AP: Movie theater shooter's mental problems didn't stop gun buy

[Omaha Steve]

Mourners, Christina Walls, left, embraces Diana Lennon, right, during a candle light vigil to honor the victims of Thursday night's shooting at The Grand 16 theater Friday, July 24, 2015, in Lafayette, La. John Russell Houser stood up about 20 minutes into Thursday night's showing of "Trainwreck" and fired on the audience with a semi-automatic handgun. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fadd19a3fc4641b5b166802df1aba298/1-loud-shot-survivor-describes-movie-theater-shooting

LAFAYETTE, La. (AP) — John Russell Houser was deeply troubled long before he shot 11 people in a movie theater in Louisiana, but decades of mental problems didn't keep him from buying the handgun he used.

Despite obvious and public signs of mental illness — most importantly, a Georgia judge's order committing him to mental health treatment against his will as a danger to himself and others in 2008 — Houser was able to walk into an Alabama pawn shop six years later and buy a .40-caliber handgun.

It was the same weapon Houser used to kill two people and wound nine others before killing himself at a Thursday showing of "Trainwreck." Three people remained hospitalized Saturday.

Court records reviewed by The Associated Press strongly suggest Houser should have been reported to the state and federal databases used to keep people with serious mental illnesses from buying firearms, legal experts said.

FULL story at link. Video: http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=92351&siteSection=bigstory_hom_non_non_dynamic_wire_ap&videoId=29431312

From the GD SOP: GUNS

News stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about efforts to strengthen or weaken gun control legislation in any jurisdiction in the United States, national news stories (and related content) from reputable mainstream sources about high-profile gun crimes, and viral political content from social media or blogs that would likely be of interest to a large majority of DU members are permitted under normal circumstances.

Local stories about gun crime and "gun porn" threads showing pictures of guns or discussing the merits of various firearms are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted in the Gun Control and RKBA Group.

Open discussion of guns is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.

[Skittles]

1. Jindal assured Lousiana they are a pro-gun humping state

Last edited Sun Jul 26, 2015, 05:14 AM - Edit history (1)

yes he did

[B2G]

17. The gun was purchased in Alabama. nt

[Skittles]

25. and???

who cares in WHICH gun humping state the gun was purchased???

People like Jindal LOVE THEIR GUNS and then pretend they are appalled when the NOW-TO-BE-EXPECTED gun humper meltdown occurs. FUCK THEM!

[tblue]

2. If it were up to me

It's the only answer. No one thinks it's possible, but one can hope.

[JonLP24]

3. Mental problems are an easy way to discredit someone

I would like to avoid discrimination based on such and besides we send people with "mental problems" with guns overseas all the times & sell guns to people with "mental problems" but people are better off not getting a diagnosis because people have poor understanding of various types. People with "mental problems" are more likely to be victims rather than the general public.

Schizophrenic patient experiments

Dr. Robert Heath of Tulane University performed experiments on schizophrenic patients and prisoners in the Louisiana State Penitentiary. The experiments were funded by the U.S. Army. In the studies, he dosed them with LSD and Bulbocapnine, and implanted electrodes into the septal area of the brain to stimulate[142] it and take EEG readings.[143][144]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Psychological.2Ftorture.2Finterrogation_experiments

What would happen if a schizophrenic claimed government agents gave them "shock therapy"?

As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation. The preponderance of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation or, in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them.[178]

When the mental institutions were closed under the Reagan administration (he was an actor, he didn't make the decisions) a "schizophrenic bag lady" was released from a Washington facility in 1982 somehow made it to Florida to buy a weapon a pawn shop in Florida make it to Wall Street to kill Nicholas Deak the "James Bond of Finance" who was on trial for cocaine drug money laundering & trial testimony was getting too close for friend William Casey.

Might be more than meets the eye.

On guns I don't care either way because I don't want one but want to avoid discrimination against people with "mental problems" in general and besides seems like a simple fix that wouldn't solve the problem
http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect02.html

[underpants]

4. Yes but this was a court order detainment

The state made this ruling. He wasn't "insane" merely in a clinical sense.

[JonLP24]

6. I wasn't saying anything really in this specific case

though he does have an interesting background things & the wild speculation to his court appearance basically "unknown" at this point but I was speaking more generally on the subject of discriminating against "history of mental illness"

Some U.S. states have begun to ban the use of the insanity defense, and in 1994 the Supreme Court denied a petition of certiorari seeking review of a Montana Supreme Court case that upheld Montana's abolition of the defense.[25] Idaho, Kansas, and Utah have also banned the defense. However, a mentally ill defendant/patient can be found unfit to stand trial in these states. In 2001, the Nevada Supreme Court found that their state's abolition of the defense was unconstitutional as a violation of Federal due process. In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Clark v. Arizona upheld Arizona's limitations on the insanity defense. In that same ruling, the Court noted "We have never held that the Constitution mandates an insanity defense, nor have we held that the Constitution does not so require."

