[jr2]

From
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/24/opinion/robbins-mental-health/index.php ml

Editor's note: Mel Robbins is a CNN commentator and legal analyst. Robbins is the founder of Inspire52.com, a positive news website, and author of "Stop Saying You're Fine," about managing change. She speaks on leadership around the world and in 2014 was named outstanding news talk radio host by the Gracie Awards. Follow her on Twitter @melrobbins. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.


(CNN) -- Next time there's a mass shooting, don't jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.

Strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.

Take the case of the recent mass shooting incident in Isla Vista, California. Police say Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara, shooting and stabbing victims, killing six and wounding 13 before he killed himself.

He had legally purchased three guns, passed a federal background check and met several other requirements in one of the most liberal states with the toughest gun control laws in the country.

California was one of eight states that passed major gun reforms in the wake of 2012's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a lone gunman killed 20 children and six adults.

In fact California's gun control laws received an "A-" grade from both The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Los Angeles Times reported.

In this climate, how did Rodger succeed in his lethal plan? It wasn't the gun laws, it was the lack of common sense mental commitment laws.

A 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit aimed at removing the stigma of mental illness and barriers to treatment, analyzed the state of mental commitment laws state by state, looking at both the "quality of involuntary treatment (civil commitment) laws which facilitate emergency hospitalization during a psychiatric emergency and the availability of court orders mandating continued treatment as a condition of living in a community."

On virtually all counts, California received an "F" (it got a "C" on emergency evaluation). In Rodger's case, a friend concerned about alarming videos he'd posted on YouTube had alerted a county mental health staff member, and police had conferred with his mother, but this was not enough to get him committed.

Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

Indeed, the Treatment Advocacy Center's report describes the exact situation police found themselves in when they conducted that "well-being" check on Rodger:
"But what if the person is neither threatening violence against anyone nor at any apparent imminent risk of injuring himself? What if the concern spurring the family member to seek help is simply that the person is suffering, tormented by terrifying delusions, yet somehow unaware that he is ill? Do we as a society have reason to intervene? To answer 'yes,' we must believe there is a compelling societal imperative beyond preventing imminent injury or death -- an imperative to liberate a person from a hellish existence he would never -- in his 'right mind' -- choose."

The truth is that commitment laws shouldn't be a stopgap to prevent imminent harm, but rather seen as an essential tool to help a loved one needing treatment before things reach the imminent harm stage.

Next, we've got to connect the dots between mental health records and National Instant Background Check. In 2014, Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report calling for states to close this gap. It found that 11 states and the District of Columbia have no reporting laws, and another 12 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the national background check system.
But connecting the dots won't help unless every gun sale is subject to an instant background check imposed on all licensed gun retailers.

And finally, the police need tools as well. They need training and the discretion to ask about and remove guns from any household where there is a domestic dispute, a call for a "well-being check," or a person who exhibits violent or unstable behavior. They also need a mental health professional on call for such checks.

Connecticut, Indiana and, yes, even Texas have firearms seizure statutes aimed at dangerous persons. Laws like these enable the police to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior until a judge can make a final determination on fitness for gun ownership based on evidence presented at a hearing.

I know what you're thinking. "This will only penalize gun owners. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens." You're right. And most gun owners believe in responsible ownership and agree that these mental health measures make sense.

You may also be thinking: "But most people suffering from serious mental illness are nonviolent." You're right about that, too. Indeed, mentally ill people only account for a small fraction of the gun deaths in America every year and the vast majority of those are suicide, not homicide. Violence by the mentally ill is usually a symptom of the untreated mental illness -- that's why access to treatment, not gun control, is the answer.

Overhauling mental health laws would give family members and professionals more responsibility and authority in care decisions. And in some cases, medications and therapies should not be optional.

We've got a major problem on our hands. And since guns aren't going anywhere, the discussion about solutions needs to place the focus somewhere else.

Even the NRA agrees that the seriously mentally ill should never own a gun. So let's finally do something about it.


To which I agree. And I don't think anyone would disagree.  So how long before it actually happens?

[The E]

The problem is that until someone finds a way to peer into the mind of someone else, you'll always have people which to an outward perspective just seem to snap and start killing, purely out of the blue.

I agree that better mental health care, better awareness of what mental health means and what to do when you're not well are all good and necessary things to have, but it is rather unlikely that this will stop people like Rodgers. Just like people determined to perform suicide will find ways to do so, and will find ways to deflect inquiries aimed at finding suicidal tendencies before they do it, so will people determined to kill.

Assume for a minute that Rodgers wasn't going to kill anyone, that the initial impression the police got of him (that he would not be a threat to himself or others) was correct. Should such a person be detained against his or her will, purely on the chance that something might possibly happen? It's the great dilemma of crime prevention, until a person has actually committed a crime, he or she is innocent, and free to do as he or she pleases.

