Just my two cents.....Isn't it fear that is causing everyone to jump on bandwagon and cry out for a ban on a rifle type that causes only approximately 1% of the gun related deaths in this country? I mean handguns are the weapon of choice and most gun related deaths from handgun are from only one or two shots. Even a ban on semiautomatics will do little to stop the deaths according to statistics. It is fear that causes people to give up rights for a feeling of security. I don't know.
...
I get your point. Maybe not fear.. maybe hysteria... which can also be used to explain the rush to stockpile weapons and ammo.
For me... it isn't so much fear... it is disgust and anger. Disgust in the excuses people have to justify arming themselves with weaponry that is capable of holding at bay or defeating a small town police force... anger that this is becoming a routine action/reaction in our country.
If we let Newtown fade into the blur of Columbine and Aurora and Tucson by doing nothing about it... we really do get what we deserve.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Great opening message, sir.
I agree with those who are saying the Culture is going to be the most difficult to change.
For example, in the immediate wake of this horrifying event... Americans ran out and bought the same weapon that with the weapon of choice by this unstable individual. They went out a bought tons of ammo, too. What does that say about us? I would imagine that the owner of an AR-15 might look inwards and wonder, was this a good choice... owning this gun. Even if for only a split second... at least, addressing the real need for such a weapon. I am not expecting people to throw down their guns... but, at the bare minimum, give it a thought.
This culture of fear.. and that being armed to the teeth will somehow protect us from... well.... WHAT? What are we protecting ourselves from? The Government? Each other? What?
As long as we choose to live in fear... we will never change. That is the tough one.. changing us, not our laws.
great thoughts there...
so..really..this need to talk about it..
fear and protected from what??
how can you solve a problem ,if you dont know first what creates the problem..
and i agree,its a tough one..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Running out right now (not to work, but to lunch, don't worry), but his isn't 100% accurate. There is some truth to this, but any blanket statement like this is bound to be wrong. I will try to get back to this this afternoon - hold that thought, but part of it is that folks don't take advantage of what is out there, and don't always act even in their OWN best interest let alone others' (example in this case - as legal as it was, why would that mother knowing what she knows about her son's tendencies have a gun let alone an apparent small cache anywhere near him - there's no legislation/culture change, etc that will change pure stupidity).
uhh ... blanket statements are either true or false ...
in any case - we now have schools with army vets patrolling them and sales of bulletproof backpacks on the rise ... soo sad ...
Right. And this may necessarily involve just the time for a generation or two to pass.
There are other cultures where mental illness does not have the stigmatism that it does in ours.
and there are countries that successfully prohibit gun ownership (Japan).
So there is hope
Japan has a pretty wild history, too, in terms of attitudes toward death and violence. Bushido/samurai culture, and then more recently during WW2 with the insanity in mainland China. Pretty sure they have an incredibly low rate of violent crime now, though I don't have any #s in front of me.
Curious, though, about stigmas related to mental illness in other countries -- which countries and how do you know? I ask b/c it seems like something that would be very hard to ascertain w/o being completely immersed in the culture.
I'm glad to see all 3 factors being given focus. As we've seen from different situations and in different countries, one factor alone is not the problem; but when all 3 of these come together we have a dangerous mix. I agree with redrock in culture being such a large piece of this, but also such a difficult thing to change. It's all encompassing. It's not just about a gun culture or a violent culture, but also about a "me" culture. Anyone who's worked to change the culture of a company knows how difficult that can be, yet also possible.
Mental health - I could go on about this forever. It needs so much focus, yet it's not really valued and no one wants to pay for it. We need more research into disorders and treatments, and more qualified practitioners to provide services. The waiting lists are out of hand. Caseloads are through the roof and clinicians are burned out. They're trying to do everything - therapy, advocacy (at the micro and macro levels), case management. We also need to understand that many mental health issues are chronic in nature and can't be "cured." They many require a lifetime of treatment and we need the resources to provide that. The standards of when families and clinicians can step in may need to shift as well. Right now we are limited by issues of confidentiality and rights to self-determination - that can be both good and bad. I think the pendulum may have swung too far towards protecting confidentiality and self-determination in some cases. It's frustrating and it can be disastrous.
Guns - in the wrong hands they can kill 26 people in a matter of minutes. That's a powerful killing tool. Sure other things can be used to kill as well, but guns are so efficient and relatively easy to obtain. This needs a shift as well.
