PDA

View Full Version : Gun control article by Paul Barret in BusWeek


Goosebrown
08-07-2012, 5:43 PM
Great article by Paul Barret who wrote GLOCK in BusinessWeek.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-07/semi-automatic-thinking-on-gun-control

He says we should be worrying about getting the mentally ill on record so that they can't get guns. Seems more reasonable to me than confiscating magazines...

If this is a dupe or in the wrong place, mea maxima culpa.

SilverTauron
08-07-2012, 5:51 PM
It is simply another direction of the slippery slope.

The Disarmament Lobby will use a mental illness statute as a fulcrum to pry open the door of civil disarmament. Instead of denying people the RKBA based on criminal grounds, they merely pass legislation effecting that anyone who wants to own a gun must first prove their sanity, using an arbitrary standard no ordinary person can hope to meet.

Swatter911
08-07-2012, 6:06 PM
That was an excellent article, I'm off to share it with some friends.

monk
08-07-2012, 6:25 PM
It is simply another direction of the slippery slope.

The Disarmament Lobby will use a mental illness statute as a fulcrum to pry open the door of civil disarmament. Instead of denying people the RKBA based on criminal grounds, they merely pass legislation effecting that anyone who wants to own a gun must first prove their sanity, using an arbitrary standard no ordinary person can hope to meet.

This is my fear as well. The same goes for any other "common sense legislation." Where does it end? When one thing doesn't work we make a tougher law and keep the one that doesn't work? Makes no sense.

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 6:33 PM
It's possible to get a bit paranoid about the mental illness designation.

Just make sure there are good criteria and that any declaration must be adjudicated. Any limitation of the RKBA by medical/mental health personnel would have to be considered very temporary.

Stonewalker
08-07-2012, 6:36 PM
While I don't have any delusions that Mr. Barret is pro gun rights or anything like that, his articles are filled with facts and non-alarmist information. It doesn't matter if he's pro gun rights or anti-gun rights, he is a great journalist. We need more honest writers like him.

Goosebrown
08-07-2012, 7:31 PM
While I don't have any delusions that Mr. Barret is pro gun rights or anything like that, his articles are filled with facts and non-alarmist information. It doesn't matter if he's pro gun rights or anti-gun rights, he is a great journalist. We need more honest writers like him.

My thoughts

I agree on the mental illness too. If there were a system where friends/family/coworkers of someone that was acting strangely could notify that would put some temporary hold on a person so that a judge could evaluate them and that there would be some time limit.. that there would be an appeal process... all that, then it might be workable.

hvengel
08-08-2012, 2:49 PM
One of the issues that we currently have is that the anti's insist on making all of these prohibitions for life even if it is the result of a temporary illness. Current law says that if you are adjudicated as mentally ill it is a life time ban even if you were treated and are no longer a risk to yourself and others. Although it might be possible to get your rights restored the process is very difficult.

The draconian nature of these laws means that gun owners or potential owners who are troubled may not seek help and those around them may be reluctant to "turn them in". If on the other hand there was a simple to follow process for them to restore their rights after being treated then more individuals would seek help and their friends and relatives might be more willing to "turn them in". In fact many working in the mental health field have said that they feel that the current laws, with the life time ban, make it much more likely that people in need of help will not seek help. In effect the law actually makes the problem worse by increasing the odds that a troubled person will not seek help. In other words the anti's have actually increased the likelihood of one of these incidents because of their insistence on making all of these bans for life. Talk about unintended consequences.

phdo
08-08-2012, 2:59 PM
Tagged.

1savage99
08-08-2012, 9:18 PM
One of the issues that we currently have is that the anti's insist on making all of these prohibitions for life even if it is the result of a temporary illness. Current law says that if you are adjudicated as mentally ill it is a life time ban even if you were treated and are no longer a risk to yourself and others. Although it might be possible to get your rights restored the process is very difficult.

.....In fact many working in the mental health field have said that they feel that the current laws, with the life time ban, make it much more likely that people in need of help will not seek help. In effect the law actually makes the problem worse by increasing the odds that a troubled person will not seek help. In other words the anti's have actually increased the likelihood of one of these incidents because of their insistence on making all of these bans for life. Talk about unintended consequences.

Hvengel,

You nailed it, but its even gets worse because of the lack of available beds there are a lot of people who don't get referred properly. Just last week an adult female who hears voices in the walls, assaults her family because if they can't hear them so they must be part of the problem is not arrested by SD for battery because it is a mental health issue, but not held because there are no beds in the county for her and Behavioral Health doesn't want to pick out of county costs.

