In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Guns and "mental illness"
Clarentavious
Member Posts: 800 ✭✭✭✭
Since I have some personal knowledge of this, I can tell you guys this situation is heading south very fast.
My mother's sister had a different biological father than my mother did... and I'll admit my half aunt was never quite right in the head. Perhaps she passed on some her genes to her daughter... my cousin who know lives in South Dakota.
Point being, she took her daughter to some shrinks when she was like 5 years old, because she didn't like some of the things she saw. That little decision and mistake on my aunt's part, took away many opportunities in my cousin's life... and we're not talking about guns here since she never went to a mental hospital.
If congress passes a law that people with so called "mental illness" can't own guns, you know what's gonna happen? When one of your co-workers who is a member of the brady campaign, sees you crying because your spouse died last week, they are gonna run to your boss, tell them you have severe depression, are suicidal, and that the cops and shrinks need to be called to confiscate your guns and drag you off...
If Regan wasn't a former president and still alive, they'd chase after his guns for having Alzheimer's. Same thing with Charlton Heston.
I think the shrinks that abused my cousin are a bunch of quacks. At most she is a little eccentric... but I would not go so far as to call her mentally ill. These psychologist go to school for 8 years to learn things based on the teachings of sigmund frued - the same nut job that thinks it is perfectly normal and healthy for 4 year old girls to want to have sex with their biological fathers...
I'll tell you why this is really dangerous. Not just because if someone accuses you of having a mental illness and it's not true. But because this is leading towards personality screening of prospective gun buyers. If congress passes a law that you have to see a shrink before buying a gun, and that shrink works for rebecca peters... guess what? Nobody except LE is going to be buying guns in your town anymore.
They'll start making up excuses like "Subject had an excessive unkept beard, therefore is an uneducated redneck and cannot safely handle a gun" Or simply lie in the report by saying "Subject used profanity during evaluation, this shows signs of aggression... cannot be trusted".
If you can see where this is heading, I would encourage you guys to ask your senators and reps to vote against gun control measures in regards to "mental illness".
If this cho guy from VT was so quiet and strange, the FFL himself shouldn't have sold him the guns. He should have seen with his own eyes what this guy was about. FLL's have the personal right to refuse sales... I know that if I had a gun shop, and saw some person walk in, mumbling to themselves and unable to fill out the 4473 without drawing cartoons on it, I damn sure wouldn't sell them a gun.
My mother's sister had a different biological father than my mother did... and I'll admit my half aunt was never quite right in the head. Perhaps she passed on some her genes to her daughter... my cousin who know lives in South Dakota.
Point being, she took her daughter to some shrinks when she was like 5 years old, because she didn't like some of the things she saw. That little decision and mistake on my aunt's part, took away many opportunities in my cousin's life... and we're not talking about guns here since she never went to a mental hospital.
If congress passes a law that people with so called "mental illness" can't own guns, you know what's gonna happen? When one of your co-workers who is a member of the brady campaign, sees you crying because your spouse died last week, they are gonna run to your boss, tell them you have severe depression, are suicidal, and that the cops and shrinks need to be called to confiscate your guns and drag you off...
If Regan wasn't a former president and still alive, they'd chase after his guns for having Alzheimer's. Same thing with Charlton Heston.
I think the shrinks that abused my cousin are a bunch of quacks. At most she is a little eccentric... but I would not go so far as to call her mentally ill. These psychologist go to school for 8 years to learn things based on the teachings of sigmund frued - the same nut job that thinks it is perfectly normal and healthy for 4 year old girls to want to have sex with their biological fathers...
I'll tell you why this is really dangerous. Not just because if someone accuses you of having a mental illness and it's not true. But because this is leading towards personality screening of prospective gun buyers. If congress passes a law that you have to see a shrink before buying a gun, and that shrink works for rebecca peters... guess what? Nobody except LE is going to be buying guns in your town anymore.
They'll start making up excuses like "Subject had an excessive unkept beard, therefore is an uneducated redneck and cannot safely handle a gun" Or simply lie in the report by saying "Subject used profanity during evaluation, this shows signs of aggression... cannot be trusted".