Thank you for this thread. I hope to see changes on all 3 fronts.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Right now we are limited by issues of confidentiality and rights to self-determination - that can be both good and bad. I think the pendulum may have swung too far towards protecting confidentiality and self-determination in some cases. It's frustrating and it can be disastrous.
This is the biggest issue. Your whole post is great, but I wanted to highlight this. I think in our rush to protect privacy, etc. we've forgotten that folks need help and professionals are the best people to make such diagnoses (and the very people that have the problems clearly aren't). Yes, we need to protect rights and freedoms, but we also need leeway to let qualified practitioners do what needs to be done.
For example, in this case, the mom was apparently trying to get the right to commit her son or was about to do so. Regardless, the fact that this 20 year old had past history, still lived under her roof should have been enough for her to do that without lengthy legal proceedings to give her that right. Kind of funny that we passed a law that allows "children" to stay on a parent's health insurance until 26, but those same parents can't make health decisions for those dependents? I realize there has to be a line. But, at the very least, she should have been able to get him to a professional and let the professional make the final decision.
Again, this is a very critical factor. As, even if we banned all guns (which won't nor shouldn't happen), this same person can kill 1 person with a knife or other object, and THAT'S too many for something that's preventable (never mind the fact that helping someone in such a state is beneficial to the greater good, as well).
I do have a question for you since you are in the field - do you think we are pushing TOO hard to mainstream some disabilities? I'm sort of on the fence about this b/c I have friends that have a severely autistic son that they have mainstreamed and has done quite well (with significant parental as well as sibling support - and maybe, that's the ultimate critical factor). But, I do wonder if the pressure on some people might be too great and our society's desire to not only allow but force that type of mainstreaming might ultimately be hurting the very person we're trying to help. I'm not saying we need to lock certain folks away. But, isn't there a medium where maybe mainstreaming is not the best option?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Right now we are limited by issues of confidentiality and rights to self-determination - that can be both good and bad. I think the pendulum may have swung too far towards protecting confidentiality and self-determination in some cases. It's frustrating and it can be disastrous.
This is the biggest issue. Your whole post is great, but I wanted to highlight this. I think in our rush to protect privacy, etc. we've forgotten that folks need help and professionals are the best people to make such diagnoses (and the very people that have the problems clearly aren't). Yes, we need to protect rights and freedoms, but we also need leeway to let qualified practitioners do what needs to be done.
For example, in this case, the mom was apparently trying to get the right to commit her son or was about to do so. Regardless, the fact that this 20 year old had past history, still lived under her roof should have been enough for her to do that without lengthy legal proceedings to give her that right. Kind of funny that we passed a law that allows "children" to stay on a parent's health insurance until 26, but those same parents can't make health decisions for those dependents? I realize there has to be a line. But, at the very least, she should have been able to get him to a professional and let the professional make the final decision.
Again, this is a very critical factor. As, even if we banned all guns (which won't nor shouldn't happen), this same person can kill 1 person with a knife or other object, and THAT'S too many for something that's preventable (never mind the fact that helping someone in such a state is beneficial to the greater good, as well).
I do have a question for you since you are in the field - do you think we are pushing TOO hard to mainstream some disabilities? I'm sort of on the fence about this b/c I have friends that have a severely autistic son that they have mainstreamed and has done quite well (with significant parental as well as sibling support - and maybe, that's the ultimate critical factor). But, I do wonder if the pressure on some people might be too great and our society's desire to not only allow but force that type of mainstreaming might ultimately be hurting the very person we're trying to help. I'm not saying we need to lock certain folks away. But, isn't there a medium where maybe mainstreaming is not the best option?
