Monday, August 26, 2013

Childhood Development of Bruce Wayne

Since someone asked...









Psychosocial Theory and Child Development:
The case of Bruce Wayne
Brian Long
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology







Abstract

Childhood development is influenced by a myriad of factors.  Traumatic events, such as the loss of parents can have significant and debilitating effects on child emotional and social development.  This paper will explore the childhood development of Bruce Wayne and specifically the effect of the murder of his parents at a young age on his emotional and social development.  After the murder of his parents, the presence of his life long family butler, Alfred Pennywise, was instrumental in his positive development.  Childhood bereavement and moral development will specifically be explored as they relate to Bruce Wayne and his alter ego, Batman.



Keywords: parental loss, childhood development, psychosocial development, Kohlberg moral development



For this assignment the childhood development of Bruce Wayne in the film Batman Begins will be explored.  The character Bruce Wayne experienced several traumatic events in his childhood that affected his development and led to the creation of his alter ego, Batman.  The effects of two related events will be explored in detail, an early childhood accident that led to a fear of bats and the murder of his parents in front of him at a young age.  These two events played a significant role in Bruce Wayne’s development as a child and will be explored using Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development and Kohlberg’s stages of moral understanding (Berk, 2010).
            The film Batman Begins explores the life of Bruce Wayne from his beginnings and childhood factors in development until his first forays as Batman, the caped crusader (Nolan, 2005).  Moving out of chronological order, the film starts with Bruce Wayne in his late 20’s or early 30’s exploring the underworld of organized crime, trying to understand the criminal mind.  After an interaction with a secret society, he decides that it is time to return to his home of Gotham City, where after almost a decade absence he had been declared legally deceased.  Throughout the film there are flashbacks to key childhood events that significantly impacted him and his development into the caped vigilante he becomes.  Bruce Wayne initially targets Carmine Falcone, a crime boss he holds responsible for the economic conditions that spurred the mugging and murder of his parents (Nolan, 2005).  However, this leads to a greater conspiracy as the secret society from his past returns in an attempt to destroy Gotham City completely.  While the film focuses on the current struggle in Bruce Wayne’s life to balance his personal life with his alter ego, there is a wealth of information about his childhood and the two key events that took place and changed his life.  The first event was a childhood accident, falling down a well and into a cave full of bats (Nolan, 2005).  This started a fear of bats that would follow him to adulthood and influence his decision to model himself after a bat.  The second was the mugging and murder of his parents (Nolan, 2005). 
            The first life event, which would have a dramatic impact on Bruce Wayne’s development, was a childhood accident that left him with a life long fear of bats.  While playing with a friend, Bruce fell into an old mine shaft and was stranded, injured, in a cave full of bats (Nolan, 2005).  The bats attacked him as they attempted to flee the intruder into their home.  This event traumatized Bruce.  A fear of animals is the most common fear in children, and this would stay with him for the rest of his life (Meltzer, 2008). 
            After the fall and injury in the cave Bruce Wayne was left with a fear of bats.  While watching an opera with his parents, actors in the show dressed as bats set off a panic attack and Bruce and his parents left the theater to get some air.  In the alley outside of the theater, they were mugged by Joe Chill and during the mugging he shot and killed both of Bruce’s parents (Nolan, 2005).  Bruce blamed himself for this, believing had he not been afraid of bats, they would not have left early and his parents would still be alive.  This event stayed with him for the rest of his life and is the basis of his anger with criminals and his desire to seek vigilante justice.
Born to parents of the highest socio-economic status (SES), his early childhood would have afforded him every developmental advantage.  Bruce Wayne’s father, Thomas Wayne, was a prominent physician and philanthropist; his mother’s occupation is not mentioned.  However, both parents were highly educated, nurturing and supportive of their son.  Along with loving parents, Bruce Wayne would have had access to the best schools, private tutors, and any desired extra-curricular activities or sports desired.  Bruce Wayne’s birth into a high SES family would have also meant access to the best medical care and nutrition along with education.  Prior to his parents murder, Bruce Wayne had every developmental advantage money could buy along with the support of loving parents.  However, the murder of his parents at crucial age in his psychosocial development left a scar that he would carry forever and drive him to become a vigilante fighting against crime in his home city of Gotham.
