for reasons of mental health, but who have guardians/custodians/power of attorneys to handle their finances.

There are an estimated 75K of such people nation-wide. There is -no- published evidence that this class of people represent an enhanced risk of being a gun murderer compared to the rest of the US population.

It's simply based on the assumption that a person not competent to handle their finances is not competent enough to purchase a new firearm. Now I am not going to argue that isn't at least partially true in a 'that just makes street sense sort of way. But as so often turns out, street sense is usually not evidence based.

But I think it's highly questionable as a effective step in reducing gun murders. Who Obama is targeting isn't the James Holmes's of the world who actually committed the Aurora theater shooting. Holmes wasn't on disability, and he was handling his own finances. Holmes hadn't even been adjudicated to be incompetent or dangerous.

The names of SSDI recipients whose names will be added to the criminal database are going to be people with early onset Alzheimer's, people who have had strokes, suffered brain injuries in accidents and war that have led to a loss of cognitive function, and people with various serious cognitive dysfunction that makes it impossible to be gainfully employed, maybe someone with severe autism... it's a pool of about 75000 people, and no numerical estimate exists that describes the likelihood of their purchasing a gun and committing a mass murder.

That's a significant problem for even attempting a guess at effectiveness of this measure. In looking back over news accounts and follow-ups of the mass-shootings of 2015 there is not one event that has been linked to an SSDI recipient who had surrendered control of finances to a custodian/guardian/or power of attorney. A signal for an annual potential effective reduction in mass-shootings through this approach isn't even detectable.

If nothing more consequential than mentally incompetent people being banned from gun purchases they are probably not very interested in making was all that was at stake we might turn to street smarts again and say no harm, no penalty.

But that's not the case. Discrimination against persons with mental disorders runs very deep in the US. It's very likely that what Obama did was apply street smarts based mostly on prejudicial stereotypes generally supportive to the seemingly unquestionable conclusion that ... mentally ill people shouldn't have guns.

And in our society that's so easy and acceptable, because it taps into prevailing stigma about persons with mental disorders in the US. Here the mentally ill are mischaracterized to their dangerousness and incompetence, broadly stereotyped, and made economically and politically powerless. We don't merely want them to be prevented from buying guns, we don't want them to be our surgeons, nurses, police, airline pilots, bus drivers, teachers of our children, co-workers or neighbors.

What Obama's exec action has done is to further reinforce the stigma, using his position to have the US Government endorse the street smarts that mentally ill are stereotypically dangerous and incompetent. I suspect Obama's actions aren't going to do anything to reduce the 16x greater likelihood of getting shot by a cop if that cop suspects a person is mentally ill and a 4 times greater chance of being tazed if a cop suspects a person of being mentally disordered I suspect that Obama's actions aren't going to do anything to reduce the unemployment rate among persons with diagnosed mental disorders that nationally ran at just over 80 percent in 2012.

What I am pretty sure Obama's exec action has done has been to endorse unwarranted prejudice against the mental ill. I suspect many people who share Obama's street smarts are going to be saying to themselves 'YES!!! We finally get to do something about the crazy monsters among us besides the usual shunning from employment, promotions, housing, and social engagement!!

"hey, this guy is on anti-depressants, and is seeing a therapist,"... meaculpa2011 Jan 2016 #1
So sue the gun dealer who decides that is reason enough not to provide a gun. joshcryer Jan 2016 #2
You skipped a step here I think underpants Jan 2016 #9
Exactly LittleBlue Jan 2016 #23
He also can't be a day under ninety if he was old enough to serve in 1944, LeftyMom Jan 2016 #41
He's 93, he doesn't have gun... meaculpa2011 Jan 2016 #48
There's a big difference between "in patient" and "out patient" therapy. briv1016 Jan 2016 #62
One reason people who need therapy won't seek help is that they fear tblue37 Jan 2016 #63
So now some want madville Jan 2016 #3
I have no idea how it'll be implemented. joshcryer Jan 2016 #5
"Nor do I give a shit." Says it all. End of discussion. n/t meaculpa2011 Jan 2016 #7
What a surprise! dumbcat Jan 2016 #18
Your observation does not bother me but my family has a jwirr Jan 2016 #20
All the background check system returns to a dealer... Lizzie Poppet Jan 2016 #16
I stand corrected. joshcryer Jan 2016 #22
Of course there's no stigma against getting help with mental health issues Fumesucker Jan 2016 #4
Yeah, that is truly not going to help. Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #8
Is there some process to deny a mentally unstable Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #6
Yes (although depends on State) Nevernose Jan 2016 #17
There are but there is a key difference from this scenario. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #59
Why astounding? DFW Jan 2016 #10
You'll notice we're not Germany? WinkyDink Jan 2016 #12
Obviously, however: DFW Jan 2016 #19
What about HIPAA? Moreover, what makes anyone think that everyone who "needs" it is on medication? WinkyDink Jan 2016 #11
HIPAA shadowrider Jan 2016 #27
The vast majority of the last -6-? Wow that sounds significant! HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #13
" just catching up on Obama's EO " dumbcat Jan 2016 #14
Yet to listen to some people, here and IRL, you'd think he implemented GGJohn Jan 2016 #15
He directed HHS to do a rule change on mental health reporting. joshcryer Jan 2016 #21
Do you know how rule changes are implemented? dumbcat Jan 2016 #24
You can go to the CFR. joshcryer Jan 2016 #25
"I don't care" dumbcat Jan 2016 #34
I don't think you understand what a background check does NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #26
Should I edit the OP? joshcryer Jan 2016 #28
That's up to you. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #36
It was a 2 AM drunk post. joshcryer Jan 2016 #39
I'm actually a strong "civil lberties" person NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #40
I edited it. joshcryer Jan 2016 #42
That's fine. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #43
In retrospect it was a stupid thing I said. joshcryer Jan 2016 #46
What several states have put in place is a method to report that someone is a danger NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #47
To add to NutmegYankee's comment, here's a description of the California law petronius Jan 2016 #50
Good stuff. joshcryer Jan 2016 #51
Civics undergroundpanther Jan 2016 #54
Neck surgery... Nanndoc Feb 2016 #66
Kudos. Perfect analysis. Kang Colby Jan 2016 #57
I had a bipolar friend libodem Jan 2016 #29
Good! deathrind Jan 2016 #30
Good point, that one pilot killed an entire airline of people. joshcryer Jan 2016 #31
It doesn't sit well because it is flat out illegal for the Government to do that. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #33
The due process deathrind Jan 2016 #44
A background check is not due process. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #45
Ok deathrind Jan 2016 #49
The Constitution requires a court to make such a decision. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #52
very well said sweetapogee Jan 2016 #65
I found an article that discusses the HIPAA rule change... Cerridwen Jan 2016 #32
Thanks so much. joshcryer Jan 2016 #35
:) Good to hear, er, read. Cerridwen Jan 2016 #37
This message was self-deleted by its author davidn3600 Jan 2016 #38
I have a weird feeling about this. qwlauren35 Jan 2016 #53
I have a not so weird feeling about this... HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #56
The Mentally Ill have become stigmatized victims of politicians looking for an easy scapegoat. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #60
What steps regarding enforcement are part of this? hifiguy Jan 2016 #55
So hunters with depression can have their guns confiscated by authorities now, wonderful! Odin2005 Jan 2016 #58
That's not what the executive action did. NutmegYankee Jan 2016 #61
Desiring a gun is a pretty blatant sign of a dangerous mental illness. hunter Jan 2016 #64
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»President Obama saved a l...»Reply #13