The mental health aspect is a complicated one. While there have been some shooters that have had some sort of psychotic disorder, the typical profile is someone who has a personality disorder. They have some sort of grievance and they want to make somebody pay. They believe that everyone else is responsible for their feelings and have pushed them to do what they do. They feel entitled and justified to do it. Sometimes there is a comorbid depression or other mental health issue, but that's not what makes people commit these acts. It's the feeling that they've been injured in some way and a feeling of entitlement to make others pay. There's often a lack of empathy and a narcissism at play. The problem with personality disorders is that most people who have them don't seek treatment because their symptoms are ego-syntonic; they're not bothered by them. They don't think they have a problem - they think everyone else needs to change. The other issue is that personality disorders aren't an illness, as much as a way of relating to the world. So there is no medication that can treat them (although meds are sometimes used to treat symptoms like impulsivity, etc). Personality disorders are coded on a different Axis than other mental disorders, because they're considered to be a relatively enduring pattern of behavior; so insurance companies won't pay for the treatment of them. It's also really hard to help someone change something that they don't experience as a problem. That's not to say that therapy can't be effective, but it can take a while to make any change. Add to that the issue of confidentiality. Communications with mental health clinicians are privileged; we can only break confidentiality if there is an imminent risk that someone may do harm to themselves or others. This is frustrating to clinicians and for the families. I have sent people to the crisis center because of suicidal ideation only to have them assessed and released. Sometimes I have to send them several days in a row before the crisis center can legally hospitalize them against their will. It's not the fault of the screeners, because they are also bound by the law which limits what they can do. Mental health isn't static, so a clinician might be concerned that a particular client could be violent, but because they are stable at that moment in time and not posing an imminent risk, they can't do anything. The client might walk out the door and their partner may leave them, they may lose their job, they may use drugs or alcohol, etc. and all of a sudden the risk has shifted. Because of high caseloads some mental health clinics can only see clients monthly. Mental health and risk can change drastically within a month.
So there are a lot of factors at play. There are always going to be some relatively unstable people walking around because we can't lock people up for what they might do, unless there is an imminent risk. Many of these people have no history of hospitalizations, so they can access guns as easily as you or I. So gun laws need to change. The culture plays into the feeling of entitlement. That is a huge factor that also needs to change.
This case is particularly confusing because Asperger's doesn't correlate with this kinds of violence. People on the autism spectrum often have a low frustration tolerance and may have tantrums, but they don't typically plan out violence like this. They usually like order and schedules (a change to schedules can trigger a tantrum), so they are typically pretty law abiding. It's possible that the shooter actually had a schizoid personality disorder (lack of interest in relationships, emotional coldness and apathy) or some other personality disorder or other mental health issues. The Asperger's diagnosis just doesn't fit with this type of crime.
I think we do a disservice to anyone when our expectations of them don't fit with their abilities. We also do people a disservice when we underestimate their abilities and disempower them to achieve things. The college I work for has a great disabilities program and we are known for working really well with kids on the autism spectrum. The program provides them with a lot of support, but some of them just are not equipped to be living on a college campus. They aren't equipped to interact socially. We get called to classrooms sometimes to calm a tantrum (thankfully they call us and not campus police!) and we've had students press stalking charges against some of the autism-spectrum kids because their way of interacting sometimes looks so different. Some of them are extremely bright and they excel academically, but will probably never be able to hold a job. Sometimes their parents hope that if they complete college they will have a "normal" life. Depending on where they are on the spectrum, some do. People with Asperger's can be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc; they marry have kids. But some people on the spectrum can't function in the same way and it's not in their best interest to put them in an environment in which they're going to flounder.
Post edited by comebackgirl on
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
The mental health aspect is a complicated one. While there have been some shooters that have had some sort of psychotic disorder, the typical profile is someone who has a personality disorder. They have some sort of grievance and they want to make somebody pay. They believe that everyone else is responsible for their feelings and have pushed them to do what they do. They feel entitled and justified to do it. Sometimes there is a comorbid depression or other mental health issue, but that's not what makes people commit these acts. It's the feeling that they've been injured in some way and a feeling of entitlement to make others pay. There's often a lack of empathy and a narcissism at play. The problem with personality disorders is that most people who have them don't seek treatment because their symptoms are ego-syntonic; they're not bothered by them. They don't think they have a problem - they think everyone else needs to change. The other issue is that personality disorders aren't an illness, as much as a way of relating to the world. So there is no medication that can treat them (although meds are sometimes used to treat symptoms like impulsivity, etc). Personality disorders are coded on a different Axis than other mental disorders, because they're considered to be a relatively enduring pattern of behavior; so insurance companies won't pay for the treatment of them. It's also really hard to help someone change something that they don't experience as a problem. That's not to say that therapy can't be effective, but it can take a while to make any change. Add to that the issue of confidentiality. Communications with mental health clinicians are privileged; we can only break confidentiality if there is an imminent risk that someone may do harm to themselves or others. This is frustrating to clinicians and for the families. I have sent people to the crisis center because of suicidal ideation only to have them assessed and released. Sometimes I have to send them several days in a row before the crisis center can legally hospitalize them against their will. It's not the fault of the screeners, because they are also bound by the law which limits what they can do. Mental health isn't static, so a clinician might be concerned that a particular client could be violent, but because they are stable at that moment in time and not posing an imminent risk, they can't do anything. The client might walk out the door and their partner may leave them, they may lose their job, they may use drugs or alcohol, etc. and all of a sudden the risk has shifted. Because of high caseloads some mental health clinics can only see clients monthly. Mental health and risk can change drastically within a month.
