http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/articl ... ofile=1056

TRUCKEE, Calif. — Many of Truckee's public schools were in a precautionary lockdown early Monday afternoon while police searched for and eventually apprehended a gunman who fired a shot in the area.

[...]

Police initially received a call about a possible armed man at about 11:30 a.m., said Truckee Police Capt. Harwood Mitchell. Once officers spotted him near the intersection, Miklia fired one shot, in a direction Mitchell said was undetermined, but not toward officers, before laying down his handgun on the pavement.

Miklia then approached officers against their objections, Mitchell said. Officers disabled Miklia with a non-lethal bean bag round and arrested him. He is currently in custody in Nevada County Jail in Truckee; charges are pending.

Mitchell described Miklia as "distraught." No one else was hurt in the incident.

I'm predicting this is a story on firearms and mental illness, not that it will be reported that way.

Firearms and mental illness is a tricky topic for me.

How does one define a mental illness? A couple centuries ago it wasn't recognized all that much. Now we have such things as "anxiety disorder". I have a feeling this was what shell shock was in WWI -- either that or PTSD -- but folks who came out of it were just fine with firearms.

What defines a mental illness these days? Is Liberalism a mental illness? Is Conservatism? Who defines it and who draws the lines? My guess would be the ones who have the most to gain by doing both.

Would having a genetic predisposition to a mental illness, even if said mental illness were not manifest, but grounds to curb rights?

I know this is not exactly what you were after when posting the story, but it's a sore spot with me. Has been ever since Hitler did his thing as mental illness and who was fit and who was not fit to do this or that came into play in Nazi Germany.

You know, here in Indiana, we're allowed to carry our firearms on our persons on school property, as long as we do not exit the vehicle. This means drop off or pick up a kid and then leave.

I do agree with the story though; get out of Dodge or hole up if shots are fired. I don't care who fired them. Lock the doors and hit the floor.

Josh

Update here:

The defendant in this case was convicted to a felony gross negligent discharge of a firearm, and sentenced to 90 days jail, which is time he already had served. Also, the charge can be reduced to a misdemeanor, once he successfully completes his 2-year supervised probation period. He had no previous criminal record, and was fully cooperative with law enforcement once he was taken into custody.

It is not a surprise to anyone, but because of the mental illness (including PTSD from Viet Nam) and the felony conviction, he lost his right to possess firearms. The defendant publicly apologized to law enforcement and gun owners for his failure to use his firearm responsibly. He also thanked the CHP and local LE for handling the incident as well as they did.

The main reason I'm updating this is because the judge, prosecutor and probation officer involved in the case were able to separate the issues of mental health from the criminal conduct. Even though the man had fired a 9mm pistol round into the ground in the presence of more than a dozen LE officers, the mental illness factor carried the most weight at sentencing.

Wabatuckian wrote:Firearms and mental illness is a tricky topic for me....
Josh

It is very much a difficult topic for everyone. In many other courts the mental illness issue would have been ignored or treated as a much less significant factor, and the "treatment" would have been through jail rather than on an out-patient basis. Also, I can think of several places where LE would have not hesitated to lethally end the incident.

The justice system worked in my view, for everyone involved. The defendant is getting treatment, and is no longer suicidal. LE handled the situation appropriately, and nobody has to deal with having killed someone. There are no further threats to society, and finally, taxpayers are not paying a bill for someone who is better served in treatment than in jail.

Wabatuckian wrote:Firearms and mental illness is a tricky topic for me.

How does one define a mental illness?
Josh

This is how mental illness is defined: http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

RiverCity45 wrote:

Wabatuckian wrote:Firearms and mental illness is a tricky topic for me.

How does one define a mental illness?
Josh

This is how mental illness is defined: http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

I think Wabutuckian's point was where does mental illness begin in regards to the safe and legal possession of firearms.

We could say the vast majority of conservatives just had a major depressive episode. Does that mean they should suddenly be unable to legally possess firearms? Most of us would say no, that is an extremely bad idea, depression or not. Having the tool to diagnose a psychological disorder is just the starting point for the larger question of whether a mental illness is so severe that the person should have access removed from all firearms.

In Texas, the concealed handgun statute specifies disorders that disqualify someone from obtaining a license. I have no idea what specific disorders states or the federal government might deem a disqualification from purchasing, owning, or being in possession of a firearm. I think that gaping hole was noticed in the Gabby Giffords shooting.

Yossarian wrote: The justice system worked in my view, for everyone involved. The defendant is getting treatment, and is no longer suicidal. LE handled the situation appropriately, and nobody has to deal with having killed someone. There are no further threats to society, and finally, taxpayers are not paying a bill for someone who is better served in treatment than in jail.

I agree with this. It sounds like the LEOs used admirable restraint, and that a bean bag to the chest (or wherever) was a measured, appropriate response.

On the larger issue, I've had interesting discussions with friends in mental health professions about what I see as the paradox that sanity/insanity can only be defined with reference to the norm.

In other words, society as a whole is sane by definition. And therefore anyone who claims "everyone else is nuts" is considered insane.

But what if everyone else IS nuts? What if society as a whole becomes delusional, unable to act rationally on clear evidence in its collective interest?

I would argue this is the case in the actions of humanity as a whole in the face of fossil fuel use and catastrophic climate change, for example. Clearly not rational. So how can it be "sane"?

