PDA

View Full Version : Individuals with mental illness/disorder a threat to "Public Safety?"


CWS
12-21-2012, 8:30 AM
Most of the serious gun control legislation is built upon the threat to the public safety of guns, not second amendment rights. Can't you say the threat of individuals with mental illness to the public safety is a problem?

Tragically and repeatedly mental illness has been the major contributor in 4 out of 4 shootings that have been some of the worse violent crimes involving firearms.

2007 Virginia Tech, The shooter, Cho, had been medically adjudicated as mentally ill in 2005. Obviously, he still was able to purchase the handguns used to kill those students. NICS response time was changed in 2008.
33 killed, 17 wounded
Weapons: .22 and 9mm handguns.

2011 Gabrielle Giffords Tuscon, AZ The shooter Loughner had a history of behavioral problems due to mental illness and wouldn't take his medications, Even though mentally ill, he is in prison for 7 life terms.
6 killed, 13 wounded
Weapons: 9mm handguns.

2012 Aurora Co Theatre Shootong. The shooter Holmes was being treated by a school Psychiatrist. Unfortunately after his Psychiatrist notified law enforcement of his state of mind, Police treated the warning as a low priority and he then acted out killing 19 people and wounding 59.
Weapons:12 gauge shotgun, .223 AR-15 rifle, (2) .40 Handgun

2012 Newtown School Massacre - Adam Lanza had some mental disorder illness and 27 people were killed. Lanza allegedly was at the school the day before the schooling arguing with administrators.
27 killed
Weapons: .223 AR-15, 9mm Handgum, 10mm handgun

4 horrific event with over 80 people killed and over 100 people injured that essentially most likely could or and should have been stopped. Gun control had nothing to do with this. Essentially these murderers all had known mental health issues/disorders only to fall through the system or lack of system and kill.

Too little too late President Obama since three of these tragedies happened during your first term.

Furthermore, looks at the guns used. Handguns were used in all 4 shootings and a shotgun in one. You can't tell me for one minute it ends with "military style" firearms and high capacity magazines.

We need a system to monitor and care for people with mental illness that live in our communities. No politician wants to make the mental illness argument and the political capital it will take to register mentally ill with law enforcement/health officials or use technology like an ankle bracelet to know where these people are.

But trust me, if you don't make this argument that mental illness is a serious issue you will be surrendering your gun rights one law at a time.

sixtringr
12-21-2012, 9:00 AM
Hard to let barely/incompetent government beureaucrats decide who gets reported and gets thier rights taken away. Let's face it, the fools may decide that firearm enthusiasm is more dangerous than schitzophenia. Let law enforcement share information. But to let Katheine Sebilius decide who is normal would put most of us in the nuthouse.

CWS
12-21-2012, 10:18 AM
This is a fear game being played. The facts are mentally ill individuals are on the street, law enforcement has no idea where they are or whats wrong with them. This is a game of Us versus Them. We have a constitutional right, but with the "public safety" argument were losing here. Politicians know the easy way out is the gun. We've been done the "good" vs "bad" gun argument before, we will look like Austrialia before you know it.

Moonshine
12-21-2012, 10:18 AM
Hey I got a great idea, we can tattoo serial numbers on their forearm to identify them and create a branch of the secret police... Err Homeland Security to track them. We can even track political dissidents who's opinion we disagree with by having doctors diagnose them as mentally ill too!

Then when the next shooting occurs we can use that as a justification to round them up into camps with other "undesirables". Maybe we can define homosexuality as a mental illness so we don't have to deal with this gay marriage issue and we could also put illegal immigrants into the camps and people who homeland security, the NSA, and CIA add to their "terrorist watch lists" and sentence without a jury.

This was the reason we have the second amendment in the first place to protect us from internal and external threats.