Next day the cycle continues but this time the family leaves as instructed by Deputy, gal lights fire in her apartment and a 20 FD units respond. Five apartments damaged. The adult female is then arrested for arson by arson team, who has no background information from the patrol officers, and is taken direct from her hospital bed withouts her psychiatric medicines, She is booked and place in the general population until family and attorneys can get the Deputies to put her in the medical ward.

But even if there are held some times they never see a Doctor except at release. We placed a involuntary hold on a kid, 15 yrs old on serious psychiatric medicines, against the wishes of his parents, after he took on five adults for a half hour. Every couple days this Kids would go off and SD would be called as back up. This kid acted as if he were Hulk on PCP. He arrives at the Hospital on friday after 4pm so no Doctor is available. No doctors were available on Sat or Sun, so the first time he is seen is on Monday were the Dr. notes him as "slightly depressed." Because Dr. didn't have any additionally information he was released. Deputies are now arresting him for felonies.

Our State has killed our Mental health departments both legislatively and financially.

Werewolf1021
08-08-2012, 11:45 PM
The big problem with this is the limit on what is considered sufficient mental illness for a ban.

Should a diagnosis of PTSD result in a lifetime ban? Temporary depression? Anxiety disorder? ADD? Side effects from prescribed drugs?

Hell, one could argue that a women shouldn't own guns because of the monthly visit from aunt flo...
F
Personally, I would rather let crazies had guns than open the Pandoras box of who is and isn't mentally unfit. The consequences are too great for a little security. Besides, smart crazies won't stop at firearms. Chemistry provides enough to help their plans.

Living in a liberty oriented society means accepting risk. Liberty and security have an inverse relationship, the more one goes up the more the other goes down.

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 11:50 PM
The big problem with this is the limit on what is considered sufficient mental illness for a ban.

Should a diagnosis of PTSD result in a lifetime ban? Temporary depression? Anxiety disorder? ADD? Side effects from prescribed drugs?

Hell, one could argue that a women shouldn't own guns because of the monthly visit from aunt floor...

Personally, I would rather let crazies had guns than open the Pandoras box of who is and isn't mentally unfit. The consequences are too great for a little security. Besides, smart crazies won't stop at firearms. Chemistry provides enough to help their plans.

Living in a liberty oriented society means accepting risk. Liberty and security have an inverse relationship, the more one goes up the more the other goes down.

Very well put.

motorwerks
08-08-2012, 11:57 PM
One of the issues that we currently have is that the anti's insist on making all of these prohibitions for life even if it is the result of a temporary illness. Current law says that if you are adjudicated as mentally ill it is a life time ban even if you were treated and are no longer a risk to yourself and others. Although it might be possible to get your rights restored the process is very difficult.


I have a buddy that says he cant buy guys because he sleep walks.

kaligaran
08-08-2012, 11:58 PM
I have a buddy that says he cant buy guys because he sleep walks.

Yee hasn't tried to ban prostitution. I'm sure he could buy guys if he looked in the cities.

Hehe j/k I know what you mean.

marcusrn
08-09-2012, 12:22 AM
I disagree Werewolf.

Their are certain medical conditions which preclude people from driving.

I think that there should be certain major mental illness diagnoses that preclude people from owning guns.

How many of you know people who have been cured of schizophrenia, bi polar d/o or schizoaffective d/o?

kaligaran
08-09-2012, 1:15 AM
Marc and wolf, I do see both of your points.
Wolf pointed out it's a pandoras box. I tend to agree. Who decides which ones are suitable for gun ownership and which aren't. That's where it gets shady.

Medical conditions such as epilepsy prevent people from driving but (using this example) I don't think it should impact the ability to defend oneself with a firearm. Someone having a grand mal seizure with a gun in hand could have bad results but doesn't deem them crazy and possible of cracking and committing a crime.

Are there any mental illnesses such as diagnosed schizophrenia or bi polar that prevent people from maintaining driving privileges in any states? I'm not aware of any but I've never looked into that at all.
I also wonder if there are any stats on mental illnesses that go undiagnosed or mis-diagnosed. I'm sure google could tell me, but it's bedtime. :)

CDFingers
08-09-2012, 6:46 AM
Really good article. Thanks for posting.

CDFingers

Wiz-of-Awd
08-09-2012, 6:59 AM
It is simply another direction of the slippery slope.

