Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[spacejunk]

pardon my foreigner ignorance, but what's the baker act?
presumably a piece of reform allowing temporary commitments of people experiencing psychosis and whatnot?

do you think that investment into mental health across the board would cut down the need for emergency measures?


i also wonder how many mass shootings involve people living under serious financial stress.
there seems to be a direct correlation between massive wealth inequity and communities with poor mental health outcomes. this may not be as relevant in 'school shootings', but i'm not sure

 

[Captain.Heroin]

here an idea.

let's take away the guns.

Impractical, unconstitutional and not going to happen.

I think that's overly optimistic.

Exactly. People get back into the real world at some point.

 

[alasdairm]

Impractical, unconstitutional and not going to happen.

i think your sarcasm detector is broken c.h

while my position on the 2nd amendment has been routinely misrepresented but i'm not actually arguing for a gun ban.

'Thoughts and prayers' and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns (a grim update)



alasdair

 

[JessFR]

pardon my foreigner ignorance, but what's the baker act?
presumably a piece of reform allowing temporary commitments of people experiencing psychosis and whatnot?

do you think that investment into mental health across the board would cut down the need for emergency measures?


i also wonder how many mass shootings involve people living under serious financial stress.
there seems to be a direct correlation between massive wealth inequity and communities with poor mental health outcomes. this may not be as relevant in 'school shootings', but i'm not sure

As mentioned the backer act is a Florida law for involuntary commitment for mental health assessment. So Floridians tend to say "baker acted" when referring to someone held for mental health reasons.

I doubt it has much to do with financial stress with school shootings. Not directly anyway. I'd say it's more likely related to how much the school experience is horrible for a lot of people.

Now that's something that's almost never talked about. We're all happy and ready to pounce on guns as the evil responsible. But we don't talk at all about the fact that high school is hell for a lot of kids and maybe that's why some of them snap and wanna shoot the place up.

My mom always says the thing she finds surprising about schools is that the kids aren't constantly burning them to the ground.

Our education system is already a joke in its role as an education system without also being a terrible environment generally for a lot of its students.

Why don't we talk about that more?

 

[aihfl]

pardon my foreigner ignorance, but what's the baker act?

Here's what wikipedia says about the Baker Act:

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891 (2009 rev.)), commonly known as the "Baker Act," allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:

• possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
• is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.
There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. This includes the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.

The act was named for a Florida state representative from Miami, Maxine Baker, who had a strong interest in mental health issues, served as chair of a House Committee on Mental Health, and was the sponsor of the bill.

Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:
Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.
The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)

To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close, short, or draws near.)

An editorial in the Tampa Bay Times wrote that the Act is currently only a bandaid solution and should be reformed to allow public defenders to have access to the patient's medical records and ongoing counseling and outpatient mental health treatment should be provided to the patient.

Speaking from experience, I have to say that the clarification criteria listed above are BS. There are so many ways around those criteria they might not as well exist. I think most states have laws like this one on the books. California has Section 5150.

There is a related statute in Florida called the Marchman Act:

The Marchman Act is a Florida statute that is also known as the "Hal S. Marchman Alcohol and Other Drug Services Act of 1993” and simply referred by its abbreviated name “The Marchman Act”. It provides a means of involuntary and voluntary assessment & stabilization and treatment of a person allegedly abusing alcohol or drugs.

The involuntary assessment and treatment has two categories non-court and court involved admissions. The criteria for involuntary admission is:
“There is good faith reason to believe the person is substance abuse impaired and, because of such impairment:
1. Has lost the power of self-control with respect to substance use; AND EITHER
2a. Has inflicted, or threatened or attempted to inflict, or unless admitted is likely to inflict, physical harm on himself or herself or another; OR
b. Is in need of substance abuse services and, by reason of substance abuse impairment, his or her judgment has been so impaired that the person is incapable of appreciating his or her need for such services and of making a rational decision in regard thereto; however, mere refusal to receive such services does not constitute evidence of lack of judgment with respect to his or her need for such services.

do you think that investment into mental health across the board would cut down the need for emergency measures?

Not necessarily. As the Tampa Bay Times editorial board commented, it is a band aid solution at best. Even if he wound up in a government run facility, the treatment in those places is almost nonexistent and chances are pretty good he would have just ended up out on the streets again. Worse yet, he could have ended up in a private facility where care is adequate, but if he was uninsured/underinsured, he would have been out after his 72 hours were up. What a wonderful fucking healthcare system we have in the USA.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

i think your sarcasm detector is broken c.h

while my position on the 2nd amendment has been routinely misrepresented but i'm not actually arguing for a gun ban.