The loss of Bruce’s parents occurred during Erikson’s third stage of development, industry versus inferiority.  This stage is when children develop competence, a sense of moral commitment and responsibility (Berk, 2010).  The alternate outcome at this age is the development of a sense of inferiority, or a child with little confidence in his or her abilities.  Parents are instrumental in this stage of development and by encouraging their child to succeed by gradually raising their expectations of the child as they increase in physical and cognitive ability (Berk, 2010).  The loss of one’s parents at this age has the potential to severely disrupt the evolution of the sense of self as a competent and able individual.  Without parents to encourage the child to attempt new challenges, there is significant risk of withdrawal from daily activities and the development of a sense of inferiority.  Thankfully for Bruce Wayne, although he lost his parents he still had a caring adult in his life, his butler and caregiver, Alfred Pennyworth, to guide him through the bereavement process and provide a nurturing supportive role model.
The bereavement process is important for children to be able to continue their emotional development after the loss of parents.  There are several mental and physical complications that can occur during the bereavement process in children, including frequent anxious behaviors, depression, and conduct disorder (Howarth, 2011).  Howarth (2011) describes a 4-step model for child bereavement in processing the loss of a parent.  First, is to accept the reality of the situation and the permanence of the loss.  To do this, the child will need accurate information so that they can avoid magical thinking.  In this case Bruce, with first hand knowledge of his parent’s death, already has complete knowledge of his parents death and the events that occurred.  The second step is to experience the emotional pain that comes with the loss of a parent.  Third, is adjustment to life without the parent(s).  Finally, in the fourth step, “the child must convert the relationship with the deceased from one based on continuing interactions to one based on memories” (Howarth, 2011).  The death of a child’s parents will have significant and long lasting impact on development.  Fortunately for Bruce Wayne, he was not left entirely alone.  Alfred Pennyworth, the family butler, assumed the role of primary caregiver and raised Bruce as his own child.  This supportive and nurturing relationship would have been instrumental in helping Bruce Wayne maintain positive self-esteem and avoid the many developmental pitfalls that plague child after the loss of a parent, let alone both parents.  The ongoing support received from Alfred is important because studies, such as those conducted by Abdelnoor and Hollins (2004), conclude that the effects of childhood bereavement are ongoing and can have a detrimental effect on secondary and tertiary education.  However, given Bruce’s high academic achievement and overall professional success, it is clear that he was able to avoid the potential pitfalls that can plague children after the loss of their parents.
Erikson’s Latency stage is also a key time for moral development (Berk, 2010).  Moral development has been explored by many theorist’s, however for this paper, Kohlberg’s stages of moral understanding will be the model that will be applied to Bruce Wayne’s moral development.  While all children go through a period of moral growth and understanding, the moral principles that Bruce Wayne has chosen to live by are more concrete and a direct result of the trauma experienced in his childhood.  Kohlberg describes three levels that each contains 2 stages, for a total of 6 possible stages of moral development (Berk, 2010).  Kohlberg’s original findings show that most people never attain the higher stages and that while there is some fluidity in later life, most people are fixed in their moral development by early adulthood.  Bruce Wayne however, is operating at the highest stage of moral development, stage 6, or universal ethical principle orientation (Berk, 2010).  At this stage “right action is defined by self-chosen ethical principles of conscience that are valid for all people, regardless of law and social agreement” (Berk, 2010).  The events in the film depict Bruce’s evolution through the moral stages from the brutal murder of his parents and a life spent wanting revenge to a final epiphany of moral development where he decides to fight for all who have been wronged and not a one-sided quest for revenge.  When the man responsible for his parents murder is released from jail and subsequently murdered, Bruce’s lifelong desire for revenge is taken from him and he is forced to reevaluate his life (Nolan, 2005).  In his quest for understanding he comes to understand the criminal element and realizes that for many the life of crime is not a choice but a reality of a failing society.  Bruce makes a decision to fight for moral justice on two fronts.  First, he assumes the persona of Batman and directly goes after the individuals who create the harmful environmental conditions that increase the likelihood of crime.  Second, he dedicates his public life as a philanthropist to working in causes to combat poverty and the other causes of many criminal behaviors (Nolan, 2005).
From a severe childhood trauma, Bruce Wayne is able to overcome adversity with the help of a dedicated caregiver and become a symbol of hope fighting for the downtrodden.  Erikson’s psychosocial theory of development outlines the importance of the latency period for children to develop confidence in their abilities.  Bruce Wayne would not be able to carryon as Batman without the most extreme confidence in himself to overcome the challenges he would face.  Kohlberg’s original research demonstrated that most people do not reach the higher stages of moral understanding, however, Bruce Wayne is operating at the highest level after years of soul searching and nurturing guidance from his childhood mentor.  At anytime in his life Bruce could have despaired and faltered, but through a strong parental relationship as a young child and a supportive caregiver from his parents murder through to adulthood, he became a hero and symbol for righteousness.  His story clearly illustrates the effects that supportive role models will have in a child’s ongoing emotional, social and cognitive development.



