Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 12:22 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2017
Posts: 4,160
Default No mental illness here!

On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims
of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people
accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act
violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.


I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


  #2   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 12:57 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,508
Default No mental illness here!

On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.


Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for a
limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at the
end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether the
confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers to the
treatment, though, because in many states and locales within those
states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In many
cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey, this
is America, right?
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 04:49 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims
of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American
Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that
argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people
accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act
violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


If Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - except
for law-abiding citizens.
  #4   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 05:20 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jan 2017
Posts: 3,030
Default No mental illness here!

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.


Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for a
limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at the
end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether the
confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers to the
treatment, though, because in many states and locales within those
states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In many
cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey, this
is America, right?


It was the liberals who closed most of the mental hospitals. Community
treatment centers. Especially here in California. Now this is an
extremely liberal legislature state and they fail to fund most community
centers.

  #5   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 06:17 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2017
Posts: 4,160
Default No mental illness here!

On 8/12/2019 7:57 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.




Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for a
limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at the
end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether the
confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers to the
treatment, though, because in many states and locales within those
states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In many
cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey, this
is America, right?


I'll defer to your more "expert" interpretation of applicable laws but
my understanding is that mental health professionals cannot "issue" an
order to temporarily hospitalize anyone for further evaluation.

They can petition a court to do so. I believe only a court order can
involuntarily hospitalize anyone.

But, this has nothing to do with HIPAA privacy laws and background
checks. If a person with mental health issues that could put the
public at risk, that information should somehow be included in a
standard background check done for gun purchases or ownership.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com



  #6   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 06:32 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Dec 2015
Posts: 9,508
Default No mental illness here!

On 8/12/19 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/12/2019 7:57 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking
help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of
treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but
stigma is a biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.




Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for
a limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at
the end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether
the confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers
to the treatment, though, because in many states and locales within
those states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In
many cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey,
this is America, right?


I'll defer to your more "expert" interpretation of applicable laws but
my understanding is that mental health professionals cannot "issue" an
order to temporarily hospitalize anyone for further evaluation.

They can petition a court to do so.* I believe only a court order can
involuntarily hospitalize anyone.

But, this has nothing to do with HIPAA privacy laws and background
checks.* If a person with mental health issues that could put the
public at risk, that information should somehow be included in a
standard background check done for gun purchases or ownership.



Who puts that info "on the record"? That's not a rhetorical question...I
don't know the answer.

In many states, a mental health professional may sign a document that
directs the police, if necessary, to pick up a person and take them to a
mental health facility for a three day visit and treatment. The police
can do this on their own. If a person won't go voluntarily to a
facility, the police can enforce an order from a mental health
professional, a judge, or perhaps a family member.

In practice, after a three day commitment, judges are very reluctant to
hospitalize a person for a longer stay. That's the way it is.



  #7   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 06:45 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 256
Default No mental illness here!

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.


Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?
--
..


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
  #8   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 07:35 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,565
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:45:29 -0400 (EDT), Justan Ohlphart wrote:

John H. Wrote in message:
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:22:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote: On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me wrote: An article from NBC News says: "Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence. "It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week. "Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and divisive rhetoric."" Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and

kill multiple, random people. They are mentally ill. The APA is clueless. It sounds like they just want to protect their income stream. I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant to seek help. It is similar to how they talked about AIDS. That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead of just trying to identify the dangerous people. Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help. There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment, availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a biggie. Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense. Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as theinformation it contains.The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allowmental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials ofpotentially dangerous and mentally unstable people. This shouldbe included in the background check data.Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar inconcept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows familymembers, police and, in some cases, health care officials topetition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded tothe care and custody of the state for treatment. Because it iscourt ordered, this information can be included in backgroundchecks.---This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.comIf Bubba has his girlfriend buy him a gun, more stringent background checks are meaningless - exceptfor law-abiding citizens.

Aren't there criminal laws that deal with straw man purchases?


Criminals don't give a **** about laws. Girl friend buys the gun, gives it to boyfriend, calls cops
and reports it stolen.

Easy peasy!
  #9   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 07:43 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 07:57:30 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.


Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for a
limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at the
end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether the
confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers to the
treatment, though, because in many states and locales within those
states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In many
cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey, this
is America, right?