'Thoughts and prayers' and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns (a grim update)



alasdair

My apologies. Where I live, people generally say and mean that they want to take away all the guns. People are very, very liberal here (leftist would probably be a better term to use).

Our education system is already a joke in its role as an education system without also being a terrible environment generally for a lot of its students.

Why don't we talk about that more?

I do, all the time. The public school system is a joke.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Here's what wikipedia says about the Baker Act:

Speaking from experience, I have to say that the clarification criteria listed above are BS. There are so many ways around those criteria they might not as well exist. I think most states have laws like this one on the books. California has Section 5150.

There is a related statute in Florida called the Marchman Act:


Not necessarily. As the Tampa Bay Times editorial board commented, it is a band aid solution at best. Even if he wound up in a government run facility, the treatment in those places is almost nonexistent and chances are pretty good he would have just ended up out on the streets again. Worse yet, he could have ended up in a private facility where care is adequate, but if he was uninsured/underinsured, he would have been out after his 72 hours were up. What a wonderful fucking healthcare system we have in the USA.

5150 is rarely used in our state.

You can practically run around doing and saying crazy things here, and until you're actually harming someone else, very little will come of it.

 

[aihfl]

5150 is rarely used in our state.

You can practically run around doing and saying crazy things here, and until you're actually harming someone else, very little will come of it.

That sure isn't the case here.

 

[Xorkoth]

I was listening to the radio earlier and they were saying the kid is a member of a white supremacist group. The leader or spokesperson for the group basically commended the kid while saying no one "specifically" told him to do it.

Lots of white supremacists terrorizing Americans... I don't see so many Muslims or immigrants doing it.

I live in Florida and I've been Baker Acted myself. The threshold for an involuntary psychiatric hold is very low and there are no expensive investigations needed to commit someone. If students had reported what he said to the administration and they contacted the authorities (maybe students did report it and the administration took no action) I am 99.99% sure he would have been Baker Acted. Perhaps if he had been evaluated psychiatrically, we wouldn't be dealing him now as a criminal. Like I said in my earlier post, the big question mark would have been what would have happened after his 72 hours were up.

Apparently someone called in to the FBI's tip line because he had been acting erratically leading up to the shooting, and even telling people he was going to be a professional school shooter. I guess the FBI never passed it up the ranks or looked into it. At least that's what NPR tells me.

 

[aihfl]

Apparently someone called in to the FBI's tip line because he had been acting erratically leading up to the shooting, and even telling people he was going to be a professional school shooter. I guess the FBI never passed it up the ranks or looked into it. At least that's what NPR tells me.

That is ridiculous because if the local authorities would have known, they almost certainly would have put him on a 72 hour hold, not that a 72 hour hold would guarantee he wouldn't have done this at some point.

 

[JessFR]

I hope you're not suggesting we should just start locking people up for 3 days every time anyone accuses them of planning a mass shooting. We already have enough problems with the swatting phenomenon.

It's not smart to just go "this might have prevented this tragedy which means it was wrong not to do it before and we should always do it in future". It's a logical fallacy.

Which is the other issue aside from the entirely plausible possibility that even if he had been committed that it wouldn't have prevented the outcome. The possibility that society would be worse off if it did react this way all the time.

So soo much bad policy has been born out of emotional reactions to tragedy.

 

[aihfl]

I hope you're not suggesting we should just start locking people up for 3 days every time anyone accuses them of planning a mass shooting.

1. People get Baker Acted all the time here in The Sunshine State over things that would be much less big a deal than planning a mass shooting, AND
2. As I've already stated, just because he cooled his heels in the psych ward for three days is no guarantee that he wouldn't have done this at some point, BUT
3. Maybe at least he would have been on the radar of law enforcement and mental health professionals (maybe being the operative word) and someone could have stopped this. I concede that's a big maybe, but as long as that possibility is there, I'd take that over 17 dead teenagers and teachers.

 

[JessFR]

Dude I'm not trying to attack you here. It just sounded to me like you might be suggesting that you think it should be easier, not specific to Florida but as a general function of society, to deprive people of their rights over the claimed danger posed by them by other members of society. Which would be ripe for abuse. The baker act is abused already.

If you're not suggesting that, all good. But I'm also hoping Noone else here is suggesting that either.

I was speaking in broad general terms.

 

[Xorkoth]

That is ridiculous because if the local authorities would have known, they almost certainly would have put him on a 72 hour hold, not that a 72 hour hold would guarantee he wouldn't have done this at some point.