The Disarmament Lobby will use a mental illness statute as a fulcrum to pry open the door of civil disarmament. Instead of denying people the RKBA based on criminal grounds, they merely pass legislation effecting that anyone who wants to own a gun must first prove their sanity, using an arbitrary standard no ordinary person can hope to meet.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Sets the stage for the GOV to create a new set of guidelines for ownership that they will undoubtedly make nearly impossible to comply with - or "pass" their test.

A.W.D.

Kyle1886
08-09-2012, 7:14 AM
Personally, I have dealt with a several psychologist, etc. over the years and I certainly would not want any that I met on a professional level or casually to determine my "mental fitness" for even utilizing a knife to cut my food. Very dangerous area if considered as a pre-condition of firearm ownership.

Respectfully,
Kyle

HonkingAntelope
08-09-2012, 9:52 AM
Hvengel,

You nailed it, but its even gets worse because of the lack of available beds there are a lot of people who don't get referred properly. Just last week an adult female who hears voices in the walls, assaults her family because if they can't hear them so they must be part of the problem is not arrested by SD for battery because it is a mental health issue, but not held because there are no beds in the county for her and Behavioral Health doesn't want to pick out of county costs.

Next day the cycle continues but this time the family leaves as instructed by Deputy, gal lights fire in her apartment and a 20 FD units respond. Five apartments damaged. The adult female is then arrested for arson by arson team, who has no background information from the patrol officers, and is taken direct from her hospital bed withouts her psychiatric medicines, She is booked and place in the general population until family and attorneys can get the Deputies to put her in the medical ward.

But even if there are held some times they never see a Doctor except at release. We placed a involuntary hold on a kid, 15 yrs old on serious psychiatric medicines, against the wishes of his parents, after he took on five adults for a half hour. Every couple days this Kids would go off and SD would be called as back up. This kid acted as if he were Hulk on PCP. He arrives at the Hospital on friday after 4pm so no Doctor is available. No doctors were available on Sat or Sun, so the first time he is seen is on Monday were the Dr. notes him as "slightly depressed." Because Dr. didn't have any additionally information he was released. Deputies are now arresting him for felonies.

Our State has killed our Mental health departments both legislatively and financially.

Unfortunately, severe cases of disorders like bipolar or schitzophrenia/schitzoaffective do require professional life-long monitoring and medication, and America's healthcare system patently sucks in that department. It doesn't help that many such patients couldn't hold a steady job with benefits, creating a catch 22. As we've seen in quite a few cases, this leaves families and the local LE to play the role of a mental hospital.

Personally, I would rather let crazies had guns than open the Pandoras box of who is and isn't mentally unfit. The consequences are too great for a little security. Besides, smart crazies won't stop at firearms. Chemistry provides enough to help their plans.

Living in a liberty oriented society means accepting risk. Liberty and security have an inverse relationship, the more one goes up the more the other goes down.

And that's where the need for a level-headed discussion comes in, rather than to dismiss the idea outright.

We are obviously not talking flagging everyone and anyone who's ever seen a psych for minor depression or takes an occasional Benzo to help them sleep.

On the other hand, can anyone disagree that we wouldn't want a gun in the hands of someone who runs around the house hunting the shadow people with a flashlight wrapped in tissue after pounding bath salts for days on end, or someone who's been hospitazed five times for failed suicide attempts or history of mental holds?

I know this is a slippery slope as far as people are concerned, but there's got to be a way to set the bar high enough not to impinge on people are not violent and simply want to have a gun only for lawful purposes, but low enough to snag the likes of Seung Cho, Jared Loughner, or James Holmes (whoever manned the mailroom when his pkg got in needs a slap upside the head!).

And not, this is not even close to requiring a psych eval from every single invidual trying to buy a gun.

kaligaran
08-09-2012, 11:25 AM
And that's where the need for a level-headed discussion comes in, rather than to dismiss the idea outright.

We are obviously not talking flagging everyone and anyone who's ever seen a psych for minor depression or takes an occasional Benzo to help them sleep.

On the other hand, can anyone disagree that we wouldn't want a gun in the hands of someone who runs around the house hunting the shadow people with a flashlight wrapped in tissue after pounding bath salts for days on end, or someone who's been hospitazed five times for failed suicide attempts or history of mental holds?

I know this is a slippery slope as far as people are concerned, but there's got to be a way to set the bar high enough not to impinge on people are not violent and simply want to have a gun only for lawful purposes, but low enough to snag the likes of Seung Cho, Jared Loughner, or James Holmes (whoever manned the mailroom when his pkg got in needs a slap upside the head!).