The flaw in these "Baker Act" cases is that the workup is far from
complete. I am sure your wife would agree 72 hours is not long enough
for any meaningful evaluation, especially when the patient is a person
with a fairly well hidden mental disorder who can straighten up,
answer all of the questions correctly and be sent on their way,
usually long before the 72 hours is up.
Virtually every one of these shooters was capable of acting very
normal most of the time and it was only people who were around them a
lot who noted that they went off now and then.
The problem with the facilities is this manic depressive or
schizophrenic will be piled into a system clogged with drug addicts
and drunks. In that atmosphere, Jeffery Dahlmer could look very sane.
  #10   Report Post  
Old August 12th 19, 07:57 PM posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 33,539
Default No mental illness here!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 13:17:19 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/12/2019 7:57 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/12/19 7:22 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 8/11/2019 1:04 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/11/19 12:39 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 05:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

An article from NBC News says:

"Experts, however, have said there's no evidence that people with
mental illness are at a higher risk for committing gun violence.

"It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of people
with mental illness are not violent and far more likely to be
victims of violent crime than perpetrators of violence," the
American Psychiatric Association said in a statement this week.
"Rhetoric that argues otherwise will further stigmatize and
interfere with people accessing needed treatment. Individuals can
also be emboldened to act violently by the public discourse and
divisive rhetoric.""

Sane, rational people don't pick up a weapon and kill multiple,
random people.* They are mentally ill.* The APA is clueless.* It
sounds like they just want to protect their income stream.

I have been saying this is the position of mental health professionals
for years. They think that as soon as you identify people as having a
mental issue they will become stigmatized so people will be reluctant
to seek help.
It is similar to how they talked about AIDS.
That explains why doctors want to use blanket gun regulation instead
of just trying to identify the dangerous people.




Stigma is a huge issue preventing the mentally ill from seeking help.
There are other issues, of course, such as availability of treatment,
availability of transportation, funding, et cetera, but stigma is a
biggie.

Comments about mental health professionals "protecting the income
stream" are just ignorant, right-wing nonsense.



Although I agree with the concept of background checks for all gun
purchases and/or permits, a background check is only as good as the
information it contains.

The HIPAA privacy laws should be re-visited and re-written to allow
mental health professionals to alert law enforcement officials of
potentially dangerous and mentally unstable people.* This should
be included in the background check data.

Mike DeWine, (R) of Ohio has introduced an idea that is similar in
concept to the "Section 38" statute in Massachusetts that allows family
members, police and, in some cases, health care officials to
petition a court to have a drug addict or alcoholic remanded to
the care and custody of the state for treatment.* Because it is
court ordered, this information can be included in background
checks.




Any number of states have laws that allow a licensed mental health
professional to issue an order to have an individual hospitalized for a
limited number of days for a complete mental health workup and, at the
end of that period, there may be a formal court hearing on whether the
confinement and treatment should be continued. There are barriers to the
treatment, though, because in many states and locales within those
states, there is a severe shortage of facilities and beds. In many
cases, especially for substance abusers, the course of confined
treatment lasts only long enough for the patient to get sober. Hey, this
is America, right?


I'll defer to your more "expert" interpretation of applicable laws but
my understanding is that mental health professionals cannot "issue" an
order to temporarily hospitalize anyone for further evaluation.

He is right. In Florida we call it a "Baker act" and it allows someone
to be held for up to 72 hours "for evaluation" although it is usually
closer to 24 and usually just until they sober up enough to get
through an interview without evidence of them wanting to harm
themselves or others.
Damn near anyone can get a person Baker Acted (family, cops, doctors)
but it is usually in lieu of an arrest and generally as a result of a
disturbance. We have a lot of that here because it gives the cops an
easy way of disposing of drunks and stoners without clogging up the
jail. They clog up a mental health facility instead. Unfortunately it
is also easy for a real nut to slip through the cracks.

They can petition a court to do so. I believe only a court order can
involuntarily hospitalize anyone.

But, this has nothing to do with HIPAA privacy laws and background
checks. If a person with mental health issues that could put the
public at risk, that information should somehow be included in a
standard background check done for gun purchases or ownership.



You are right, the result of a Baker act is confidential so all we
really know is they were evaluated and turned loose (maybe with a
prescription for a psycho active drug). I am not sure anyone has ever
been sent to court ordered confinement and treatment from a Baker act
but I assume it can happen.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CNN on Shooter Mental Health John H.[_5_] General 27 October 8th 15 09:18 PM
Higher rate of mental illness among army enlistees... F.O.A.D. General 8 March 4th 14 03:53 PM
Global Warming Causes Psychiatric Illness! Mike[_9_] ASA 0 July 9th 08 07:14 PM
Diving and mental disorders Bob Crantz ASA 0 February 11th 07 02:41 AM
Rob's Mental problems Joe ASA 0 June 4th 06 02:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017