CWS
12-21-2012, 10:18 AM
This is a fear game being played. The facts are mentally ill individuals are on the street, law enforcement has no idea where they are or whats wrong with them. This is a game of Us versus Them. We have a constitutional right, but with the "public safety" argument were losing here. Politicians know the easy way out is the gun. We've been done the "good" vs "bad" gun argument before, we will look like Austrialia before you know it.

elvinjones
12-21-2012, 11:44 AM
There is no line that you can draw for people with mental problems.

Have you ever known someone grieving or in depression over the loss of a loved one? They can be depressed for years. Some people will change forever. PTSD? Anxiety? Bipolar? There is no line you can draw.

It's one of those things where you would like the government to do more, but you can see where the overreach could happen very easily. No easy answer imo.
I think one thing though is that mental health care needs to be easily accessible. I have known someone who is potentially dangerous, incredibly unstable, sometimes violent, and have already been told to "call us when he commits a crime."

dustoff31
12-21-2012, 12:14 PM
The facts are mentally ill individuals are on the street, law enforcement has no idea where they are or whats wrong with them.

Very often LE and/or other authorities know exactly who they are, where to find them, and the general nature of their illness. i.e., at least 3 of the 4 murderers you mentioned in your OP.

SuperSet
12-27-2012, 2:14 PM
The submission of mental health records into NICS is broken and needs to be revisited, even after Bush 43 signed the NICS Improvement Act in 2007.

tcrpe
12-27-2012, 2:20 PM
No guns for crazies. No guns for criminals. Box 'em up.

El Toro
12-27-2012, 3:00 PM
The slippery slope is "WHO" gets to determine who is mentally incompetent? The medical community has publically declared they are in favor of gun control and I can see them working with the antis.

My kids pediatrician asked my two children if there were guns at home for each of their annual checkups until they were 7. Fortunately I had prepared my children and they answered no emphatically.

Any legislation that limits gun access for those deemed mentally unfit better have legal safeguards and remedy. BTW - I am all in favor of nutcases being prohibited. Just dont call me crazy :wacko:

El Toro
12-27-2012, 3:00 PM
The slippery slope is "WHO" gets to determine who is mentally incompetent? The medical community has publically declared they are in favor of gun control and I can see them working with the antis.

My kids pediatrician asked my two children if there were guns at home for each of their annual checkups until they were 7. Fortunately I had prepared my children and they answered no emphatically.

Any legislation that limits gun access for those deemed mentally unfit better have legal safeguards and remedy. BTW - I am all in favor of nutcases being prohibited. Just dont call me crazy :wacko:

javalos
12-27-2012, 3:20 PM
I would be wary of legislation regarding gun ownership and mental illness. Depending on how its written, it could be far reaching. If a gun owner has some depression and is taking meds for that, legislation like that could affect him.

thefitter
12-27-2012, 3:25 PM
Hey I got a great idea, we can tattoo serial numbers on their forearm to identify them and create a branch of the secret police... Err Homeland Security to track them. We can even track political dissidents who's opinion we disagree with by having doctors diagnose them as mentally ill too!

Then when the next shooting occurs we can use that as a justification to round them up into camps with other "undesirables". Maybe we can define homosexuality as a mental illness so we don't have to deal with this gay marriage issue and we could also put illegal immigrants into the camps and people who homeland security, the NSA, and CIA add to their "terrorist watch lists" and sentence without a jury.

This was the reason we have the second amendment in the first place to protect us from internal and external threats.


Careful you are making too much sense.

bloodhawke83
12-27-2012, 3:31 PM
Careful you are making too much sense.

It worked before! :rolleyes:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

SuperSet
12-27-2012, 3:32 PM
Under federal law, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms if they have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution." A person is "adjudicated as a mental defective" if a court -- or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications -- has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is "committed to a mental institution" if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. If a person falls under one of these two categories, they are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms for life -- although federal law now allows states to establish procedures for such individuals to restore their right to purchase or possess firearms.

kcbrown
12-27-2012, 3:55 PM
It would be one thing if psychology and psychiatry were exact sciences that made determination of whether or not someone was sufficiently dangerous to be removed from society a repeatable and objective one.