Here's an article about it: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/florida-g...ub-school-200503763--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[LandsUnknown]

Guns of any kind shouldn't be taken away from anybody (unless they make threats and thus not only need to have their guns taken away but also Baker acted as well), but access to assault weapons should be limited to people who have some sort of legitimate need for them. Of course, this is a very, very small group of people. Even the police do not carry assault weapons. So, the only people who would have a legitimate need for them would be the owners of gun ranges and people who are dedicated gun enthusiasts who genuinely are using the weapon for sporting purposes. I believe in 2nd amendment rights and all, it is in the constitution, but I feel that there are certain types of guns that the general public should have access to (e.g. handguns and hunting rifles/low caliber rifles for shooting vermin) and anything else should be sold only to those who have a legitimate need for such weapons. And for the love of God, if someone sends a tip to the FBI about someone threatening to commit mass violence, why the hell would that person somehow be able to purchase a weapon. If someone makes such threats, not only should they be banned from owning a gun but they should be baker acted/sectioned as well.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I don't see so many Muslims or immigrants doing it.

the nyc svu attack would be an example (ultimately ironic as he hit foreigners visiting the US)

 

[zephyr]

ade that pretty clear in my post that i'm not bothered by criticisms of australia.
I'm critical of Australia all the time - and you've totally missed the point if you're choosing that part of my post to focus on.

Hello.

I read all posts and please do not make inaccurate assumptions about what I focus on as it is up to the writer and the reader both to contribute as they feel they should.

Thanks.

 

[nuttynutskin]

i've been reading some of the comments people have bee making on social media to give me something of a broad overview of different opinions - and it seems like lots of people are claiming that the gunman was 'mad' or 'crazy'.
that is a pretty common claim when mass shootings happen; someone speculates that "it's not because they had guns, it's because they were crazy" and suddenly mental illness is to blame.

Don't you sort of have to be insane to go kill a bunch of random people? I have a gun but I haven't gone on any shooting sprees yet. Pretty stupid. 8(

there is no single thing at fault, as there is no single thing that will stop future school shootings.

Maybe not, but I think there's enough things being overlooked that it isn't too hard to piece together ways of stopping these shootings before they happen.

nutty: good point, but i suspect it would cost a lot of money to investigate, then possibly section or otherwise detain people that are deemed to pose a threat.
do you think these people should be treated as mental health patients or criminals (f or - i guess - threatening murder)?

I don't see why it would cost all that much compared to all the money wasted on stupid shit in the states. As for the other question I'm a little unclear on what you're asking. But basically I think they should be treated by the law. It isn't rocket science. Last time I checked it's illegal to make death threats.

 

[JessFR]

the nyc svu attack would be an example (ultimately ironic as he hit foreigners visiting the US)

Guns of any kind shouldn't be taken away from anybody (unless they make threats and thus not only need to have their guns taken away but also Baker acted as well), but access to assault weapons should be limited to people who have some sort of legitimate need for them. Of course, this is a very, very small group of people. Even the police do not carry assault weapons. So, the only people who would have a legitimate need for them would be the owners of gun ranges and people who are dedicated gun enthusiasts who genuinely are using the weapon for sporting purposes. I believe in 2nd amendment rights and all, it is in the constitution, but I feel that there are certain types of guns that the general public should have access to (e.g. handguns and hunting rifles/low caliber rifles for shooting vermin) and anything else should be sold only to those who have a legitimate need for such weapons. And for the love of God, if someone sends a tip to the FBI about someone threatening to commit mass violence, why the hell would that person somehow be able to purchase a weapon. If someone makes such threats, not only should they be banned from owning a gun but they should be baker acted/sectioned as well.

And just what is an assault weapon? Because if you mean an assault weapon as defined by the former assault weapon ban, you've contradicted yourself because handguns can be assault weapons too.

And if you mean any kind of automatic weapon, those weren't covered by the former assault weapons ban at all.

And other than the assault weapons ban, there is absolutely no strict definition of the term.

And finally. There's no evidence the assault weapons ban did any good at saving any lives anyway.

Please, let's have smart gun control. Not stupid gun control.

I for one wish people wouldn't comment on gun control when they don't know anything about the current laws and technicalities of firearms in America to start with. How can you work out what to change if you don't even know what we've got so far?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

The federal government doesn't need to pass more gun laws. Leave it up to the states.

Gun control largely doesn't work. When an individual wants to commit a crime, they're going to do it.