If you can see where this is heading, I would encourage you guys to ask your senators and reps to vote against gun control measures in regards to "mental illness".
If this cho guy from VT was so quiet and strange, the FFL himself shouldn't have sold him the guns. He should have seen with his own eyes what this guy was about. FLL's have the personal right to refuse sales... I know that if I had a gun shop, and saw some person walk in, mumbling to themselves and unable to fill out the 4473 without drawing cartoons on it, I damn sure wouldn't sell them a gun.
Comments
Under Clinton he had the Center for Disease Control declare guns a national health problem and requested that all doctors ask patients if they owned guns and had them in their homes as part of their exams. They were a danger to children in the homes according to that administration. Attacks from all fronts is the Democratic approach today.
My psychiatric evaluation went like this:
I went into the psychiatrist's office, came to attention in front of his desk and said "Petty Officer JamesRK reporting as ordered Sir."
The psychiatrist said "Why do you want to go to the South Pole?"
I said "Because I've never been there before."
The psychiatrist said "Get the hell out of my office."
I'm starting to wonder if I should be getting concerned about this "psychiatric evaluation" causing me problems with the BATFE.
The problem as I see it the complete breakdown of communication between agencies, bureaus, departments, courts, hospitals, facilities, caregivers, attorneys, physicians, psychiatrists, family members, friends, clerics, etc. Too many people are too afraid to share valuable information for fear that it will compromise an individual's right to privacy and land them on * end of a lawsuit or getting bagged with "violating an individual's rights".
Perhaps that is where the "system" should focus its efforts first. Defining what the actual legal expectation of privacy is AND also what constitutes legal and morally acceptable invasion of that privacy when it is deemed to serve a far greater good to the individual's well-being and safety and also society's.
Case in point: Had the "system" been functioning properly and the people within in actually paying attention to the details, 32 innocent people and also Cho himself would probably all still be alive today AND a bunch of kids wouldn't be recuperating from their wounds.
The "system" failed miserably and the sad part is that those who are actually responsible for the FBI not knowing about Cho's serious mental illness are now looking to slough off the blame anywhere they can.
But the NRA is backing that bill.....
That statement is FLAT WRONG.
The NRA-ILA has not expressed an opinion yet.
I've called both my senators and representative on the matter.
Look guys, I am as big a gun nut as anyone in here,I own enough firearms they would most likley decide I am nuts on that reason alone,been married so many times that should make them declare me nuts just for doing it over and over again,,,But if someone has honest mental problem they do not need access to guns,,nuts like the newest school shooter make us all look bad . I am not for the government taking guns but if you have been commited to the looney bin you should not be able to pass a background check until you go back infront of a doctor and be declaired sane.If you have times that you lose all reason and do not even know who you are ,who your wife is ,or even know your kids "like Alzheimers" ,someone in your family should lock up all the guns around the house ,you might shoot one of your own kids thinking they are a burglar..I have not read this bill,but there does have to be some sort of common sense used here,,,every nut in America should not be able to buy a new gun,
+1
to look at it any other way will be our demise
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
But the NRA is backing that bill.....
That statement is FLAT WRONG.
The NRA-ILA has not expressed an opinion yet.
I wonder WHY?
Keep in mind that most rabid anti-gun groups think gun owners are psychopaths, why would they NOT oppose it?
Several years ago, I sought the treatment of a therapist while I was undergoing simultaniously a divorce and a cancer diagnosis. I guess I "officially" had a diagnosis of something called a "dysthemic disorder"....
I venture to guess, as a given time in most of our lifetimes, any one of us could be diagnosed with a "honest mental disorder".
So what?
Does that make us any less stable than those who have not ever sought the advice from the psychiatric community?
Since I have some personal knowledge of this, I can tell you guys this situation is heading south very fast.
My mother's sister had a different biological father than my mother did... and I'll admit my half aunt was never quite right in the head. Perhaps she passed on some her genes to her daughter... my cousin who know lives in South Dakota.
Point being, she took her daughter to some shrinks when she was like 5 years old, because she didn't like some of the things she saw. That little decision and mistake on my aunt's part, took away many opportunities in my cousin's life... and we're not talking about guns here since she never went to a mental hospital.