But they're not. They're inexact at best. And if you don't believe me, then you need only look at the "epidemic" of ADHD kids. Each one of those diagnoses is a psychological/psychiatric one. And because there's no evidence that kids today are truly different at the core than kids of prior generations, it follows that the diagnoses themselves are largely incorrect (or that what they're calling "ADHD" is normal for kids).

In a real science, when you're faced with evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, or when your hypothesis makes predictions that are obviously incorrect, you toss the hypothesis. And yet, it appears that's not happening here.

If those sciences were sufficiently exact that you could depend on them to reliably and repeatably detect those who will, if given the opportunity, endanger the public enough to justify removing them from society, then you'd have something that would play well with the fact that what we're dealing with here is a fundamental right.

But mental health determination isn't exact and repeatable like that at all, and the ADHD "epidemic" is proof of that.


Faced with the choice of either subordinating a fundamental right to a bunch of people who apparently can't even get the basics of science right, or taking the risk of mentally compromised people getting their hands on firearms and using them to do evil things, I know which one I'd rather deal with: the latter.

Why? Because the best answer to most problems is more liberty, not less, and this situation is no exception. In this situation, the best solution is to let the population arm itself so that it can take action when faced with a crazy person with a gun. When the crazy person attempts to do something, he'd be faced with a bunch of armed good guys who will shoot back. While we might lose one or two people in the process, the end result will be one less crazy person to deal with (either because he gets killed in the process, or because he gets thrown into a mental institution due to his actions).


Someone who is sufficiently crazy to warrant taking away their inherent right to effective self-defense is someone who is sufficiently crazy to warrant taking them out of society altogether. But a mental health evaluation by itself is not sufficient grounds for such. Just as we do not incarcerate people for what crimes they might commit, so too must we refrain from sticking people into mental institutions just because of what they might do. In other words, removing someone's liberty must be done on the basis of what they have done, not what they might do. It most especially should not be removed on the basis of what some mental health professional thinks they might do.


Bottom line: just like the state has to build a case against someone accused of a crime and convince a judge or jury that the person did indeed commit that crime before that person can be forced into incarceration, so too should the state be forced to build a mental health case, complete with evidence of truly dangerous behavior, etc., against a person and have it adjudicated before that person can be forced into a mental institution.


Sorry, but liberty is risky and dangerous. That's just how it is. Either suck it up and deal with it, or move to one of the dime-a-dozen countries that will tuck you into bed and tell you that everything will be okay.

kcbrown
12-27-2012, 5:08 PM
There's another problem here.

No mental health practitioner in his right mind will "sign off" on someone's mental health if they know that in doing so, that person will be able to possess firearms, and especially if doing so is explicitly for the purpose of that person's ability to possess firearms. There's no upside for him and plenty of downside.

What do you think will happen to a mental health practitioner if he certifies a patient as being sufficiently sound to possess firearms, and that person later goes on a shooting spree? Lawsuit city, that's what. No mental health professional will take that risk. Worse, no insurance company will let him take that risk.

So the end result is that if we put the right to keep and bear arms in the hands of mental health practitioners, everyone (except "special" people with sufficient political power/influence to negate the downsides) who has to be gated through a mental health practitioner will lose their right to keep and bear arms.

themandylion
12-27-2012, 7:18 PM
Anyone who is insane enough to be a danger to others needs to be LOCKED UP.

I don't care if they kill someone with a gun, a hammer, a knife, a Mac truck, or their fists.

I have a big problem with the "you've been diagnosed as 'mentally ill,' so, no gun for you!" concept. First, the Second Amendment does not permit such restrictions (screw the black-robed narcissists and their "interpretations"), and second, who is going to develop the criteria for "mental illness"? You tell an MD once in your life you're depressed? You came back from war and admit you have nightmares about your buddies dying?

Narcissism is a dangerous mental illness, and the biggest narcisist in the country is the greater part of the National Command Authority with nuclear weapons at his disposal. Disarm him first!

dave_cg
12-27-2012, 9:15 PM
The slippery slope is "WHO" gets to determine who is mentally incompetent?