References
Abdelnoor, A., & Hollins, S. (2004).  The Effect of Childhood Bereavement on Secondary School Performance.  Educational Psychology in Practice, 20(1), 43-54.
Berk, L.E. (2010).  Development Through the Lifespan (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Howarth, R.A. (2011). Promoting the Adjustment of Parentally Bereaved Children.  Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 33(1), 21-32.
Luecken, L.J., Kraft, A., Appelhans, B.M., & Enders, C. (2009).  Emotional and cardiovascular sensitization to daily stress following childhood parental loss.  Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 296-302. doi:10.1037.a0013888.
Meltzer, H., Vostanis, P., Dogra, N., Doos, L., Ford, T., & Goodman, R. (2008).  Children’s specific fears.  Child: care, health and development, 781-789.  doi: 10.1111/k.1365-2214.2008.00908.x
Nolan, C. (Director). (2005).  Batman Begins [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.


08/26/2013, Destiny MMA, Proving Grounds

Last Saturday was my third MMA fight.  The event was put on by Destiny, a local MMA and combat sports event. With 21 fights on the night it was a pretty big event.  The day started off with a little trepidation as I found out that my opponent had been changed last minute because my original opponent apparently did not get his blood work done or turned in.  Either way, the person I had been preparing for was not going to be facing me in the ring.  And while I knew very little about him, I knew absolutely nothing about the person who replaced him.

I was told that the person I was going to fight was doing his first fight (but then I was told my original opponent was doing his first fight and yet teammates had watched him fight in Maui months earlier) and was supposed to be fighting at 135, but didnt want to cut the weight, so wanted to fight at 145 instead.  His opponent supposedly ended up in the hospital the morning of the fight and so we were both at 145 without a match.  So the change was made and the game was held in place because I didnt have anything else to work with.  The only thing I heard was that he would probably be better on the ground than on his feet, which was true.

The fight didnt start well.  That kick landed in the first 20 seconds or so and was the first real connection of the fight.  I was planning the high straight kick to the face.  But not till later in the fight, I mean who starts with that?  My opponent apparently, and it worked.  Thankfully, after employing my face-to-your-foot style I was able to take him down and land some decent ground and pound.  Round 1 was pretty back and forth.  I didnt feel like I was getting the better of the ground exchanges and wasnt really able to keep it standing for long enough to get started.

Second round started a little better with a clinch leading to a side suplex, but my time on top was short lived and was rolled.  After going back and forth on the ground and spending most of the time on my back I was finally able to get back to my feet and have the fight stood back up.  I didnt feel confident that I would take a decision and knew I could win the stand up, so I went for it.  Soon as he was up, I ran in with a flying knee.  And it connected, not sure where, wasnt clean, but it knocked him back, clinched up, fired several knees, one or two landed flush and then a punch exchange.  Right cross connected and he dropped.  Looking down I was pretty sure he was out and the fight was over.  First thought, hands up and walk off triumphant.  That lasted about half a second.  Second thought, drop a bomb and be positive he is not getting back up.  If he got back up and managed to end the round and pulled a decision, I would have been pissed.  So I dove and dropped the right a second time square on the jaw.
Suffice it to say, he did not get back up.  Not for a while and was helped out of the ring.  I talked to him after the fight and he said that he didnt remember getting hit, just came to and it was over.  Now I am running a nice 4-fight win steak with the last 2 by KO.  A little work on my ground game, and not getting kicked in the face and hopefully I can make that 3 KO's in a row.

After the fight I felt pretty good.  My shoulder was incredibly sore and unable to be raised above my head.  But that dissipated quickly, by the next day it was almost 100%, today its fine.  Hands are fine.  A few leg and rib spots clearly got hit, but no pain.  Just my nose and jaw still showing any signs that I was in a fight.  Swelling has mostly gone away from the nose.  Jaw is still a little off, but solid food is back on the menu, so thats a good sign.  Going to BJJ today, but going to take it easy.  A couple more days rest and then back to the grind.  School and work toward the next BJJ belt and stripe ceremony.  November is another half-marathon, so time to start running again.  And time to focus on my wrestling so I can be confident standing and on the ground.


Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Firearms and Mental Health







Firearms and Mental Health:
Methods to Reduce Mass Shootings and Gun Inflicted Suicide
Brian Long
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology







Abstract

Few issues bring up such divisive debate as firearm ownership.  While recent tragedies have reignited the debate and spurred interest in finding a solution to keeping firearms away from those suffering from mental, there has been little if any agreement on how to achieve this aim.  This paper examines the issues of firearm ownership from two mental health contexts.  First, how to address the question of ownership and firearm purchasing by those with diagnosed mental illness.  Second, how to reduce the risk of suicide by firearms.  Through the use of citizens advocacy and increased education about firearms issues and awareness, Mental Health Professionals can start to address the dangerousness of firearms.



Keywords: firearms ownership, confidentiality, informed consent, gun violence, suicide, prevention



The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  However, interpretation of the second amendment is a powerfully divisive issue that has had a great impact on the mental health field.  While the intention of the founding fathers and writers of the constitution is under constant debate, there is some agreement that keeping firearms away from those who intend to harm themselves or others is national priority.  Recent tragedies have brought to light the challenges in gun control efforts and the dangers that guns can play in the hands of those suffering from severe mental illness.  Mental Health Professionals have a challenging role in the debate on firearm ownership, safety and the rights of those with mental health disorders.  Following the Tarasoff case, Mental Health Professionals are required to breach confidentiality to warn potential victims.  Should changes to the law be made to allow Mental Health Professionals to breach confidentiality to remove firearms and/or the ability to purchase firearms from individuals determined to be a potential danger to themselves or others?  There are two distinct issues that need to be addressed, 1) keeping mentally disturbed individuals from purchasing firearms and 2) removing access to already owned firearms from those experiencing a mental health crisis.  The removal of rights guaranteed in the constitution is a controversial debate, however the right of individual firearm ownership needs to be weighed against the right to safety of the general public.
Firearms and Mental Illness: Keeping Guns Away from Disturbed Individuals
            The Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 and the Newtown shooting in 2012, along with too many others, have brought to the forefront the debate on firearms ownership and mental health.  Sueng Hui Cho and Adam Lanza, and others in recent tragedies, had histories of mental illness.  In the case of Sueng Hui Cho, he was prohibited from purchasing firearms in Virginia (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007), but was able to buy firearms anyway because of incomplete national database participation.  In several of the recent gun tragedies, shooters were able to purchase firearms despite disqualifying mental illness that should have precluded them from being able to procure firearms.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was created to regulate the purchase of firearms and prevent disqualified individuals from making firearm purchases (Price & Norris, 2010).  A firearms dealer is required to submit a background check to the FBI before completing any transaction.  The FBI maintains three databases, for this issue the database of concern is the NICS Index, which contains information about prohibited persons such as individuals with “disqualifying mental health history” (Price & Norris, 2010).  The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 “prohibits possession of a firearm by, or transfer of any firearm to, a person who has been adjudicated as ‘mental defective or committed to a mental institution’ or is an ‘unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance’” (Price & Norris, 2010).  Together these statutes were created to prevent those with mental illness from purchasing firearms.  However, submission of state level records to the national database is voluntary.  As of 2007 only 22 states had submitted files to the NICS database and firearm sales that take place at gun shows or between private vendors, which amount to 25% of sales, do not have to be reported (Price & Norris, 2010).  These two loopholes have allowed for numerous transactions that should have been stopped to go through, as was the case in the Virginia Tech shooting.
            Sueng Hui Cho was displaying signs of mental illness as early as middle school and according to Virginia law should have been unable to purchase firearms, however due to ambiguity in the wording of the statute at the time, his mental health status was not communicated to the relevant authority (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007).  Since the tragedy, Virginia law has been clarified in the hopes of avoiding a future tragedy, however other states have yet to make change to their gun purchase laws and seem to be waiting for their own tragedy before making changes.  A national standard needs to be created to coordinate state level disqualifying mental health information into the NICS database.
Firearms, Mental Illness and Suicide: Preventing a Tragedy
            Many studies have connected the link between suicide completion and firearm use.  Statistics from 2009 show that, “Suicide by firearm was the leading cause of suicide death in the United States, with a rate of 6.3 per 100,000 people” (Sterzer, 2012).  Further the prevalence of firearms in the home, “Almost 40% of American households contain at least one firearm” makes firearms readily available to those contemplating suicide (Miller, 2008).  Due to the lethality that firearms present, suicide attempts involving a firearm are far more likely to be completed than other methods (Sterzer, 2012).  This makes removal of access to firearms for those individuals suffering from acute suicidal ideation a key component to mental health treatment.  While the risk of suicide remains elevated for some time after initially seeking treatment, short-term removal of firearms from the home may greatly reduce the chance of a lethal suicide attempt.  A study by Mike Crawford in Advances in Psychiatric Treatment found that 25% of all deaths occur within 3 months of hospital discharge (2004).  However, there are few laws in place to protect the mentally ill from the danger they pose to themselves during a suicidal period.  The bulk of the debate is centered on preventing those with mental illness from procuring firearms, there is little to no debate about the removal of firearms from those who already own firearms but are currently suffering from suicidal ideation.  Drafting legislation to remove firearms from mentally disturbed individuals will be a highly contentious issue.  However, Mental Health Professionals can work to create informal agreements with clients to voluntarily turn over firearms until after the mental health crisis has passed.  Similar to contracts drawn up between clients and therapists not to harm themselves, an agreement can be made to allow a third party to remove the weapons until a later time when the individual is no longer a danger to themselves.  These plans would have to be discussed and agreed to by the client, but could go a long way in removing the immediate ability for lethal self-harm.
Informed Consent
            Meyer and Weaver (2006) state that for there to be informed consent a person needs to be properly informed about the nature, risks, and benefits of the course of action the mental health professional would like to undertake.  This is related to the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to due process.  The three components of informed consent, voluntariness, disclosure and capacity, all need to be obtained for a person to be able to give informed consent.  When exploring the rights of patients to maintain firearm ownership during times of mental health crisis the issue of capacity takes center stage.  Is a person able to make decisions regarding their health and the safety of others when they are suffering from suicidal or homicidal ideations?  Each state has different laws regarding the purchase and ownership of firearms by those who have been determined to suffer from mental illness.  Depending on the state, disclosures made to a therapist could result in the loss of Second Amendment rights to own or purchase firearms.  Some recent state laws, such as Florida’s Privacy of Firearm Owners Act, have impeded health providers’ abilities to carryout their duty to protect by placing restrictions on asking questions regarding firearm ownership (Falls, 2011).  These questions will be addressed in the following section on informed consent and firearm ownership.


