Gun control article by Paul Barret in BusWeek

[Goosebrown]

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]

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]

That was an excellent article, I'm off to share it with some friends.

[monk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Tagged.

[1savage99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?