Yes, I will agree that is the sixty-four-thousand dollar question. But tell me this, what is wrong with the California 5150 process? Is there any part of that which is severely broken?

Take Colorado -- the guy's therapist had determined that he was a danger to himself and others, and propagated the word up the chain. The trouble is, people up the chain decided not to act on that information for weeks. In California, the therapist would have kicked off a 5150 and he would have been dealt with before he became a shooter.

Imagine this scenario -- your kid is playing intramural flag football in college and gets a severe sprain -- student health services says: "Ya know what? I was planning to close early today and take a couple weeks off. Can you come back two weeks from Monday?" How would that attitude play with you as a parent? Let's treat mental illness as at least as severe a problem as a sprained ankle.

Now take the CT case -- his mom was trying to get the paperwork in order to have him treated because she knew he was dangerous. Seems like in Cal the 5150 process would have made her job a lot easier. Now, granted, I have to wonder why he had access to her guns if she knew he was dangerous. That seems like a excess of motherly trust on that point -- I don't know what you do about that except education.

So anyway -- is 5150 OK as it is? Or do you see insufficient safeguards? We didn't have mass shootings and entire communities of people sleeping under bridges before the "de-institutionalization" movement started getting traction. In the bad old days, it was too easy to get someone committed. Now we have the opposite problem of not being able to help those that are very dangerous when they don't get the help they badly need.

sarabellum
12-27-2012, 10:05 PM
We need a system to monitor and care for people with mental illness that live in our communities. No politician wants to make the mental illness argument and the political capital it will take to register mentally ill with law enforcement/health officials or use technology like an ankle bracelet to know where these people are.

But trust me, if you don't make this argument that mental illness is a serious issue you will be surrendering your gun rights one law at a time.

A national registry and tracking of people (contrary to their 14th Amendment right to privacy) is too broad. Many veterans and victims of violence suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a mental illness. Fear of the water, confined spaces, leaving home, heights, speaking before groups of people, animals are mental illnesses, as are major depression and eating disorders. Narcissism, the inflated estimation of self, is a mental illness (of which many people suffer). The DSM does not identify any of those conditions as posing a danger to self or society.

However, the call for controlling all persons with mental illness is a hystrionic response, beckoning the very loathing that Congress repudiated via the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such a call is too broad and extreme not unlike the WWII German internment of persons with mental illness.

Persons who pose a risk to society have anti-social, sociopathic, and psychotic conditions: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleID=175286

Notably, one such anti-social and sociopathic tendency, extreme racism, a form of neurosis, has not been catalogued as a form of mental illness by the DSM. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/ This is so despite a history of lynchings, massacres, and genocide. It may be that in time extreme racism will be added to the DSM as a psychopathic or socio-pathic condition. In which case, a great deal many owners of firearms suffering from such a condition will be disarmed.

Mr. Lanza's mother could not afford institutionalization for her son. You see our social policies from the 1980s ended funding for mental health centers. In 1980, congress proposed legislation (PL 96-398) called the community mental health systems act (crafted by Ted Kennedy) to re-appropriate funding for mental hospitals, but the program was killed by newly-elected President Ronald Reagan. This action ended the federal community mental health centers program and its funding.

Perhaps, a more thoughtful proposal is to restore the community mental health system, allowing for the hospitalization of persons who pose a threat to self and society, very narrowly limited.

Sakiri
12-28-2012, 1:25 AM
The slippery slope is "WHO" gets to determine who is mentally incompetent? The medical community has publically declared they are in favor of gun control and I can see them working with the antis.

My kids pediatrician asked my two children if there were guns at home for each of their annual checkups until they were 7. Fortunately I had prepared my children and they answered no emphatically.

Any legislation that limits gun access for those deemed mentally unfit better have legal safeguards and remedy. BTW - I am all in favor of nutcases being prohibited. Just dont call me crazy :wacko:

Define nutcase. None of my doctors over the course of 2 decades of psychiatric therapy would tell you Im unfit for firearms possession.