Restrictions on Patient Questioning
            During the initial interview and intake process it is important for mental health workers to be able to freely question their clients in order to develop a complete understanding of the situation and the potential risks they face.  In 2011 the state of Florida passed the “Privacy of Firearm Owners Act [FOPA], which prevented the state’s medical personnel from asking patients about gun ownership” among other things (Falls, 2011).  While this law was aimed at medical personnel, similar statutes could easily be expanded to include the mental health profession.  FOPA limited medical professionals from being able to ask patients about gun ownership or the ability to document ownership on the patient’s medical record.  However, in direct conflict with this law are the precedents that have come from the Tarasoff and Almonte cases, stating a need to protect the victims of potential violence.  The inability to ask certain questions restricts the professionals’ ability to assess potential danger of the client.  As stated in the article by Brian Falls (2011), “Asking suicidal or homicidal individuals about firearms is also paramount to the formulation of a safety plan prior to discharge from an emergency room.”  Several professional groups have joined in calling for a challenge to this law, included is the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).  In a statement by the AAP President O. Marion Burton, “Tragedies that could have been prevented by a simple conversation will, instead, occur” (Florida Gun Legislation Would…,  2011).  Fortunately, a Florida judge has issued an injunction against FOPA, however, similar statutes remain unchallenged in other states and new restrictions can be put in place (Falls, 2011).  Emergency planning and patients rights to gun ownership during times of mental health crisis will be addressed in later sections of this paper.
            During the initial intake and interview, clients need to be made aware of their rights, how confidentiality works, and the limits that are in place.  Many clients are under the impression that anything said to a mental health worker is confidential, however there are several conditions placed on confidentiality and the client needs to be informed of these limits before beginning therapy.  The ACA code, section B.2. states several exceptions to confidentiality, these include, danger and legal requirements, contagious and life threatening diseases, and court-ordered disclosure (Herlihy & Corey, 2006).  In the case of firearm ownership, the main issue is with dangerousness to self or others.  The ACA code states, “counselors keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is required to protect clients or identified others from serious and foreseeable harm” (Herlihy & Corey, 2006).  In Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California (1976) the duty to warn a specified victim was made a legal requirement that can come with civil penalties for failing to protect the victims of violence (Meyer & Weaver, 2006).  This was further expanded to include non-specific victims in the case of Almonte v. New York Medical College (1994).  In this case it was found that the defendant, Douglas Ingram M.D. was found liable for failing to act to protect the future and unknown victim of his trainee, Dr. Joseph DeMasi (Meyer & Weaver, 2006).  The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 brings to the forefront the question of warning to protect unspecified victims of potential violence, when to breach confidentiality and what rights should the potentially dangerous retain in regards to firearm ownership.
  Confidentiality, Privilege, and When to Breach
            Meyer and Weaver (2006) describe confidentiality as the “ethical obligation to keep client information private unless legally compelled to disclose it.”  Privilege is the legal equivalent of confidentiality that establishes the right to privacy of communications between client and therapist.  In re Lifschutz (1970) established that this privilege is owned by the client and protected by law, however, there are exceptions to protected speech (Meyer & Weaver, 2006).  During the initial interview and intake process it is the obligation of the therapist to educate their client as to the bounds of confidentiality as discussed earlier in the section on informed consent. 
            Seung Hui Cho was reported and sent for counseling as early as middle school for writing about a desire to carryout a Columbine style shooting (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007).  While Cho was receiving support and evaluation from mental health workers following this event, his mental health record was not fully reported to the NICS and he was able to purchase firearms.  Cho’s mental health status should have disqualified him from being able to purchase firearms in the state of Virginia and nationally, however, the rules on reporting were unclear at best and he slipped through the cracks (Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007; Price & Norris, 2010).  To prevent future tragedies and follow the trend of protecting potential victims from violence, should stricter standards for firearm ownership be federally mandated?
            Firearms provide the potential for one individual to perpetrate great violence against a large group of people in a very short period of time.  Gun tragedies are claiming victims in the dozens by lone gunmen.  As established in Tarasoff (1976), Mental Health Professionals have a duty to warn victims.  However, if the victim(s) are unclear, who do you warn?  With the destructive nature of firearms, would society be better served by removing the implement to carry out these crimes from individuals until they have received the care they need?
Addressing the Dangers of Firearms
            There have been many proposed solutions to help protect society from the risk of gun violence stemming from those suffering from mental illness.  Both protecting individuals from hurting themselves and preventing individuals from being able to hurt others need to be addressed.  There are many solutions that can be easily implemented.  While there is no single solution to eliminate the risks of firearm violence, the first steps need to be taken to tackle this deadly problem.  The first step should be to close the loopholes in the NICS database.  Second, the gun show exception for firearm purchases needs to be eliminated. Finally, Mental Health Professionals need to be educated about the importance of questioning their clients about firearm ownership during initial interviews with clients who are presenting symptoms that suggest violent or suicidal tendencies.  This should include training during their education on how to approach the subject and planning procedures for removing weapons from potentially dangerous individuals.
Closing the Loopholes
            The first step that states and the federal government should take is to improve the NICS database and close the gun show loophole for firearm sales.  While this will not completely solve the problem, it is easily done and the effects should be able to keep firearms away from many who would be a danger to themselves or others.  The largest problem facing states and NICS database compliance are differing definitions of “disqualifying mental illness”.  The federal government can take the lead by proposing a uniform standard that states can agree to or not. However, if they choose to follow a lower standard, pressure from citizen groups can be brought to bear on state officials to hopefully achieve national compliance.
            The NICS database currently relies on states to voluntarily submit information regarding mental health status of in-state patients.  As of April 2007, less than half the US states were submitting mental health records to the NICS (Price & Norris, 2010).  A federal law requiring submission of mental health data will be met with significant opposition from the NRA and other pro-gun lobbies that exert considerable influence in politics.  Rather than trying to legislate change, the APA and other professional associations can lobby the representatives in their states to participate in the voluntary submission of mental health records to the NICS.  Recent gun tragedies have started a debate on how to best care for those with mental illness and how to keep guns away from those who are not able to use them responsibly.  Updating and maintaining the NICS database is one cost-effective method that is already in place and ready to go.  While it may lead to some people being deprived of their right to firearms, the risk posed to public safety is far greater. 
            One simple change that can be added to the NICS database to counter the gun lobby’s protests would be to add a clear method to be removed from disqualifying status on the NICS database.  If someone who has been prohibited from purchasing firearms due to mental illness, they could be removed from the NICS after completing and evaluation by a qualified professional.  This would ensure that the public is protected and individual rights would also have a mechanism in place to ensure they are protected.
            The next change that has been repeatedly brought up in national debate is the so-called gun show loophole on background checks.  As it currently stands, background checks are not required when private citizens, including private vendors at gun shows, sell firearms.  Given the evolution of technology and the ease with which documentation can be processed, there is no reason to maintain this allowance.  While many argue that sales between private citizens should not be regulated, there is already plenty of precedent for government regulation of private sales.  Car sales and ownership have to be registered with the local government, firearms should be as well.  The constitution states the right to ownership, not anonymous ownership, will not be infringed.