If congress passes a law that people with so called "mental illness" can't own guns, you know what's gonna happen? When one of your co-workers who is a member of the brady campaign, sees you crying because your spouse died last week, they are gonna run to your boss, tell them you have severe depression, are suicidal, and that the cops and shrinks need to be called to confiscate your guns and drag you off...
If Regan wasn't a former president and still alive, they'd chase after his guns for having Alzheimer's. Same thing with Charlton Heston.
I think the shrinks that abused my cousin are a bunch of quacks. At most she is a little eccentric... but I would not go so far as to call her mentally ill. These psychologist go to school for 8 years to learn things based on the teachings of sigmund frued - the same nut job that thinks it is personally normal and healthy for 4 year old girls to want to have sex with their biological fathers...
I'll tell you why this is really dangerous. Not just because if someone accuses you of having a mental illness and it's not true. But because this is leading towards personality screening of prospective gun buyers. If congress passes a law that you have to see a shrink before buying a gun, and that shrink works for rebecca peters... guess what? Nobody except LE is going to be buying guns in your town anymore.
They'll start making up excuses like "Subject had an excessive unkept beard, therefore is an uneducated redneck and cannot safely handle a gun" Or simply lie in the report by saying "Subject used profanity during evaluation, this shows signs of aggression... cannot be trusted".
If you can see where this is heading, I would encourage you guys to ask your senators and reps to vote against gun control measures in regards to "mental illness".
If this cho guy from VT was so quiet and strange, the FFL himself shouldn't have sold him the guns. He should have seen with his own eyes what this guy was about. FLL's have the personal right to refuse sales... I know that if I had a gun shop, and saw some person walk in, mumbling to themselves and unable to fill out the 4473 without drawing cartoons on it, I damn sure wouldn't sell them a gun.
Have you actually read the bill you are talking about? I doubt you have. I have read the text of the entire bill and it says that only under two circumstances will someone lose their right to buy a gun based on mental illness. These circumstances are:
1) You are involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) A judge adjudicates you to be mentally defective.
So no, your "Brady Campaign" coworker cannot call the cops and have your guns taken away because they saw you crying. These types of lies do not help the argument. If you want to oppose the bill, at least oppose it based on what it actually says. "Shrinks" cannot take away your right to own a gun. Neither can the police, neither can your coworkers. Only a judge can do that.
I'm not saying people who are clearly insane should be able to buy guns. All I'm saying is, where do you draw the line? Is a diagnosis of OCD from a psychologist 20 years ago, who has no been stripped of his medical license, and sitting in jail because of fraud, really grounds for denying someone access to a gun?
The current federal standard is "adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or committed to a mental institution." Both of these mean a judge has made a determination on the matter. This is something that is done in open public court, with a through review of the person in question. Not some private room in a little office where a wacked out arrogant quack is scribbling down barely legible notes on a piece of paper.
I don't see why the federal standard needs to be more stringent. To me it appears to be fine where it is. As was mentioned earlier - it was the failure of the courts to report the matter to the NICS.
If this type of things go through, we're gonna have NYC and LA all over the place. Where judges call your employer, you have to notify your neighbors, post ads in the paper, submit 10 personal references, and every other damn thing before being able to buy a gun.
Look at Lisa Nowak. She had to undergo intense psychological screening all of the time. The only place I can think of that has higher security protocol than NASA are the nuclear research facilities in america. And somehow all the shrinks that saw her missed the fact that she was planning to kidnap and kill a fellow astronaut.
I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who have been diagnosed with mental illness, that own guns and don't commit crimes. By the same token, alot of criminals who have used guns in crimes clearly are not mentally ill... just plain old evil.
I personally think making the federal standard on mental issues any tougher than it is, will be just another step towards outlawing civilian ownership.
quote:Originally posted by Clarentavious
Since I have some personal knowledge of this, I can tell you guys this situation is heading south very fast.
My mother's sister had a different biological father than my mother did... and I'll admit my half aunt was never quite right in the head. Perhaps she passed on some her genes to her daughter... my cousin who know lives in South Dakota.