Ive complied with 20 damned years... TWENTY - Two DECADES of medication treatment. Ive never been adjucated mentally ill. Ive got nothing in my criminal record. Hell, until I did a firearms eligibility form(which passed) the govermnent didnt even have a fingerprint on me. Not even a driving record(dont drive, never will).


Not everyone with mental illness is a nutcase like those stains on society listed in the OP. Please dont label us such.

Sakiri
12-28-2012, 1:30 AM
Also, remember CT has no thing similar to 5150. The ACLU shut it down before it went in. Six states have no such provision.

SuperSet
12-28-2012, 10:00 AM
An armed individual is the LAST line of defense against a mass shooting. They exist when all other safeguards have failed, much like an Air Marshal.
We have serious holes both in our process and standards for barring seriously mentally ill individuals from getting firearms.
The 2 standards first set out by GCA 1968 would have barred Cho, had Virginia not screwed up by not registering him into NICS when he was adjudicated in 2005. It would not have stopped Loughner, Holmes or Lanza although I think a strong case of involuntary commitment can be made. I don't want these nutjobs out in society.

bobgengeskahn
12-28-2012, 10:48 AM
Defining "mentally ill" is like the antis trying to define "assault weapon".

2A aside; the medical/mental health program in this country needs some serious revisions and definitions.

myk
12-28-2012, 11:01 AM
Furthermore, looks at the guns used. Handguns were used in all 4 shootings and a shotgun in one. You can't tell me for one minute it ends with "military style" firearms and high capacity magazines.

We need a system to monitor and care for people with mental illness that live in our communities. No politician wants to make the mental illness argument and the political capital it will take to register mentally ill with law enforcement/health officials or use technology like an ankle bracelet to know where these people are.

But trust me, if you don't make this argument that mental illness is a serious issue you will be surrendering your gun rights one law at a time.

People want to blame guns because it's easy-a gun is an inanimate object and once you ban or regulate it, there's no mess or fuss about it because it can't argue with you about its rights, and we can see throughout history that gun owners as a group are more than willing to betray other gun type owners to cover their own butts (ask the Elmer Fudds) or even compromise to anti-2A folks (just look at this message board alone).

If we tried to deal with mental illness on a national level, well that would be asking a lot from our fellow man. Instead of looking out for ourselves and our selfish agendas we'd have to reach out and care for our mentally ill instead of just ignoring them and hoping they go away. Not only that, but it would cost money too and again, we don't want to spend money on the mentally ill when we're trying to ignore the problem in the first place. Let's just blame guns and their owners!

As for the weapons used, I couldn't agree with you more. People crying against "evil black military style rifles that can kill masses of people in 10 seconds" DON'T KNOW WTF THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. I'm a novice shooter, but, now God forgive me for saying this, if tomorrow I were to go into a densely populated area and go "postal," intending to do as much damage and kill as many people as I could, I would not bring an "evil, black, military style assault rifle/Bushwhacker, I would bring a semi-auto pistol and a shotgun. I think if those wack-job shooters had used weapons more suitable for close quarters the casualties may have been much worse. If I saw the police/SWAT pulling up and approaching my position from about 20-30 yards away THEN I'd pull out the Bushwhacker, but until then it's mostly shotgun and pistol work. If the anti's really want to increase the likelihood of decreasing gun violence in schools and other densely populated areas regulate shotguns and pistols, not evil black military style assault rifles.

Gun grabbers and anti's are so f**king clueless...

Hopalong
12-28-2012, 11:08 AM
It would be one thing if psychology and psychiatry were exact sciences that made determination of whether or not someone was sufficiently dangerous to be removed from society a repeatable and objective one.

But they're not. They're inexact at best. And if you don't believe me, then you need only look at the "epidemic" of ADHD kids. Each one of those diagnoses is a psychological/psychiatric one. And because there's no evidence that kids today are truly different at the core than kids of prior generations, it follows that the diagnoses themselves are largely incorrect (or that what they're calling "ADHD" is normal for kids).