Asking Questions: Patients and Firearms
            The last step that Mental Health Professionals can take is to start including questions about firearms ownership in their initial client interviews.  Determining their clients views on gun ownership, if they own weapons, and if they are planning on purchasing a weapon can be used in performing a complete threat assessment.  While this would not need to be conducted in all situations, when a client appears that they could be a threat to themselves or others, clinicians should ask about firearms to get a clear picture of the level of threat their client poses. 
            Part of the education of up and coming Mental Health Professionals should include how to address firearm issues with clients and firearm removal plans in the case of suicidal patients.  If a client presents with suicidal or homicidal ideations and has disclosed firearm ownership, it would be imperative to remove the weapons from the individual before they can harm themselves or others.  Laws requiring the removal of weapons would be heavily challenged, but that should not prevent Mental Health Professionals from coming up with informal plans for removing firearms, with client agreement, from the home.  Should the client refuse to voluntarily give up their weapons then stronger actions, such as civil commitment, can be pursued to protect the individual or the greater public.
First Steps
            There are many actions that can be taken to address the dangerousness of firearms.  The Second Amendment is a founding principle of the United States and while its meaning is often debated; agreement is not going to be coming soon.  In the meantime, steps need to be taken to stop the recent spate of gun violence and school tragedies that are destroying our great nation.  A few simple steps can be taken to keep guns out of the hands that would do great harm to themselves or others.  By training Mental Health Professionals to ask about firearm ownership and working to create a clear national standard that all states can accept, we can reduce the risk of gun violence by the mentally ill. 