Point being, she took her daughter to some shrinks when she was like 5 years old, because she didn't like some of the things she saw. That little decision and mistake on my aunt's part, took away many opportunities in my cousin's life... and we're not talking about guns here since she never went to a mental hospital.
If congress passes a law that people with so called "mental illness" can't own guns, you know what's gonna happen? When one of your co-workers who is a member of the brady campaign, sees you crying because your spouse died last week, they are gonna run to your boss, tell them you have severe depression, are suicidal, and that the cops and shrinks need to be called to confiscate your guns and drag you off...
If Regan wasn't a former president and still alive, they'd chase after his guns for having Alzheimer's. Same thing with Charlton Heston.
I think the shrinks that abused my cousin are a bunch of quacks. At most she is a little eccentric... but I would not go so far as to call her mentally ill. These psychologist go to school for 8 years to learn things based on the teachings of sigmund frued - the same nut job that thinks it is personally normal and healthy for 4 year old girls to want to have sex with their biological fathers...
I'll tell you why this is really dangerous. Not just because if someone accuses you of having a mental illness and it's not true. But because this is leading towards personality screening of prospective gun buyers. If congress passes a law that you have to see a shrink before buying a gun, and that shrink works for rebecca peters... guess what? Nobody except LE is going to be buying guns in your town anymore.
They'll start making up excuses like "Subject had an excessive unkept beard, therefore is an uneducated redneck and cannot safely handle a gun" Or simply lie in the report by saying "Subject used profanity during evaluation, this shows signs of aggression... cannot be trusted".
If you can see where this is heading, I would encourage you guys to ask your senators and reps to vote against gun control measures in regards to "mental illness".
If this cho guy from VT was so quiet and strange, the FFL himself shouldn't have sold him the guns. He should have seen with his own eyes what this guy was about. FLL's have the personal right to refuse sales... I know that if I had a gun shop, and saw some person walk in, mumbling to themselves and unable to fill out the 4473 without drawing cartoons on it, I damn sure wouldn't sell them a gun.
Have you actually read the bill you are talking about? I doubt you have. I have read the text of the entire bill and it says that only under two circumstances will someone lose their right to buy a gun based on mental illness. These circumstances are:
1) You are involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) A judge adjudicates you to be mentally defective.
So no, your "Brady Campaign" coworker cannot call the cops and have your guns taken away because they saw you crying. These types of lies do not help the argument. If you want to oppose the bill, at least oppose it based on what it actually says. "Shrinks" cannot take away your right to own a gun. Neither can the police, neither can your coworkers. Only a judge can do that.
Maybe it is you who don't know what you are talking about. That law has been on the books since 1968... The thing is, the prohibited people in question aren't stopped nearly as often as felons are... because lack of record keeping and notification. There are people who are suggesting that anyone who has ever been diagnosed with any mental illness should not be able to buy or possess a gun.
Have you actually read the bill you are talking about? I doubt you have. I have read the text of the entire bill and it says that only under two circumstances will someone lose their right to buy a gun based on mental illness. These circumstances are:
1) You are involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) A judge adjudicates you to be mentally defective.
So no, your "Brady Campaign" coworker cannot call the cops and have your guns taken away because they saw you crying. These types of lies do not help the argument. If you want to oppose the bill, at least oppose it based on what it actually says. "Shrinks" cannot take away your right to own a gun. Neither can the police, neither can your coworkers. Only a judge can do that.
Why do we need ANOTHER gun law? what is needed is a change in the medical privacy laws.
Not another law that a activist judge can interpet to fit his agenda, or a batfe "ruling" that will take years to get resolved.
Have you actually read the bill you are talking about? I doubt you have. I have read the text of the entire bill and it says that only under two circumstances will someone lose their right to buy a gun based on mental illness. These circumstances are:
1) You are involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) A judge adjudicates you to be mentally defective.
So no, your "Brady Campaign" coworker cannot call the cops and have your guns taken away because they saw you crying. These types of lies do not help the argument. If you want to oppose the bill, at least oppose it based on what it actually says. "Shrinks" cannot take away your right to own a gun. Neither can the police, neither can your coworkers. Only a judge can do that.
I haven't read the bill and don't intend to, but assuming you are correct, you should oppose it because it is redundant and useless. What you describe has been the law for almost forty years.