In a real science, when you're faced with evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, or when your hypothesis makes predictions that are obviously incorrect, you toss the hypothesis. And yet, it appears that's not happening here.

If those sciences were sufficiently exact that you could depend on them to reliably and repeatably detect those who will, if given the opportunity, endanger the public enough to justify removing them from society, then you'd have something that would play well with the fact that what we're dealing with here is a fundamental right.

But mental health determination isn't exact and repeatable like that at all, and the ADHD "epidemic" is proof of that.


Faced with the choice of either subordinating a fundamental right to a bunch of people who apparently can't even get the basics of science right, or taking the risk of mentally compromised people getting their hands on firearms and using them to do evil things, I know which one I'd rather deal with: the latter.

Why? Because the best answer to most problems is more liberty, not less, and this situation is no exception. In this situation, the best solution is to let the population arm itself so that it can take action when faced with a crazy person with a gun. When the crazy person attempts to do something, he'd be faced with a bunch of armed good guys who will shoot back. While we might lose one or two people in the process, the end result will be one less crazy person to deal with (either because he gets killed in the process, or because he gets thrown into a mental institution due to his actions).


Someone who is sufficiently crazy to warrant taking away their inherent right to effective self-defense is someone who is sufficiently crazy to warrant taking them out of society altogether. But a mental health evaluation by itself is not sufficient grounds for such. Just as we do not incarcerate people for what crimes they might commit, so too must we refrain from sticking people into mental institutions just because of what they might do. In other words, removing someone's liberty must be done on the basis of what they have done, not what they might do. It most especially should not be removed on the basis of what some mental health professional thinks they might do.


Bottom line: just like the state has to build a case against someone accused of a crime and convince a judge or jury that the person did indeed commit that crime before that person can be forced into incarceration, so too should the state be forced to build a mental health case, complete with evidence of truly dangerous behavior, etc., against a person and have it adjudicated before that person can be forced into a mental institution.


Sorry, but liberty is risky and dangerous. That's just how it is. Either suck it up and deal with it, or move to one of the dime-a-dozen countries that will tuck you into bed and tell you that everything will be okay.
I'm with you.

People are trying to use 20/20 hindsight here

And it doesn't work as foresight

There is no way of knowing

And for folks who think there is

Let me know how you feel when they come for you

bobgengeskahn
12-28-2012, 11:13 AM
And for folks who think there is

Let me know how you feel when they come for you

Yeah. Remember that the people on the mental illness badwagon (for now) are the same people that look at you with horror when you pull out your pocket knife to open your mail, clean your nails or any other number of useful things.

njineermike
12-28-2012, 11:16 AM
Here's my issue with the whole "mental illness" issue: We're punishing a person based on the prospect that they are potentially capable of committing a crime. By that same notion, we are all potential rapists, killers, child molesters, animal abusers, drunk drivers, or the numerous other crimes we currently have punishments allotted for. By that logic, we should all be incarcerated for the protection of everyone else around us, subject to 24 hour armed guard due the potential for us as individuals to commit some crime at some undisclosed time in the future.

If someone is not safe to be in society, they SHOULD NOT BE FREE IN SOCIETY!!! Violent felons should be in prison. The NY fireman shooter killed his grandmother with a hammer. WHY WAS HE FREE?? This is not about guns, and never was about guns. It's ALWAYS been about population control.

Sakiri
12-28-2012, 12:29 PM
The problem with Cho getting past the whole background check thing was I'm pretty sure they didn't add the mental health thing until AFTER Virginia Tech.

Part of the problem with the mental illness thing in this country is that it's considered a huuuuuge stigma. No one wants to be known as the "crazy one". No one wants to get into other people's business about it either because they're afraid of retaliation. It's a taboo.

