tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post8115074724879763042..comments2024-03-18T03:28:36.581-04:00Comments on Shrink Rap: Guest Blogger Dr. Erik Roskes with an Update on Gun Legislation and the Mentally IllUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-68761346175873117552013-12-09T19:43:19.523-05:002013-12-09T19:43:19.523-05:00In the Pink: In Maryland, the law applies to admi...In the Pink: In Maryland, the law applies to admissions to psychiatric facilities only, so a stay of 30+ days in a medical or rehab setting would not apply. Not sure about substance abuse treatment, but since substance abuse raises the risk of violence far more than mental illness in the absence of substance use, it would not surprise me if a stay of 30+ days would not qualify in somebody's mind. <br /><br />Dinah: not sure what the mechanism is for private hospitals - or, for that matter, state hospitals - to report patients who stay beyond the 30 day cutoff. Frankly, I am not sure that our legislators, in their wisdom, gave this any thought. <br /><br />Je Suis: I cannot disagree with much of what you have said. Clearly, this is yet another effort of policymakers to use mental health as a bogeyman for the complexities of a world that is difficult to understand. This is the point I was trying to make. Being from MD, I am not aware of the rules in California, so I have no response to this, other than to agree that if there is to be a mental health restriction on gun ownership, surely it should come long after the initial emergency evaluation - there ought to be proper diagnosis at the very least, something that can take some time. <br /><br />All: recently the Hopkins School of Public Health released what seems to be a rather thoughtful report, recommending that the people who should not be permitted to own firearms should be those with a demonstrable risk of violence to self or others. The report can be found at http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/GPHMI-State.pdf. <br /><br />Personally I have no confidence that legislators will respond to thoughtful arguments, but one can always hope.eroskeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11892001678574968512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-14834070708488045912013-12-09T19:41:31.723-05:002013-12-09T19:41:31.723-05:00There is no end to all the laws the government can...There is no end to all the laws the government can pass to stigmatize people with mental illness.<br /><br />In my state you have to answer on your drivers license application if you are "currently receiving psychiatric treatment." So that means in 2016 when mine is up for renewal I will have to go off my medication so that I can answer honestly that I am not "currently receiving psychiatric treatment." It's so stupid. I haven't had a speeding ticket in almost twenty years, no DUIs ever, etc. But, for some reason people with mental illness can't even be trusted to drive.<br /><br />Instead of the government making it worse for people with mental illness, wouldn't it be nice if they actually did something that made things better.<br /><br />Pseudo-KristenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-91429548019002300582013-12-09T17:26:18.737-05:002013-12-09T17:26:18.737-05:00"In California, if you've been brought in..."In California, if you've been brought in on a 5150, you can't own a gun"<br /><br />I seriously hope that you are wrong on this, since the logical conclusion would be to bring every citizen in on a 5150 and then release them, thereby ending the gun control debate - everyone can be easily given a psychiatric history, and thus cannot own a gun, dangerous or not. This amounts to an insidious encroachment of Orwellian paternalism, with psychiatry deeply enmeshed in the process. For ones own good, of course. <br /><br />So, legislation that prevents gun ownership for a mental health issue? The answer is simple: avoid mental health treatment and professionals. This legislation makes any encounter with these professionals dangerous to ones lifestyle and liberty, not to mention personal rights. Like the right to own a gun; now, based on a professionals opinion - yes, opinion - you stand to lose a great deal. And if they are wrong? <br />Well, you lose, and they don't. It's that simple. For your own good, deal with your issues in silence, do not involve these professionals, and if worse comes to worse, make sure you get it right the first time. Because psychiatry is not your friend, it is a tool being used by the lawmakers to subjugate a subgroup, one whose members are deemed dangerous with only cursory evidence. A group that is unpopular, and preferably invisible. One that is different, and therefore, by default, perilous. Those with a mental illness. No matter the form of the illness. because such individuals are uncomfortable for 'normal' people, and therefore make an easy target.<br /><br />Interestingly, there was an uproar over a federal judge making similar comments about another group earlier this year: Judge Edith H. Jones of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is alleged to have made comments concerning minorities, and how these minorities become involved in more violent crimes than non-minorities.<br />This is born out via FBI statistics; the prisons are primarily filled with minorities - and yes, it can be argued that this is because of an imbalance in the way that minorities are treated, but that is another issue and not the purpose of my point here. Simply put, the claims are that minorities are involved in a greater proportion of violent crimes - yet I see no legislation that is aimed at prohibiting minorities from owning guns. Where is the legislation that says that if you are a minority, and arrested, you can no longer own a gun, guilty or not? It does not exist. Why is that? Because it would be unfair to single out a group for the actions of some of that group? Because it would be discriminatory? Yes, to both, of course. But, then, how is it acceptable to do the same for the mentally ill? <br /><br />The answer is simple: in America, the mentally ill are the modern equivalent of the Jews in Nazi Germany - an undesirable group of people that make an easy target for a political agenda. Our brave new world is neither particularly<br />new nor necessarily brave after all. But then, what can we expect when the profession used to target these unwilling victims has it's roots in Nazi Germany in the first place?Je Suisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-77138571086927693902013-12-09T15:50:05.866-05:002013-12-09T15:50:05.866-05:00In the Pink: Laws vary by state, and then there is...In the Pink: Laws vary by state, and then there is the issue of whether the hospital reports it to the database. So the law has been that admissions over 30 days need to be reported, but I don't think (help me here, Dr. R) that private facilities were doing this, only state hospitals. In California, if you've been brought in on a 5150, you can't own a gun (again, I think), even if you were released at a hearing. <br /><br />New laws are not retroactive. <br /><br />There is nothing to stop your fiance or spouse from owning a gun. Plenty of people commit crimes and suicide with the legally owned guns of family members. You want the world to make sense?<br />Dinahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09227988351623862689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-8141284323665904702013-12-09T14:41:06.917-05:002013-12-09T14:41:06.917-05:00I voluntarily committed myself in a dual diagnosis...I voluntarily committed myself in a dual diagnosis drug rehab facility for 28 days then sent to the psychiatric side for two months. That was 10 years ago. But does that mean I can never own a gun? I don't want one but am very curious on this issue as my fiance owns guns so how does that law help? It is just isolating me for needing medical help. SO can someone with heart disease not own a gun because they were hospitalized for heart surgery over 30 days? I guess not because this law is only for mentally ill persons. This gets my goat. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-68123741571420203522013-12-06T20:40:38.221-05:002013-12-06T20:40:38.221-05:00Good. I just wanted to be sure they weren't pl...Good. I just wanted to be sure they weren't planning to include everyone hospitalized for suicidal thoughts on the list.<br /><br />The lawmakers sure don't have much faith in psychiatric treatment. There are many people who get better, and some who recover completely. I don't think they should have to pay for the rest of their lives for being ill at one time. <br /><br />P-K Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-77558680290225783522013-12-06T19:45:52.575-05:002013-12-06T19:45:52.575-05:00P-K: No. P-K: No. Dinahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09227988351623862689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26666124.post-62648462951086260742013-12-06T19:27:36.750-05:002013-12-06T19:27:36.750-05:00Is a suicidal "thought" considered as a ...Is a suicidal "thought" considered as a violent behavior? <br /><br />P-KAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com