Stopping Mass Killers

[Old_Trapper70]

With the right wing opposing smart guns, stricter background checks, etc., just how do we stop mass shooters from killing. If one considers this years mass shootings, and most often with legally obtained weapons, a rational person has to think there should be some way to prevent these events, not all of them of course, but most.

This article is not conclusive, it is just one means being used.

http://www.rd.com/true-stories/survival/stop-mass-shooters/

When Simons is asked what his team does, he talks about what it doesn’t do. “We don’t do behavioral checklists. We don’t do stings. We are not proactively scraping the Internet for offenders … We react.” Instead, the agents depend on what Simons calls “the human bystander.” They depend on somebody giving someone else the creeps. Though he acknowledges that many bystanders are fragile resources—“it’s usually the people closest to an individual who are best positioned to observe those kinds of concerning behaviors and at the same time the most reluctant to report”—his team members have no choice but to wait for a concerned person to tell them about a person of concern.

We think of perpetrators of targeted violence as psychopaths—isolated, motivated, and conscienceless—or troubled individuals who “just snap.” According to the tenets of threat
assessment, they are neither. “The people who carry out these attacks typically do them out of a sense of desperation,” says Marisa Randazzo, a former Secret Service chief psychologist who is a managing partner at Sigma Threat Management Associates. “They typically have been of concern to people who know them for long periods of time. And when we did interviews with school shooters, they expressed a level of ambivalence that surprised me. Part of them felt they had to go through with it; part of them felt they didn’t want to at all. Part of them looked for encouragement; part of them looked for someone to stop them. The national mind-set is that they’re determined to go through with it no matter what. That is absolutely not the case.”

 

[dogtowner]

Prosecute mental health professionals who choose not to report patients who are a danger to themselves and others as they are required by law to do.
For example the VA Tech employed one who knew his Korean patient was unstable who went on to kill 30+ with guns that he would not have been able to buy has this guy simply obeyed the law.
Enforce the laws we have first before you look to new ones

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Prosecute mental health professionals who choose not to report patients who are a danger to themselves and others as they are required by law to do.
For example the VA Tech employed one who knew his Korean patient was unstable who went on to kill 30+ with guns that he would not have been able to buy has this guy simply obeyed the law.
Enforce the laws we have first before you look to new ones

I don't believe the law requires the mental health professional to report patients unless they have been adjudicated as such. Democrats have been trying to get such a law passed, however, the Republicans have opposed such a measure.

 

[dogtowner]

I don't believe the law requires the mental health professional to report patients unless they have been adjudicated as such. Democrats have been trying to get such a law passed, however, the Republicans have opposed such a measure.

Your not believing it doesn't make it untrue. And claiming republicans opposed it is meaningless.
But set that aside and treat it as a hypothetical; would this have been an effective deterrent ?
At the very least it would force lunatics to head to illegal marketplaces where they are more easily foiled.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Your not believing it doesn't make it untrue. And claiming republicans opposed it is meaningless.
But set that aside and treat it as a hypothetical; would this have been an effective deterrent ?
At the very least it would force lunatics to head to illegal marketplaces where they are more easily foiled.

Actually, if you take the time to do some research you would find out it is true. While the Republicans have expressed support for more mental health funding they have always opposed stricter reporting procedures.

As to the deterrent factor, no, it is not going to be a deterrent even more then the death penalty is. However, it would be one more tool the authorities could use to prevent mass killings in the future.

Do you not find it odd that the authorities have better success in preventing terrorist attacks then mass killings?

 

[dogtowner]

Actually, if you take the time to do some research you would find out it is true. While the Republicans have expressed support for more mental health funding they have always opposed stricter reporting procedures.

As to the deterrent factor, no, it is not going to be a deterrent even more then the death penalty is. However, it would be one more tool the authorities could use to prevent mass killings in the future.

Do you not find it odd that the authorities have better success in preventing terrorist attacks then mass killings?

Not at all. Terrorists seldom act invisibly or necessarily alone and independently as lunatics do.
So if mental health providers don't speak up there is little chance of happening across them.
But it's understandable that they do not wish to obey the law, it's bad for business.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Not at all. Terrorists seldom act invisibly or necessarily alone and independently as lunatics do.
So if mental health providers don't speak up there is little chance of happening across them.
But it's understandable that they do not wish to obey the law, it's bad for business.

What current law states that a mental health worker must violate the confidentiality laws? HIPAA does not make it mandatory, it only allows it:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html

Does HIPAA permit a doctor to contact a patient’s family or law enforcement if the doctor believes that the patient might hurt herself or someone else?

Yes. The Privacy Rule permits a health care provider to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when the provider believes the patient presents a serious and imminent threat to self or others. The scope of this permission is described in a letter to the nation’s health care providers issued on January 15, 2013, and below.

Specifically, when a health care provider believes in good faith that such a warning is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others, the Privacy Rule allows the provider, consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct, to alert those persons whom the provider believes are reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat. These provisions may be found in the Privacy Rule at 45 CFR § 164.512(j).