Any involuntary commitment based on something as hazily defined as "need for treatment" opens up a lot of abuse potential. Barriers for involuntary commitment need to be high, else it becomes way too easy to get rid of someone by just implying they're unwell and in need of treatment, something that can have quite a lot of repercussions for that person's life.

[karajorma]

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

This, quite simply, is bananas.

Anyone who truly believes that this should be the standard is more in need of mental health treatment than the people they are talking about.


Mental health issues are very complex. The author means well but is trying to give a simple solution an issue which doesn't have a simple solution. And as such has simply wasted column inches on a suggestion that will never, ever work.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

This, quite simply, is bananas.

Anyone who truly believes that this should be the standard is more in need of mental health treatment than the people they are talking about.


Mental health issues are very complex. The author means well but is trying to give a simple solution an issue which doesn't have a simple solution. And as such has simply wasted column inches on a suggestion that will never, ever work.

I agree with the assertion that mental health care in the U.S. is in a state currently hovering between "non-existent" and "completely ****ed," but I agree the author's conclusions are wrong. Psych holds already exist in some areas, especially for minors (Florida's infamous Baker Act being one of them). The problem is exactly what The E mentioned; it's very difficult to recognize mental health problems in other people sometimes. I think one of the contributing factors to the whole mess is that the current policymakers grew up in a time when psychology was basically binary: you were either crazy (in which case you'd be locked in a "looney bin" and experimented on), or "normal" and "normal" people are apparently just supposed to will themselves into mental health. The stigma surrounding psychological conditions is sickening. I can't even ****ing count the number of times people imply that clinical depression isn't real, or some other such horse**** where they don't believe a certain condition exists because they don't have it, like people implying that ADD/ADHD is just ****ty parenting.

[zookeeper]

Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

So family members, law enforcement officers or mental health professionals should be able to have anyone held for a mental health evaluation even when there's no apparent reason for it? How is that not a stupid idea and a great recipe for systemic abuse?

[jr2]

I was more referring to instances where the individual had made statements that were verifiable (FB,  Twitter,  emails,  texts, etc).

However, this would of course run into "I wasn't being serious"

Perhaps part of the problem is that people are afraid of being committed and not being let go when their condition is under control (happened to a person I know - his wife was literally destroying his life  and so he turned himself in to avoid a nasty situation and they happily kept him there for months, when all he needed was some time to settle down).

Basically, make it so people don't fear help, and they might get help before it turns into something more permanent.  I mean who wants to be held indefinitely and then not be able to find decent employment cause they've seen a shrink? No one.


EDIT: basically, I don't think the article is referring to nor am I in favor of involuntary comittal of persons based simply on someone else's say so.

[Phantom Hoover]

the NRA really will do anything to deflect responsibility for the constant mass shootings in their country from their favourite murdertoys, won't they

[The E]

EDIT: basically, I don't think the article is referring to nor am I in favor of involuntary comittal of persons based simply on someone else's say so.

This is more or less directly contradicted by the passage zookeeper quoted:

We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.

What's the barrier here? At what point does someone's concern translate into enough official concern that people are sent out to take a person into custody? What I mean is, the standard of "does this person present a clear danger to himself or others" is sufficiently high that preventative action can be taken with a high chance of said action actually being necessary. If that gets changed to "this person is possibly unwell and really needs some professional help", then you get into issues where you're giving the power to upend some person's life with a few well-chosen words of concern, without any danger at all being present.

Again, improving the mental health care framework, and improving awareness of mental health issues, that's great. Necessary, even. And who knows, maybe it will prevent a bunch of horrible crimes in some cases. But the catch is that we'll never know that it did, because the big factors that enable such crimes in the US are still present.
Would someone like Rodgers have committed the murders he did if he lived in a country where access to guns is more restricted? Probably not. Violence might still have happened, but the ease with which guns can turn murderous intent into actual murder make such crimes quite a bit worse under the circumstances.

[Phantom Hoover]

it's brilliant how they've twisted 'better mental health treatment' into 'LOCK THE MENTALLY ILL UP BEFORE THEY KILL US ALL'

****ing ****heads

[jr2]

Hrm. When someone makes posts about how they are going to make other people pay, other people hurt and suffer for whatever wrongs, real or imagined that the perp /victim has experienced, exactly what would YOU suggest?

And as far as that being contradicted by the quote, I was assuming that that was meant in context of actual evidence that you could obtain some sort of warrant for ("stated intent to harm others")

And, let us not forget, there are plenty of ways to kill if you go crazy.  Cars being an excellent (in that twisted way)  choice.  Mount bully/brush bar and whack-a-mole away!

[The E]

Hrm. When someone makes posts about how they are going to make other people pay, other people hurt and suffer for whatever wrongs, real or imagined that the perp /victim has experienced, exactly what would YOU suggest?