RiverCity45 wrote:In Texas, the concealed handgun statute specifies disorders that disqualify someone from obtaining a license. I have no idea what specific disorders states or the federal government might deem a disqualification from purchasing, owning, or being in possession of a firearm. I think that gaping hole was noticed in the Gabby Giffords shooting.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetFo ... CHL-16.pdf
"The department may use and introduce into evidence certified copies of governmental records to establish the existence of certain events that could result in the denial, revocation, or suspension of a license under this subchapter, including records regarding convictions, judicial findings regarding mental competency, judicial findings regarding chemical dependency, or other matters that may be estab-lished by governmental records that have been properly authenticated."

Its pretty vague. I have to give a diagnosis when insurance is used and I keep in mind the labels can have unintended consequences sometimes.


http://www.wentworth.senate.state.tx.us ... 12011a.htm
"Applicants who indicate past mental health issues are referred to a Medical Advisory Board to make a determination on the applicant's ability to exercise sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun.

Court-ordered commitment for psychiatric treatment or court-ordered outpatient treatment, however, will make an applicant ineligible for a license."

I don't know about these blanket statements. "Court-ordered outpatient treatment" completely lacks any reference to the reason for it.

"Mental illness" is on a spectrum or continuum, it's not an all or nothing thing, not to mention very few people can legitimately say whether or not someone is "mentally ill."

Since it is a spectrum, technically, all of us are at least a little "mentally ill" but, it's not a "mental illness" until your functioning starts to suffer. People live with anxiety, depression, and a whole matter of things, but can still function so they wouldn't be considered "mentally ill." Most combat vets have PTSD whether they like to admit it or not, some can just deal with it better than others. "Mental illness" is also kind of a misnomer, "disorder" is more accurate. There needs to be "clinically significant distress" in order for there to be a diagnosis.

I heard that there's going to be some big changes with the DSM-V comes out.

I hope to find a DSM under the tree this year

I hope to find a DSM under the tree this year

Simmer down wrote:I hope to find a DSM under the tree this year

Sarcasm?

Collector1337 wrote:

Simmer down wrote:I hope to find a DSM under the tree this year

Sarcasm?

No. I actually use them in my work and my current one is the DSM-IV-TR.

Simmer down wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:

Simmer down wrote:I hope to find a DSM under the tree this year

Sarcasm?

No. I actually use them in my work and my current one is the DSM-IV-TR.

I feel your pain.

When V comes out I'm getting hard cover and the tab page marker things. My paperback TR-IV is falling apart.

I am just as afraid of people who are in their "right minds" but CHOOSE to be illogical, closed minded, racist, crazy John Birch whatever.

Does being a mean, evil asshole count as mental illness?

JinxRemoving wrote:I am just as afraid of people who are in their "right minds" but CHOOSE to be illogical, closed minded, racist, crazy John Birch whatever.

Does being a mean, evil asshole count as mental illness?

Sociopathilogy can fit.

Simmer - better not ask for one this year, you'll just get another IV-TR. I don't think the V is coming out until May now. And man is it going to take some getting used to...

ErikO wrote:

JinxRemoving wrote:I am just as afraid of people who are in their "right minds" but CHOOSE to be illogical, closed minded, racist, crazy John Birch whatever.

Does being a mean, evil asshole count as mental illness?

Sociopathilogy can fit.

You won't find sociopathy in the DSM. That is a legal/forensic term. It's not a mental illness per se. The pattern of behavior that defines sociopaths certainly has underlying psychopathology.

I admit to being infected by milsurpitis, for which there is no cure, a disease that is fatal after 120 years. But we soldier on...

CDFingers

RiverCity45 wrote:You won't find sociopathy in the DSM. That is a legal/forensic term. It's not a mental illness per se. The pattern of behavior that defines sociopaths certainly has underlying psychopathology.

It's there. Look under "Anti-social Personality Disorder."

SwampGrouch wrote:

RiverCity45 wrote:You won't find sociopathy in the DSM. That is a legal/forensic term. It's not a mental illness per se. The pattern of behavior that defines sociopaths certainly has underlying psychopathology.

It's there. Look under "Anti-social Personality Disorder."

Yup. That certainly is one possibility, and probably the most common. But notice that the diagnosis is not sociopathy. In the mental health world, we don't diagnose people as sociopaths. That is a forensic construct, not a mental health one. When we treat sociopaths, we are not treating the sociopathy, but the underlying DSM disorder (e.g., antisocial personality disorder).it's a common mistake people make.

RiverCity45 wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:

RiverCity45 wrote:You won't find sociopathy in the DSM. That is a legal/forensic term. It's not a mental illness per se. The pattern of behavior that defines sociopaths certainly has underlying psychopathology.

It's there. Look under "Anti-social Personality Disorder."

Yup. That certainly is one possibility, and probably the most common. But notice that the diagnosis is not sociopathy. In the mental health world, we don't diagnose people as sociopaths. That is a forensic construct, not a mental health one. When we treat sociopaths, we are not treating the sociopathy, but the underlying DSM disorder (e.g., antisocial personality disorder).it's a common mistake people make.

To put my layman's understanding (from following the III to III-R to IV transition in the early '80s to mid '90s) in a nutshell, the experts argued long and hard about the criteria for both and finally settled on ASPD as a catch-all.

Edit: To get back on the thread topic, it's the adjudicated status that will be relevant to whether or not the person is lawfully eligible to possess firearms, not the diagnostic criteria under which they're being treated.