The insanity defense is also complicated because of the underlying differences in philosophy between psychiatrists/psychologists and legal professionals.[26] In the United States, a psychiatrist, psychologist or other mental health professional is often consulted as an expert witness in insanity cases, but the ultimate legal judgment of the defendant's sanity is determined by a jury, not by a psychologist. In other words, psychologists provide testimony and professional opinion but are not ultimately responsible for answering legal questions.[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#Controversy_over_the_insanity_defense

There are often cases of unethical psychologists & a variety of different mental illnesses. "Mental illness" is far too generic, a blanket ban or what types? The detain typically happens in cases were one is suicidal rather than anything specific, someone can just have that moment and find after awhile. It all varies. Personally either way I don't care because I don't want a gun because I don't want the responsibility that comes with it but not sure what the solution is here that would solve the "gun violence".

[underpants]

16. Okay

Thanks. I've learned a lot from your posts. Very much appreciated.

[JonLP24]

22. Thank god (at the consistent back-to-back underpants username)

On edit -- this link bob posted was very informative in understanding the overall understanding. Perceptions based on info & appearance as it is coming in. Magic basically. Not real magic but magic tricks being performed.
http://runesoup.com/2013/07/very-bad-company

Sorry got off subject there --

That movie "A Beautiful Mind" was probably the cruelest thing or among the cruelest I ever seen. I could understand the CIA deceiving writiers & directors into buying the premise but the decision to not only do that but kick him while he's down. Like a delusion or hearing and seeing something that isn't real. It gives the public a perception of poor guy while also driving up fear of communists propaganda but the thing about being part of a communist plot -- I was reminded from something someone said about the whole taking someone into "danger to his self or others" and hypothetically could be kept their forever under the right circumstances, the right staff.

O

---

His theories are used in economics, computing, evolutionary biology, artificial intelligence, accounting, computer science, games of skill, politics and military theory. Serving as a Senior Research Mathematician at Princeton University during the latter part of his life, he shared the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with game theorists Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi. In 2015, he was awarded the Abel Prize for his work on nonlinear partial differential equations.

In 1959, Nash began showing clear signs of mental illness, and spent several years at psychiatric hospitals being treated for paranoid schizophrenia. After 1970, his condition slowly improved, allowing him to return to academic work by the mid-1980s.[4] His struggles with his illness and his recovery became the basis for Sylvia Nasar's biography, A Beautiful Mind, as well as a film of the same name starring Russell Crowe.[5][6][7]

Nash's mental illness first began to manifest in the form of paranoia; his wife later describing his behavior as erratic. Nash seemed to believe that all men who wore red ties were part of a communist conspiracy against him; Nash mailed letters to embassies in Washington, D.C., declaring that they were establishing a government.[4][18] Nash's psychological issues crossed into his professional life when he gave an American Mathematical Society lecture at Columbia University in 1959. Originally intended to present proof of the Riemann hypothesis, the lecture was incomprehensible. Colleagues in the audience immediately realized that something was wrong.[19]

He was admitted to McLean Hospital in April 1959, staying through May of the same year. There, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, a person suffering from the disorder is typically dominated by relatively stable, often paranoid, fixed beliefs that are either false, over-imaginative or unrealistic, and usually accompanied by experiences of seemingly real perception of something not actually present. Further signs are marked particularly by auditory and perceptional disturbances, a lack of motivation for life, and mild clinical depression.[20][21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.

(the wiki could have been editied since I saw it earlier and the McClean, Maryland connection is obvious he was given schizophrenia. They made the movie to further traumatize him.

That's the thing, if they say something true they respond into ways that make sense like the politician that criticized Hoover on the house floor was "embarrasing for Carl", he was "incoherent", "was he on drugs or pills"?. What happened to obstruction of justice all the things they use on the peasants.

[HereSince1628]

8. I don't know the law in that state or the details of this case

I suppose few here know that whole combination...this is a place where individual words carry specific meanings and less than careful reporting can create distortions of what happened. Again, I don't know what happened.

Your subject line suggests he was detained. But being detained isn't the same as being committed. A person can be ordered to an evaluation and released without a commitment. The detention and evaluation would create a police record that shows up in a story like this, but it would not get the persons name into NICs.

Most jurisdictions have laws that allow holding a person in such detention up to 3 days just on suspicion. And that suspicion is typically of being a threat in the immediate/short term. Holding a person longer requires action by the Court or it's assigned agents

[JonLP24]

23. I meant to reply with the John Forbes here

got mixed here earlier, a scare when noticed browser was changing info on pages (at DU2) and search results, searching for something recent come across changed info from 2008. I remember the thread but it said something completely different than what else was posted. Will have to look for the thread at Tor to see if it appears the same.

The word the poster (I think) used that I replied to was the word detainment but either way talking the general "danger to safe or others" policy, the Arizona law is a little different in any case I would hope police take me to the VA rather than UPC in Phoenix.