The correct answer is "nothing official". Talk is cheap. Talk, in this context, does not matter. In the vast majority of cases, talk is all that is going to happen. Putting someone into a psych eval queue just for venting a bit online or elsewhere is an overreaction, and it won't address the problem.

And as far as that being contradicted by the quote, I was assuming that that was meant in context of actual evidence that you could obtain some sort of warrant for ("stated intent to harm others")

And we can see where such policies go in all the cases of students being suspended for their online behaviour under the "no tolerance" rules some american schools seem rather fond of. The only actual evidence of someone harming himself or others is that person actually harming himself or others, or acting with that intent.

And, let us not forget, there are plenty of ways to kill if you go crazy.  Cars being an excellent (in that twisted way)  choice.  Mount bully/brush bar and whack-a-mole away!

Yes, there are. But wouldn't the logical approach then be to ban cars? Or investigate those who modify their cars from factory spec?
The point is, you cannot have perfect safety. You cannot have both personal liberty and a risk-free society. If gun ownership is something you want to have, then you have to accept that people who in retrospect should not have been able to obtain guns will obtain them.

[Ghostavo]

Why ban nuclear weapons after all? I mean, all a crazy person needs to kill is a kitchen knife...

[Phantom Hoover]

And, let us not forget, there are plenty of ways to kill if you go crazy.  Cars being an excellent (in that twisted way)  choice.  Mount bully/brush bar and whack-a-mole away!

and yet mass murders with cars are a regular problem nowhere in the ****ing world (also cars are far, far less effective at mass murder than guns; only one of these things is built for killing)

the only reason to own a handgun or an assault rifle is to kill people, or fantasise about killing people (statistically you are most likely to use them to kill yourself). and yet people like you constantly defend them by comparing them to dangerous and heavily regulated tools needed for daily life in the modern world and acting like this implies guns should be treated as though they're innocuous as a tennis racket

[AdmiralRalwood]

the only reason to own a handgun or an assault rifle is to kill people, or fantasise about killing people (statistically you are most likely to use them to kill yourself). and yet people like you constantly defend them by comparing them to dangerous and heavily regulated tools needed for daily life in the modern world and acting like this implies guns should be treated as though they're innocuous as a tennis racket

Target shooting is a real thing that happens and there are people who like it for the sake of itself, not to fantasize about killing people.

That said, you don't need an assault rifle for target shooting.

[Aesaar]

the only reason to own a handgun or an assault rifle is to kill people, or fantasise about killing people.

Bull****.  I don't hunt, and I honestly have no real fear of someone breaking into my house, so self defense isn't my primary concern either.  I own a gun because target shooting is fun.  Some of my friends own guns because target shooting is fun.  Yeah, a gun is meant for killing.  So is a combat knife or a sword, but I wouldn't ever advocate banning those.

I put "assault rifles" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in the same boat as cars that can go 300km/h.  In NA and most of Europe, there is no practical purpose for such a car.   It isn't legal to go that fast for transportation in most places.    People buy them because they're fun, or because they want to show off, or whatever else.  These are valid reasons.  Those cars aren't regulated any more than any other.

Same goes for armored vehicles like decommissioned tanks.

And before anyone tries to say "oh why don't we allow people to own nukes then?" or something else ridiculous, it's an issue of scale and potential for misuse.  A rifle can be useful for self-defense or hunting.  A handgun is useful for self-defense.  A hand grenade, for example, has no legitimate civilian applications whatsoever.  It has no purpose except to kill indiscriminately.  Apply a little thought.  I wouldn't argue for legal LMGs any more than I'd argue for legal hand grenades.

As an aside, I find arguments based on the Second Amendment to be ridiculous.  The spirit of the Second Amendment would encourage people to own anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.   Its purpose was very specifically to allow the people to violently oppose the government if necessary.

[Scotty]

I personally have several firearms because one of my hobbies is collecting things and guns look very nice mounted above a fireplace (with no ammunition, on safe, and with the firing pin removed).

[karajorma]

You don't need a gun in your house for target shooting. There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.

People buy guns cause they like owning a gun.

[Scotty]

There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.

There are theoretically other ways to allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment.

None of those ways actually exist in the US in any great number or availability (or reasonable cost).

[Aesaar]

You don't need a gun in your house for target shooting. There are other ways you could allow people to do all the target shooting they want in a safe, controlled environment without endangering other people.

People buy guns cause they like owning a gun.

And people buy Ferraris because they like owning a Ferrari.  People buy tanks because they like owning a tank.

And yeah, I do need a gun in my house for target shooting, because I shoot on my property.  Fairly common in rural areas in North America.

[Phantom Hoover]

wait, are you really using a handgun or an assault rifle for your target shooting?