References
Crawford, M.J. (2004).  Suicide following discharge from in-patient psychiatric care.  Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 10, 434-438.  doi:10.1192/apt.10.6.434
Falls, Brian. (2011).  Legislation prohibiting physicians from asking patients about guns.  Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 39(3), 441-463.
Florida Gun Legislation Would Hinder Pediatrician’s Efforts to Protect Children. (2011).  Audiology Online, 10.
Herlihy, B. & Corey, G. (2006).  ACA Ethical Standards Casebook (6th ed.).  Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Miller, M. (2008, June).  Handguns and health.   Harvard Mental Health Letter. p. 8.
Meyer, R. G., & Weaver, C. M. (2006). Law and mental health: a case-based approach. New York: Guilford.
Price, M., & Norris, D. (2010). Firearm Laws: A Primer for Psychiatrists.  Harvard Review Of Psychiatry, 18(6), 326-335. doi:10.3109/10673229.2010.527520
Sterzer, J. (2012).  The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.  Journal of Legal Medicine, 33(1), 171-199.  doi: 10.1080/01947648.2012.657993
Virginia Tech Review Panel.  (2007).  Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech April 16, 2007: Report of the Review Panel.


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

08/18/2013

Last week was another term completed for CSPP.  Still waiting for final grades from one class, but my ARP masters proposal was accepted and one class was finished with a solid 97%.  Pretty confident that I should be able to maintain my almost perfect GPA with that one damn A- on there to mess it up.  This is the rest week between classes and then its on to Interview skills and Behavior Disorders and round two of ARP seminar, which I think is the Lit Review.

This is also the rest week for my fight this Saturday.  Going to be my first mma fight in almost 6 years.  Going to try and improve on my 1-1 record, so that it can be something more like my 4-1 kickboxing record.  This will be my second fight on the year and hopefully I can take advantage of being in US and in school while I still have the time to spend training that I need to feel confident to fight.  Next step is going to be a grappling tournament so I can hopefully get ready to test for my BJJ blue belt, only been about a decade of inconsistent training to get there.  I guess consistency helps a lot with things like that.