And not, this is not even close to requiring a psych eval from every single invidual trying to buy a gun.

I agree with you that it's a concern but the problem is that I don't trust those in power to make level headed and intelligent decisions about it.
Typically I feel that what we would see are blanket restrictions and regulations that overreach their bounds. And it's a gateway to further restrictions.

It appears to me from what I've seen that many 'famous' serial killers/mass murderers don't have a previous history of diagnosed mental illness. Many were charismatic and extremely intelligent which is what makes them so effective at the acts they commit.

I watched a Discovery show just a couple of weeks ago on sociopathy and serial killers. The show was explaining that the scientific community still really doesn't know where exactly it starts. Many theories exist. Either a mental disorder, brain damage, lack of brain activity etc. There's even a theory about our genetic code that can lend themselves to having 'less than normal empathy' when certain traits exist.

We can all agree that mass murderers are sick in the head. Or else they couldn't commit the heinous acts. But how to categorize that into restrictions is more than tricky.

Wherryj
08-09-2012, 11:56 AM
It is simply another direction of the slippery slope.

The Disarmament Lobby will use a mental illness statute as a fulcrum to pry open the door of civil disarmament. Instead of denying people the RKBA based on criminal grounds, they merely pass legislation effecting that anyone who wants to own a gun must first prove their sanity, using an arbitrary standard no ordinary person can hope to meet.

...and most likely making the evaluation so costly that few an afford it.

Jason_2111
08-09-2012, 2:52 PM
The big problem with this is the limit on what is considered sufficient mental illness for a ban.

Should a diagnosis of PTSD result in a lifetime ban? Temporary depression? Anxiety disorder? ADD? Side effects from prescribed drugs?

Hell, one could argue that a women shouldn't own guns because of the monthly visit from aunt flo...
F
Personally, I would rather let crazies had guns than open the Pandoras box of who is and isn't mentally unfit. The consequences are too great for a little security. Besides, smart crazies won't stop at firearms. Chemistry provides enough to help their plans.

Living in a liberty oriented society means accepting risk. Liberty and security have an inverse relationship, the more one goes up the more the other goes down.


I think this thread is really hitting the nail on the head. Rather than hand wringing and having "cold dead hands" on one side, and "peace, love, dope" on the other... this discussion is really looking at the real problem.

I haven't been able to think of any way to be able to draw that line, where people on this side are ok, and people on that side need to be monitored/treated/banned from guns/etc. It's just too blurry a line.
Case in point, you could have a stable, sane, law abiding guy who inherits some guns from his father and just puts them away. 10 years later, maybe he gets too much mercury or got whacked on the noggin' or something, and his mental health diminishes to the point where he's now a full on nutter.
This person should clearly not have access to things that would make him a danger to himself or others (including a car), but what if he's a bit of a loner and never seeks treatment?
In a hypothetical like that, there you now have an armed guy who slipped through the cracks.

I don't think we'll find the answer. We just don't have the medical science to make it good-enough-to-encroach-on-MY-rights.

Still, the conversation is a really good one, maybe we'll come up with something that helps so the bedwetting legislators will stop having full-retard attacks.

CBruce
08-09-2012, 4:33 PM
When we look back at 9/11, all the warning signs were there. Concerns had been brought forth, people had been warned, yet it still happened. No law making it illegal to carry utility knives on planes is going to stop future terrotist attacks. No amount of removal of shoes, keeping tiny bottles of liquid, or getting groped in the name of national security is going to prevent someone who is determined and inventive enough at killing large quantities of people.

It's a sad fact about human nature. Some of us are fundamentally flawed. Some just don't fit in with society. Some people just want to see the world burn.

Jason_2111
08-09-2012, 8:08 PM
True true. And civilization has another flaw, the thinking that merely having a law will protect someone.
Crazy or evil people will do bad things, there's no rhyme or reason. No law will stop a bullet, or a knife, or a car, or a brick.

The only safety is that which you make. People forget that.

Kyle1886
08-10-2012, 7:26 AM
True true. And civilization has another flaw, the thinking that merely having a law will protect someone.
Crazy or evil people will do bad things, there's no rhyme or reason. No law will stop a bullet, or a knife, or a car, or a brick.
The only safety is that which you make. People forget that.

Trying to legislate human behavior is tantamount to herding cats...ain't gonna happen.

Respectfully
Kyle