I suspect this is not the case.
In general I oppose all new laws until I see an overwhelming reason for the new law. Gun related or not. I'm of the opinion that we have enough laws.
quote:
Have you actually read the bill you are talking about? I doubt you have. I have read the text of the entire bill and it says that only under two circumstances will someone lose their right to buy a gun based on mental illness. These circumstances are:
1) You are involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) A judge adjudicates you to be mentally defective.
So no, your "Brady Campaign" coworker cannot call the cops and have your guns taken away because they saw you crying. These types of lies do not help the argument. If you want to oppose the bill, at least oppose it based on what it actually says. "Shrinks" cannot take away your right to own a gun. Neither can the police, neither can your coworkers. Only a judge can do that.
Why do we need ANOTHER gun law? what is needed is a change in the medical privacy laws.
Not another law that a activist judge can interpet to fit his agenda, or a batfe "ruling" that will take years to get resolved.
Have you actually read the bill you are talking about? I doubt you have. I have read the text of the entire bill and it says that only under two circumstances will someone lose their right to buy a gun based on mental illness. These circumstances are:
1) You are involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
2) A judge adjudicates you to be mentally defective.
Potential for abuse? Ask Russell Laing.
It was Pa. Act 17 (Section 302) that got him.
Did the NRA support this hideous Act?
A little of his story;
quote: April 1996
West Deer Township Police officers surround my home for 45 minutes and then make a dynamic, gun-waiving entry to find me asleep in my bedroom. They document their actions as being based upon receiving information that my
employer was concerned that I had not reported to work and did not call off sick. They did not possess a warrant to enter my home, nor to detain me for psychiatric observation, nor to search my home and seize property. I have no
criminal record at any level, and was not charged or alleged to have been involved in any criminal, violent or threatening behavior. I was not alleged to have been causing any public or private disturbance.
I was then escorted by the WDPD to a waiting ambulance, which took me to a local hospital where I was detained for observation under Sec 302 of the PA Mental Health Act based on a WDPD officer's statement that he believed that I "was unable to care for myself". I was held at the hospital for six days, even though the legal maximum is five days (120 hours).
Before I was discharged, without ever having had any hearing or other formal adjudication, I was visited by the same WDPD officer who committed me. He advised me that if I did not give him the combination to unlock the gun safe (which they dragged from my home after I had been taken away), that the WDPD would cut it open with a blowtorch. Upon my discharge, I visited the WDPD police station and opened the gun safe for them, not wanting to see my property damaged."
His story goes on for years. His THIRD attorney was referred through, and funded by, the NRA so he could get his CCW back.
I know the language is not written the same way, and Russell has since been vindicated. After years of legal battles, and thousands of dollars, of course. That being said, the potential is there. Has the government ever twisted a law to suit their purposes before? [/sarcasm]
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/r-laing.htm
[quote
His story goes on for years. His THIRD attorney was referred through, and funded by, the NRA so he could get his CCW back.
I know the language is not written the same way, and Russell has since been vindicated. After years of legal battles, and thousands of dollars, of course. That being said, the potential is there. Has the government ever twisted a law to suit their purposes before? [/sarcasm]
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/r-laing.htm
I'm not so much worried about the government in this matter as I am the "mental health professionals" I have no reason to doubt what my cousin has told me... and she has plenty of evidence to support her claims. The last time I saw her was 3 years ago.
See, the thing is, apparently these quacks actually have some credibility. They can testify in court as "expert witnesses", and their reports are taken as official findings since they are considered board certified doctors... even though the psychologist are not medical doctors... the psychiatrist are MDs.
But honestly it is the shrinks (or at least the ones my cousin and aunt have had experience with) that are quite insane. And to have them wielding this type of power is incredibly dangerous. They are manipulative, deceptive, arrogant, and malicious.
The goverment has little to go on, or much they can do if you've never been exposed to a head shrinker. But once that door has been opened, you're really at the mercy of the shrink. And if that shrink happens to be corrupted, that's where the problems start.