Then there's the issue of the ACLU going on about the crazy people's "rights", making it harder to pass involuntary commitment akin to the 5150 in those states that don't have one. I'm from Pennsylvania. If people think you're in danger of hurting yourself or others, the cops come, slap cuffs on you, and drag you down to the hospital for a psych hold. No questions asked.

Sakiri
12-28-2012, 12:31 PM
Oh, and then there's the problem with defining it. You know what happens when you start randomly defining anything as "mentally incapable" or "disturbed"? Anyone having to go for marriage counseling, talking to a therapist after having a miscarriage or postpartum depression, stress, anxiety, nervous because of a blind date, whatever.. suddenly you're a looney toon.

SuperSet
12-28-2012, 12:50 PM
The problem with Cho getting past the whole background check thing was I'm pretty sure they didn't add the mental health thing until AFTER Virginia Tech.


Virginia didn't add his name to the NICS database because it wasn't required to do so. The federal government can't force the states to do it so they didn't. Nice going, Virginia.
Post Virginia Tech, Bush signed HR 2640 to improve NICS, with support of the NRA, to help close the gap in reporting what the states knew to the federal NICS database. It is still incomplete to this day because no one has offered the funding or identified what the standards should be. This needs to be revisited IMO.

Rossi357
12-28-2012, 1:22 PM
Breaking news! Mental health counselers to be at all schools. Then if some nutjob attacks they can counsel them and make them stop.

Sakiri
12-28-2012, 4:01 PM
Virginia didn't add his name to the NICS database because it wasn't required to do so. The federal government can't force the states to do it so they didn't. Nice going, Virginia.
Post Virginia Tech, Bush signed HR 2640 to improve NICS, with support of the NRA, to help close the gap in reporting what the states knew to the federal NICS database. It is still incomplete to this day because no one has offered the funding or identified what the standards should be. This needs to be revisited IMO.

Yeah, but what should the standards be?

The vast majority of the nation as a whole can benefit from psychotherapy and/or medication at some point for anything from severe postpartum depression after popping a kid out or Grandma dying, to general anxiety due to life snowballing on you.

Set them too loose and you don't catch the people you're trying to. Set them too strict and you effectively disarm most of your population. Humans are *very* emotional creatures.

If you've been deemed mentally unfit by a court order or the police, or whoever the heck does it, no, you shouldn't be able to have guns. Of course we don't want someone that's a threat to themselves or others.

I'd go so far as prosecute the guy that owned said weapon if there was significant evidence to prove that they did *not* secure their firearms and they were stolen by someone they knew was defective. That's why I have a hard time feeling sorry for the CT nut's mom. She knew the kid was a psychopath. She didn't secure her firearms well enough. He got them and used them to do *that*.

I'd also heard that he inquired at gun shops and balked when he found out about the background check and waiting period. Laws alone won't prevent nutjobs from getting firearms. Nothing will completely solve the problem.

One thing they can start with is adding psych holds to all states. Apparently there's 6(CT being one of them) that don't have anything equivalent to 5150.

Another is adding accountability. Got a crazy family member? Secure your firearms. Otherwise, you're accountable for what those members do with them. Just like children now that I think of it...

Just don't start lumping everyone into the "if they've ever taken medication or seen a doctor/therapist they're crazy and shouldn't have guns" room. You'll alienate at least half the country. We have enough issues as it is with getting people to get help. That's another problem all together.

People don't want to get mental help. Depressed? Can't go to the doctor... they'll all think you're crazy and lock you up. Having panic attacks? Can't go to the doctor.. they'll all think you're crazy and lock you up. Can't go to the doctor, they'll drug you till you're a zombie... Can't tell my friend their kid's making threats about killing my son... they'll hate me forever and think I'm attacking their special snowflake...

Etc. It's such a social stigma to get treatment for or report mental illness in this country that it's insane.

I went and got help. I had someone make an attempt on my life when I was 12. You can bet your butt I was emotionally screwed. I don't regret a single hour, day, year of it. 20 years later I like to think I'm a perfectly functional member of society.. albeit a little lazy.