Under these provisions, a health care provider may disclose patient information, including information from mental health records, if necessary, to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or any other persons who may reasonably be able to prevent or lessen the risk of harm. For example, if a mental health professional has a patient who has made a credible threat to inflict serious and imminent bodily harm on one or more persons, HIPAA permits the mental health professional to alert the police, a parent or other family member, school administrators or campus police, and others who may be able to intervene to avert harm from the threat.

In addition to professional ethical standards, most States have laws and/or court decisions which address, and in many instances require, disclosure of patient information to prevent or lessen the risk of harm. Providers should consult the laws applicable to their profession in the States where they practice, as well as 42 USC 290dd-2 and 42 CFR Part 2 under Federal law (governing the disclosure of alcohol and drug abuse treatment records) to understand their duties and authority in situations where they have information indicating a threat to public safety. Note that, where a provider is not subject to such State laws or other ethical standards, the HIPAA permission still would allow disclosures for these purposes to the extent the other conditions of the permission are met.

 

[dogtowner]

What current law states that a mental health worker must violate the confidentiality laws? HIPAA does not make it mandatory, it only allows it:

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/mhguidance.html

Does HIPAA permit a doctor to contact a patient’s family or law enforcement if the doctor believes that the patient might hurt herself or someone else?

Yes. The Privacy Rule permits a health care provider to disclose necessary information about a patient to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or other persons, when the provider believes the patient presents a serious and imminent threat to self or others. The scope of this permission is described in a letter to the nation’s health care providers issued on January 15, 2013, and below.

Specifically, when a health care provider believes in good faith that such a warning is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others, the Privacy Rule allows the provider, consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct, to alert those persons whom the provider believes are reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat. These provisions may be found in the Privacy Rule at 45 CFR § 164.512(j).

Under these provisions, a health care provider may disclose patient information, including information from mental health records, if necessary, to law enforcement, family members of the patient, or any other persons who may reasonably be able to prevent or lessen the risk of harm. For example, if a mental health professional has a patient who has made a credible threat to inflict serious and imminent bodily harm on one or more persons, HIPAA permits the mental health professional to alert the police, a parent or other family member, school administrators or campus police, and others who may be able to intervene to avert harm from the threat.

In addition to professional ethical standards, most States have laws and/or court decisions which address, and in many instances require, disclosure of patient information to prevent or lessen the risk of harm. Providers should consult the laws applicable to their profession in the States where they practice, as well as 42 USC 290dd-2 and 42 CFR Part 2 under Federal law (governing the disclosure of alcohol and drug abuse treatment records) to understand their duties and authority in situations where they have information indicating a threat to public safety. Note that, where a provider is not subject to such State laws or other ethical standards, the HIPAA permission still would allow disclosures for these purposes to the extent the other conditions of the permission are met.

Such laws will be state specific as reporting mechanics vary by state. They have been around since we'll before HIPAA which is why it's vague there.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

you don't , you just don't care about them, move on and enjoy watching gun sales go up by more gun nuts each time their is one..then one of them shoots up a place, and repeat.

 

[dogtowner]

you don't , you just don't care about them, move on and enjoy watching gun sales go up by more gun nuts each time their is one..then one of them shoots up a place, and repeat.

I dont care ? There were kids I knew going to school there and I cared quite a bit trying to find out if they were OK. Believe it or not, communication in and out of Blacksberg was massively overloaded as its 29 miles past nowhere Virginia.
And when they interviewed the school shrink and I heard him talking about the korean lunatic and how and why he didnt do a frickin thing about it I was incensed. And when McAuliff was trying to score political points calling for laws we already had on the books I got more incensed. Lunatic bought his guns legally because this shrink failed to do what he was required by law to do. And Ive been perfectly consistent on this while you have been perfectly consistent whining about your little political fantasy world.

 

[cashmcall]

Such laws will be state specific as reporting mechanics vary by state. They have been around since we'll before HIPAA which is why it's vague there.

You know, I believe conservatives might give in on a few things..(very few) IF THEY COULD BELIEVE IT WOULD STOP THERE! But it never does..

 

[dogtowner]

You know, I believe conservatives might give in on a few things..(very few) IF THEY COULD BELIEVE IT WOULD STOP THERE! But it never does..

They will consider things that can be effective. The trouble is that effectiveness is not the goal of the left.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

They will consider things that can be effective. The trouble is that effectiveness is not the goal of the left.

How do you know if they would be effective if you never try them?

 

[dogtowner]

How do you know if they would be effective if you never try them?

The left generally suggest things that were tried and did fail. Over and over.
But how do I know a crocodile will not lose to a tabby cat ? Educated guess ?

 

[jbbarn]

A few armed men (or women) in Paris might have made a big difference in the outcome, don't you think? How do armed honest citizens NOT make a difference? Sorry for the rant, but hellfire! It's not rocket science! If you have a criminal with a gun shooting up the place, don't you want a good guy with a gun to be around to well place a few bullets? What could be wrong with that?