I guess the main problem is... not everyone determines whethey they are going to see a shrink or not. There are tons of documented cases of cops who have lawfully shot and killed dangerous criminals, and suffered something very similar to post traumatic stress syndrome as a result. Even though they killed violent felons threatening innocent lives, they still felt some guilt and were under much stress. So, the department refers them to shrinks for "counseling" And I think we've all seen where this leads.
I'm not sure judges should be calling those shots either... there are plenty of gun hating, corrupted judges... like the one that let a NY lawsuit proceed even though it was in blatant violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. If the shrink or judge hates guns, they are going to lie about you, or find some way to keep you from having them, even if you are the most mentally stable person in the world...
Besides, most people who are really *that* insane wind up as bums on the street where they don't have the money to buy guns, or in mental institutions where they are never let out... I just think this whole "mental health and guns" issue is going sour and down hill. And mainly, from the gun grabbers point of view, is just another to restrict freedom.
What they should do if they want this to be "effective" (because we all know that gun control works) is that the whole FFL system needs to be revoked and revamped.
If you want an FFL, you must have a PhD. in Pyschiatry or Psychology. When you go to purchase a gun, you have to go to a back room at the gun store and undergo a psychoanalysis. The FFL, who is a trained professional, asks you various questions, like do you want to have sex with your mother or is a gun sort of like an extension of your pen1s. Of course, the psychotherapist/FFL will determine that you're nuts because anyone sane believes that guns are evil and only the military and cops should have guns. So, in 10 out of every 10 cases, you are determined to be "mentally defective" and therefore cannot purchase a gun and, in fact, must turn in the guns you already own to the FFL/psychotherapist.
What you'll then discover is that all the guns on display are actually NOT for sale. In fact, they are all guns that you and I owed that are hanging on the wall for display purposes only, because we're too nutty to own them.
Thank you. Drive through.
Well, define an "honest mental problem".....
Several years ago, I sought the treatment of a therapist while I was undergoing simultaniously a divorce and a cancer diagnosis. I guess I "officially" had a diagnosis of something called a "dysthemic disorder"....
I venture to guess, as a given time in most of our lifetimes, any one of us could be diagnosed with a "honest mental disorder".
So what?
Does that make us any less stable than those who have not ever sought the advice from the psychiatric community?
No, hardly. The issue is whether or not you are deemed to be a danger to yourself or to others if your condition is left untreated. Lots of folks have disorders and take medication or get therapy or do both or do neither. But they're not considered a danger.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
Well, define an "honest mental problem".....
Several years ago, I sought the treatment of a therapist while I was undergoing simultaniously a divorce and a cancer diagnosis. I guess I "officially" had a diagnosis of something called a "dysthemic disorder"....
I venture to guess, as a given time in most of our lifetimes, any one of us could be diagnosed with a "honest mental disorder".
So what?
Does that make us any less stable than those who have not ever sought the advice from the psychiatric community?
No, hardly. The issue is whether or not you are deemed to be a danger to yourself or to others if your condition is left untreated. Lots of folks have disorders and take medication or get therapy or do both or do neither. But they're not considered a danger.
Yeah, but that ain't what people like carolyn mccarthy want... she wants every shrink in the country to turn over every last name of any patient that ever visited their office since they opened their practice. Then put all of those names into the ATF and NICS "black list"
She's one seriously skewed voice and from what I've read so far since the VT shootings, she's in a minority.
Change is inevitable but I believe that the change has to be in the laws governing the disclosure of a patient's mental condition IF that patient is not safely confined (institutionalized) AND deemed dangerous to society by professionals.
Carolyn McCarthy is clearly the extreme of this and given her family's history with it, I can't say I blame her completely BUT I absolutely don't agree with her either.
She's one seriously skewed voice and from what I've read so far since the VT shootings, she's in a minority.
Change is inevitable but I believe that the change has to be in the laws governing the disclosure of a patient's mental condition IF that patient is not safely confined (institutionalized) AND deemed dangerous to society by professionals.
Yeah, but do you really want shrinks calling the shots on that? Especially brady campaign shrinks who don't want ANY of their patients to be able to possess a gun (just like every other american), no matter how dolice they may be.
I'm of the opinion that we have enough laws.
If mankind would only have obeyed those very first ten laws, we never would have needed all that have come along since.