The fight should be good.  I am feeling pretty confident in my hands and striking and from the people who know my opponent I dont expect him to try and take it to the ground.  So if it stays standing I feel confident.  Should it go to the ground I have been working a lot on that recently and as long as I can either get back to my feet or get on top then it should be good for me as well.  Just dont want a repeat of my last fight in CO where I got stuck on my back and slowly got ground out and lost the decision.  Right now the hardest thing is resting and keeping my diet together to cut down to 145... I workout so I dont have to diet and exercise self control.  A week without ice cream could result in some serious binging next week, have to see how much I jump when I dont have to keep the food away.  Right now the fish, fruit and fudge diet seems to be working, but may have to cut of the third f soon.

Also in getting ready for the fight, I brought the mohawk back and to try something new I dyed it green.  So thats been fun, definitely notice that people look at you a little different when you have green hair covering about a quarter of your head.  Have to say though from the speed that the dye is fading, I am not sure it is going to be worth keeping it up for too long.  The dyeing process is a pain, have to be super careful not to turn everything from clothes to the forehead green and then a couple days in the sun and swimming in the ocean and it starts to fade right away.  Maybe Hawaii is just not that conducive for dyed hair, need a colder climate.  But think Ill keep the mohawk for a little while, I am interested in going out looking for jobs and seeing the reactions that I get.  Kind of a little psych experiment.  In Hawaii tattoos are much more a part of the culture than in other places so they really dont matter.  Its the only place I have lived so far that the face tattoo is fairly common or at least I have seen on more than one person and they hold real jobs.  But I am not sure that carries to green mohawks. I will be interested in seeing what comes from the job interviews next week.

Monday, August 12, 2013

08/12/2013

In a new attempt to write a little less but more often, here we go...

Two weeks out to the fight and the mohawk is back... not quite as long yet as last time, but so far getting compliments.  Not sure if it is going to help me to find a job, but who knows, the last haircut wasnt really doing the trick so maybe this can make me stand out.  The next step is going to be to dye it blond today so that it can be green by the fight.  Another thing to check off the list, always wanted green hair, not sure why but seemed like fun.

Weekend was good, still trying to get over this cold that hit me hard last week.  The cold is mostly gone, but some lingering congestion and mild sore throat just wont quit.  Its just not what I want to have in the back of my mind while trying to get through this week of training.  And this week is going to be super busy with last week of fight prep and last week of the term for psych classes.

I am looking forward to next term though, going to be taking interview skills and psychological and behavioral disorders, two classes that are starting to get a little more interesting than the background courses taken so far.  I think from here out the rest of the classes are much more targeted to the fun stuff and less on the nuts and bolts of psych.

this is the start, its time to get to the gym.

Friday, August 9, 2013

08/09/2013

Guess Im not doing to well with keeping up this blog.  It was about this time last year that I finished my job in Wuhan and was preparing to go on my cycle trip through Asia.  Its been a hell of year.  I think I have done more in the last 365 days than any other set so far.  Right now I am gearing up to fight again.  I have an MMA fight on the 24th.  It should be a pretty minor event, as its amateur and the Hawaii rules are even more restrictive than when I fought in CO before.  Here its only 2 rounds unless a draw and then goes to a 3rd and there are no elbows on the ground, only standing.  But it will still be good to keep actively competing.  With the match last December and if I can keep this going I would like to try and keep up with 2 a year and maybe a grappling tournament and a running race or two.  That would be a fairly active year.  At the moment I signed up for the Xterra half marathon in Nov.  That competition should round out the year.  Although I am hoping to get a grappling tournament in there somewhere as well.

My BJJ is going well.  I think I might finally be in one place long enough to actually be able to test and get my blue belt.  Right now I am able to control and sometimes submit the guys who are one level above and there is a another promotion coming up in September.  I dont think I am going to test, but I do hope to get my third stripe and put myself to be in position to test the next time around, which would be sometime around december/january.  although given my upcoming travel schedule I may not be able to train as much as I need to be ready.  But that would be a good thing because the injuries are starting to rack up. All overuse injuries, make it very frustrating.  Turf toe in both big toes and a strain in my left thumb.  All the joints are getting strained and just dont recover and never get any rest.  I hear when you turn 30 it all falls apart, this might be the precursor to that.

School is moving along and I am starting to work on my masters seminar project.  Still in development, but I am holding my 3.8+GPA so happy about that.  So far one question has shot my 4.0 and I was contesting it, never going to let that go... Anyway what can you do.

Now I just need to find a job, or someone who wants to give me money and everything will be good.