[HereSince1628]

24. Last I was aware, which is about 2 years ago, the V.A. didn't do involuntary detentions

not sure if that's changed at all.

[gwheezie]

28. The va in my area does not take tdo

We can sometimes get the va to take a patient who agrees to go voluntary at their commitment hearing.

[gwheezie]

27. Where I work the temporary order

Comes with a paper that says the person is prohibited from owning firearms. The sheriff has the authority to removed weapons from the home. There are no permits or registration in Virginia except for cc. So the mechanism is not to deny registration but prohibits the person from owning a firearm. Of course a private seller would not know this.
I hate the scapegoating of the mentally ill. I do know people that due to their psychosis and non compliance with treatment would be at increased risk however the population I work with is the chronic, seriously mentally ill and they can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads let alone buy guns.

[sub.theory]

12. This!

Excellent post. I've also had it to here with every single shooting being blamed on mental illness. As if gun crime didn't happen among anyone else. I've had it. Blaming this on mental illness is the easy way out and allows everyone to just go back to business as usual.

[Paladin]

13. "Business as usual" pretty much describes U.S. gun policy. (nt)

[MH1]

15. It troubles me that mental illness is often used as a scapegoat, and that

identifying the mentally ill and preventing them from owning guns is considered a significant part of the solution, even by many who advocate sensible gun control.

A real solution to the problem of rising gun violence can't be based just on keeping guns out of the hands of "certain people". Violent felons, sure, should go without saying. And probably people who have been institutionalized or (maybe) diagnosed for certain disorders. But the biggest part of the problem still remains if you do that. And you get the side effect of discouraging treatment for mental illness if you include diagnosis as a reason for exclusion.

I think a more sensible approach would make gun ownership an activity with higher barriers to entry and maintenance, similar to car ownership, with an emphasis on safety requirements and training. This would effectively exclude anyone (from legally possessing) who doesn't have their shit together enough to meet the requirements.

Of course the most determined criminals will always find a way, but raising the barriers will reduce the numbers who succeed, and thus reduce the number of killings. You will never be able to eliminate gun violence completely, but that's no reason not to try to reduce it.

[sub.theory]

18. Seems like a clear equal protection violation

Preventing the mentally ill from gun ownership while everyone else is freely allowed to do so, strikes me as a clear equal protection violation.

There is simply no evidence that being mentally ill makes one statistically more likely to commit gun crime. Unfortunately, discrimination against the mentally ill is one of the remaining prejudices that's socially acceptable. It's disgusting that this is being widely suggested as a solution. You're right that it's just typical demonization of the mentally ill.

And it's further distraction from seriously tackling gun crime.

[bettyellen]

19. I think it needs to be tied to violent inclinations, not mental illness...

And fuck yes, I would deny guns to people who were not convicted. It's just too easy to get guns.

[MH1]

20. We need to make gun ownership a lot less casual.

To the extent that it is a right, it is a right that comes with responsibilities.

[bettyellen]

26. Yep- and irresponsible owners need to give them up- I'm sick of hearing that it's

Punishment enough that their kid is dead or going to jail. People are getting shot because they are negligent.

[underpants]

5. Dylan Roof gets a gun due to a "glitch" and now this

How terribly sad.

To be accurate, Roof got the gun that killed 9 people not just because of the glitch but also because the store owner didn't want to wait for the background check to be complete - 3 days or an ok background whichever is first...the law is that way for a reason MORE GUNS ON THE STREETS! No accident that.

[mainstreetonce]

7. Guns should not be sold in pawn shops.

A license to sell guns should be very hard to get and only obtained by dealers who have no other business and have everything to lose if they make a bad sale.

[S_B_Jackson]

9. A permit to buy permit such as required by NJ laws

and which police routinely - and deliberately - drag their feet in meeting their mandated 30 day approval/denial window? Thus NJ women such as Carole Bowne, who have a legitimate need for a tool of self-defense, are denied the ability to protect themselves and instead must rely upon the same local police who have dragged their feet for protection (which they have no legal duty to provide) & the wet-tissue shield of a domestic protection order?

[X_Digger]

10. Why? The pawn shop in this case did the same background check that a dedicated store would have.

Details are still being investigated, but somehow this guy's involuntary commitment (and restraining orders) don't seem to have been reported to NICS. That's likely on the state of Alabama, not the pawn shop.

[Duckhunter935]

11. exactly right nt

[Gothmog]

14. The current background check failed

[Eleanors38]

21. The NICS needs overhaul and better funding to accomplish it.

Due Process violations should not be the answer when much of the problem appears to be crappy bureaucracy. This may be a good place to start if some cooler heads get beyond the website hate speech and the archaic cartoons. Right now, we have a juggernaut which responds to the ankle nips of a pi-dog by passing more in-your-face legislation.