When you fill out the 4473 and have a NICs this issue is already covered. The failure was the goverment messed up. The goverment needs to address their failure not pass a new law.
And of course they'll claim no accountability...
Wonder how this'll play out on the masses that are jumping on the "Bi-Polar" train.
You read my mind! [:D]
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=244941
It worries me!
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Carolyn McCarthy is clearly the extreme of this and given her family's history with it, I can't say I blame her completely BUT I absolutely don't agree with her either.
She's one seriously skewed voice and from what I've read so far since the VT shootings, she's in a minority.
Change is inevitable but I believe that the change has to be in the laws governing the disclosure of a patient's mental condition IF that patient is not safely confined (institutionalized) AND deemed dangerous to society by professionals.
Yeah, but do you really want shrinks calling the shots on that? Especially brady campaign shrinks who don't want ANY of their patients to be able to possess a gun (just like every other american), no matter how dolice they may be.
I don't think that shrinks want to manipulate the system and control guns just by pronouncing their patients as "dangerous", thereby forever labelling them in society's eyes.
I think there have been enough violent acts - shootings, stabbings, butcherings, bludgeonings, strangualtions, pushing folks off train platforms in front of on-coming trains, throwing people down elevator shafts, biting, mauling, slashing, etc., etc. - where the perpetrator was found to have had a very serious mental disorder that had been previously diagnosed. He or she was assessed to be dangerous, slipped through the cracks and was then ignored completely.
The fact that this person's serious disorder and possible danger to society might be listed in a National FBI database - not a marketing or mailing or private one - does several positive things IMO and may even ultimately help keep the individual alive longer, i.e. not killed by LEO's.
quote:Originally posted by Clarentavious
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Carolyn McCarthy is clearly the extreme of this and given her family's history with it, I can't say I blame her completely BUT I absolutely don't agree with her either.
She's one seriously skewed voice and from what I've read so far since the VT shootings, she's in a minority.
Change is inevitable but I believe that the change has to be in the laws governing the disclosure of a patient's mental condition IF that patient is not safely confined (institutionalized) AND deemed dangerous to society by professionals.
Yeah, but do you really want shrinks calling the shots on that? Especially brady campaign shrinks who don't want ANY of their patients to be able to possess a gun (just like every other american), no matter how dolice they may be.
I don't think that shrinks want to manipulate the system and control guns just by pronouncing their patients as "dangerous", thereby forever labelling them in society's eyes.
I think there have been enough violent acts - shootings, stabbings, butcherings, bludgeonings, strangualtions, pushing folks off train platforms in front of on-coming trains, throwing people down elevator shafts, biting, mauling, slashing, etc., etc. - where the perpetrator was found to have had a very serious mental disorder that had been previously diagnosed. He or she was assessed to be dangerous, slipped through the cracks and was then ignored completely.
The fact that this person's serious disorder and possible danger to society might be listed in a National FBI database - not a marketing or mailing or private one - does several positive things IMO and may even ultimately help keep the individual alive longer, i.e. not killed by LEO's.
So again, A law must be passed regarding medical records privacy, not firearms ownership.
Don
So again, A law must be passed regarding medical records privacy, not firearms ownership.
Don
+10 on that Don.
I said that very same thing several times already. Looking back on the VT tragedy, it's clear - at least to me - that the real problem was Cho's serious mental illness, not guns. Had his name been the database and had he been denied a firearm, there's no telling what other method or route he might have settled on next to accomplish his task. But at the very least, the FBI would have known he was deemed dangerous, not institutionalized, looking to buy a gun and fully out and about in society. The red flag as it were would have popped up.
Only USED guns ??
Poor attempt at levity.
Doug
If judges are supposed to be the ones making the determination here, then the courts need to be the ones to update NICS - not the shrinks.
In this case it was the *court and legal* system that failed to notify NICS. cho had been adjudicated as a danger... But to my knowledge, shrinks don't send *all* of their pateints before a judge to see if they should be committed - only the ones they think are truly wacko's.
If judges are supposed to be the ones making the determination here, then the courts need to be the ones to update NICS - not the shrinks.
Where's a good bullseye emoticon when ya need one?[:)]