Friday, February 18, 2011

“Mental Defectives” HB 308: Taking Action on Funds - Not Guns Would be the REAL Difference Maker

By Kelly Gunning

The Kentucky House of Representatives voted 97-1 on Monday in favor of House Bill 308; a bill proposed by Representative Bob Damron. The measure would require Kentucky to report to the FBI when a person is committed, by a court, to a mental institution or if they have been declared mentally ill by a court. Federal law, in terribly offensive language, prohibits the sale of guns to individuals “adjudicated as a “mental defective or who have been committed to a mental institution” - previously; Kentucky had been one of many states that did not participate in this notification process. One can’t help but think that the recent shootings in Arizona contributed to the passage and proposal of this bill. The issues that present themselves in these high profile, mass shooting, incidents deserve our sharpened focus on preventing future tragedy but they are also complex and represent crucial, sensitive and long-standing questions that we as a society must grapple with while trying to balance individual liberty, privacy and public safety. It is impossible to eliminate all risks - even logical risks and easy to resort to reactionary policy making. The truth is; we can expect more tragedy’s like Arizona and Virginia Tech whether there is beefed up law enforcement, more lists and more reporting. More of those things will not change the course of these recurrent tragic events. The only thing that would impact this discourse in a positive way would be – MORE TREATMENT for severe and chronic mental illness. Recent reports in the last two weeks by several leading news outlets highlighted reports that incoming college freshman are coming in with higher rates of mental illness. It was reported that 63% of college freshmen self-identified as having some level of mental health issue. We also know that college age years are when many serious illnesses become apparent and require intervention and treatment for the first time yet there is little funding for early prevention diagnosis and prevention of these brain diseases – unlike the bombardment of info on STD’s , date rape and pregnancy.

We all shake our heads and claim disbelief when we observe what has become the normal deluge of reporting and commentary when a tragedy such as Arizona pulls the spotlight on to mental health issues in this country - we talk about it 24/7 - but then within a few days “the next big thing” happens, the rhetoric fades and with the exception of a few reactionary changes we move on…until it happens again and it will.
It will… because since the 1950’s there has been a 90% reduction in the number of available psychiatric hospital beds. We have gone from 1 bed for every 300 people to one bed for every 3000 people since 1950 to the present.
It will… because the criminal justice system is providing those “beds” and is overrun with and serving the psychiatric care needs of 2 million people.
It will… because we refuse to adequately fund community treatment and wrap around services like housing for folks early on in the course of their illness.
It will… because we cannot seek help for our mentally ill loved ones until they meet one very important criteria – DANGEROUSNESS.

To me, something is very wrong when the law voraciously protects my loved one’s right to be untreated and mentally ill to the point of dangerousness to himself and the community…but then doesn’t mind being quick to act on limiting other rights such as; being sure he can’t exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Guess they don’t mean THAT dangerous.


Kelly Gunning is operations director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness in Lexington.

Order a reprint

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Steps to Keep the Mentally Ill from Buying Guns

Posted: 12:00am on Feb 13, 2011


For an alienated and unbalanced young college student, chronic misery is fast spiraling into violent desperation.

In the classroom, he laughs with no cause, stares, expounds bizarre numerological theories. He proclaims his college itself unconstitutional. A professor worries aloud that the young man could shoot up the classroom. When the institution finally dismisses him, he becomes still more agitated, sleepless, paranoid. He enters a Sportsman's Warehouse store and picks out a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol.

The clerk calls in the required background check — usually cleared while the customer waits — and is told that this customer cannot buy a firearm. Officials at his college had petitioned a local judge to suspend his ability to buy a weapon, and the suspension was entered immediately into the federal database established by the Brady Bill.

A Jan. 8 "Congress on Your Corner" meeting in Tucson, Ariz., proceeds without incident.

Alas, the account above is fictional. No such procedure for preventing a mentally ill and dangerous person from buying a firearm actually exists.

On Nov. 30 of last year, Jared Loughner did purchase the pistol he used to kill six people and injure 14 others five weeks later. Three years before, Seung Hui Cho, despite a history of mandated mental health treatment, bought the Glock semiautomatic pistol that cut down 32 people at Virginia Tech University.

Despite multiple police contacts and obvious signs of mental illness, both Loughner and Cho bought their weapons legally. Clearly we need a procedure for preventing such individuals from buying firearms — the sooner, the better.

Many have blamed the Tucson disaster on a failure of the mental health system. After all, Loughner showed signs of mental disturbance and aggression so obvious and public one classmate always sat near an exit, poised to flee on the grisly day she knew was coming. Surely, the mental health system should have intervened, compelling treatment with or without his consent.

Unfortunately, in a free society, managing potentially violent mentally ill persons poses daunting legal and ethical dilemmas.

Some existing laws do attempt to balance the demands of public safety with the rights of mentally ill citizens. For example, a therapist must break confidentiality and inform the police if a client makes a direct threat against another person. Likewise, any citizen can petition a judge to authorize the involuntary hospitalization of a mentally ill person who presents a danger to self or others.

It is doubtful, however, that either of these legal options could have prevented Virginia Tech or Tucson.

Since neither Cho nor Loughner was in treatment just before the shootings, no therapist had any information to disclose. Pima Community College could have petitioned for Loughner to be hospitalized against his will. But legal standards for involuntary hospitalization require not only bizarre behavior or verbal aggression, but a clear threat of harm to self or others. It is unlikely either Cho or Loughner would have met that strict legal standard before their crimes.

The following relatively simple, twofold legal mechanism might have prevented both tragedies and a significant number of suicides, since research shows many firearm suicides are completed with newly purchased weapons:

■ Any citizen could petition a judge to suspend an apparently aggressive or suicidal person's right to buy a firearm. The potentially dangerous person would not have to be in treatment to be subject to this suspension.

■ Any licensed health care professional with reason to believe a patient posed a danger to self or others could enter an order to block firearm purchases directly into the federal database.

In either case, the affected person would have the right to challenge the suspension, via either a full psychological examination or a legal hearing.

This public safety measure seems as commonsensical as allowing a physician or a judge to suspend the license of a driver impaired by uncontrolled epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease. If you agree, spread the idea around.

It would certainly not prevent every potential tragedy, but it could buy precious time in many situations.

For some husband, wife, parent or friend, that could make the difference between a heart-rending loss and a near miss.

About the author Steven Mangine is a clinical psychologist practicing in Lexington and an adjunct faculty member in the University of Kentucky's department of psychology.