So there are a lot of factors at play. There are always going to be some relatively unstable people walking around because we can't lock people up for what they might do, unless there is an imminent risk. Many of these people have no history of hospitalizations, so they can access guns as easily as you or I. So gun laws need to change. The culture plays into the feeling of entitlement. That is a huge factor that also needs to change.
This case is particularly confusing because Asperger's doesn't correlate with this kinds of violence. People on the autism spectrum often have a low frustration tolerance and may have tantrums, but they don't typically plan out violence like this. They usually like order and schedules (a change to schedules can trigger a tantrum), so they are typically pretty law abiding. It's possible that the shooter actually had a schizoid personality disorder (lack of interest in relationships, emotional coldness and apathy) or some other personality disorder or other mental health issues. The Asperger's diagnosis just doesn't fit with this type of crime.
I think we do a disservice to anyone when our expectations of them don't fit with their abilities. We also do people a disservice when we underestimate their abilities and disempower them to achieve things. The college I work for has a great disabilities program and we are known for working really well with kids on the autism spectrum. The program provides them with a lot of support, but some of them just are not equipped to be living on a college campus. They aren't equipped to interact socially. We get called to classrooms sometimes to calm a tantrum (thankfully they call us and not campus police!) and we've had students press stalking charges against some of the autism-spectrum kids because their way of interacting sometimes looks so different. Some of them are extremely bright and they excel academically, but will probably never be able to hold a job. Sometimes their parents hope that if they complete college they will have a "normal" life. Depending on where they are on the spectrum, some do. People with Asperger's can be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc; they marry have kids. But some people on the spectrum can't function in the same way and it's not in their best interest to put them in an environment in which they're going to flounder.
This is interesting. As much as I lack knowledge in these things, I felt the whole Asberger's only thing seemed odd in this case. I thought there must be something more, and your opinion seems to confirm that.
To show you how little I knew, I thought Asberger's had been moved off the autism spectrum (even though it does share some of the same characteristics).
Anyway, in general, I find your points interesting. It almost sound like addressing the mental health angle of this is even more difficult than I first thought. Hopefully, they have folks like you consulting with the task force, so they don't address the tusk and forget about the hoof.
Thanks.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
This is interesting. As much as I lack knowledge in these things, I felt the whole Asberger's only thing seemed odd in this case. I thought there must be something more, and your opinion seems to confirm that.
To show you how little I knew, I thought Asberger's had been moved off the autism spectrum (even though it does share some of the same characteristics).
Anyway, in general, I find your points interesting. It almost sound like addressing the mental health angle of this is even more difficult than I first thought. Hopefully, they have folks like you consulting with the task force, so they don't address the tusk and forget about the hoof.
Thanks.
We've been discussing this case a lot at work and we're all baffled by it. It's possible the shooter did really have Asperger's and another comorbid issue or that he was misdiagnosed. Asperger's alone just doesn't explain this kind of violence.
Asperger's is going to be removed as a diagnosis from the DSM 5 when it is published in May, and will instead be lumped in as an "autism spectrum disorder." There definitely is a spectrum, but this change has caused a lot of concern about the possible loss of services for people that no longer meet criteria.
Addressing the mental health piece of this will be a huge and complicated challenge, but mental health care definitely needs more focus and more support, so I hope that will happen. Thank you
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Comments
I get your point. Maybe not fear.. maybe hysteria... which can also be used to explain the rush to stockpile weapons and ammo.
For me... it isn't so much fear... it is disgust and anger. Disgust in the excuses people have to justify arming themselves with weaponry that is capable of holding at bay or defeating a small town police force... anger that this is becoming a routine action/reaction in our country.
If we let Newtown fade into the blur of Columbine and Aurora and Tucson by doing nothing about it... we really do get what we deserve.
Hail, Hail!!!
so..really..this need to talk about it..
fear and protected from what??
how can you solve a problem ,if you dont know first what creates the problem..
and i agree,its a tough one..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
uhh ... blanket statements are either true or false ...
in any case - we now have schools with army vets patrolling them and sales of bulletproof backpacks on the rise ... soo sad ...
Curious, though, about stigmas related to mental illness in other countries -- which countries and how do you know? I ask b/c it seems like something that would be very hard to ascertain w/o being completely immersed in the culture.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
This is the biggest issue. Your whole post is great, but I wanted to highlight this. I think in our rush to protect privacy, etc. we've forgotten that folks need help and professionals are the best people to make such diagnoses (and the very people that have the problems clearly aren't). Yes, we need to protect rights and freedoms, but we also need leeway to let qualified practitioners do what needs to be done.
For example, in this case, the mom was apparently trying to get the right to commit her son or was about to do so. Regardless, the fact that this 20 year old had past history, still lived under her roof should have been enough for her to do that without lengthy legal proceedings to give her that right. Kind of funny that we passed a law that allows "children" to stay on a parent's health insurance until 26, but those same parents can't make health decisions for those dependents? I realize there has to be a line. But, at the very least, she should have been able to get him to a professional and let the professional make the final decision.
Again, this is a very critical factor. As, even if we banned all guns (which won't nor shouldn't happen), this same person can kill 1 person with a knife or other object, and THAT'S too many for something that's preventable (never mind the fact that helping someone in such a state is beneficial to the greater good, as well).
I do have a question for you since you are in the field - do you think we are pushing TOO hard to mainstream some disabilities? I'm sort of on the fence about this b/c I have friends that have a severely autistic son that they have mainstreamed and has done quite well (with significant parental as well as sibling support - and maybe, that's the ultimate critical factor). But, I do wonder if the pressure on some people might be too great and our society's desire to not only allow but force that type of mainstreaming might ultimately be hurting the very person we're trying to help. I'm not saying we need to lock certain folks away. But, isn't there a medium where maybe mainstreaming is not the best option?
So there are a lot of factors at play. There are always going to be some relatively unstable people walking around because we can't lock people up for what they might do, unless there is an imminent risk. Many of these people have no history of hospitalizations, so they can access guns as easily as you or I. So gun laws need to change. The culture plays into the feeling of entitlement. That is a huge factor that also needs to change.
This case is particularly confusing because Asperger's doesn't correlate with this kinds of violence. People on the autism spectrum often have a low frustration tolerance and may have tantrums, but they don't typically plan out violence like this. They usually like order and schedules (a change to schedules can trigger a tantrum), so they are typically pretty law abiding. It's possible that the shooter actually had a schizoid personality disorder (lack of interest in relationships, emotional coldness and apathy) or some other personality disorder or other mental health issues. The Asperger's diagnosis just doesn't fit with this type of crime.
I think we do a disservice to anyone when our expectations of them don't fit with their abilities. We also do people a disservice when we underestimate their abilities and disempower them to achieve things. The college I work for has a great disabilities program and we are known for working really well with kids on the autism spectrum. The program provides them with a lot of support, but some of them just are not equipped to be living on a college campus. They aren't equipped to interact socially. We get called to classrooms sometimes to calm a tantrum (thankfully they call us and not campus police!) and we've had students press stalking charges against some of the autism-spectrum kids because their way of interacting sometimes looks so different. Some of them are extremely bright and they excel academically, but will probably never be able to hold a job. Sometimes their parents hope that if they complete college they will have a "normal" life. Depending on where they are on the spectrum, some do. People with Asperger's can be doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc; they marry have kids. But some people on the spectrum can't function in the same way and it's not in their best interest to put them in an environment in which they're going to flounder.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Well Spoken!
This is interesting. As much as I lack knowledge in these things, I felt the whole Asberger's only thing seemed odd in this case. I thought there must be something more, and your opinion seems to confirm that.
To show you how little I knew, I thought Asberger's had been moved off the autism spectrum (even though it does share some of the same characteristics).
Anyway, in general, I find your points interesting. It almost sound like addressing the mental health angle of this is even more difficult than I first thought. Hopefully, they have folks like you consulting with the task force, so they don't address the tusk and forget about the hoof.
Thanks.
Asperger's is going to be removed as a diagnosis from the DSM 5 when it is published in May, and will instead be lumped in as an "autism spectrum disorder." There definitely is a spectrum, but this change has caused a lot of concern about the possible loss of services for people that no longer meet criteria.
Addressing the mental health piece of this will be a huge and complicated challenge, but mental health care definitely needs more focus and more support, so I hope that will happen. Thank you
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"