When does a state disarm the mentally ill?

[Hot Mega]

Excerpt;

Allen says mental illness does not automatically lead to violence, and he fears a backlash.

"Would we go through the records of every Virginian who has ever been to the doctor concerned about anxiety and depression, and lock them up? It's simply inconsistent with the American way."

Federal law prevents the sale of guns to those who have been judged mentally ill. But in Cho's case, since he was never actually committed to a hospital, the judge's order was never entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a database of people disqualified from gun purchases.

So he was allowed to purchase the two handguns used in the massacre.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/25/guns.mentallyill/index.html?iref=newssearch

We're going to see more of this unless this gapping loophole thoroughly investigated and closed.

 

[sproing99]

Oooh, tough one.

I mean there are plenty of people with a mental illness (even some who have been hospitalised) who present no danger to others. They should certainly not be prevented from acquiring a gun.

There may be other people who may recover sufficiently to be allowed to own a gun (although it'd be a ballsy doctor who would give them the all-clear and leave themselves open to suit) or may be stable enough when on their meds to be permitted to own a gun (though how you'd go about getting the gun back if they were off their meds I don't know). Perhaps it'd be like parole, if you have been previously disqualified through poor mental health, you have to demonstrate that you're fine to have your right to own a gun re-instated (in which case it'd be a ballsy judge who'd say yes).

 

[Hot Mega]

Oooh, tough one.

I mean there are plenty of people with a mental illness (even some who have been hospitalised) who present no danger to others. They should certainly not be prevented from acquiring a gun.

There may be other people who may recover sufficiently to be allowed to own a gun (although it'd be a ballsy doctor who would give them the all-clear and leave themselves open to suit) or may be stable enough when on their meds to be permitted to own a gun (though how you'd go about getting the gun back if they were off their meds I don't know). Perhaps it'd be like parole, if you have been previously disqualified through poor mental health, you have to demonstrate that you're fine to have your right to own a gun re-instated (in which case it'd be a ballsy judge who'd say yes).

People who are suspected of or diagnosed with any mental defect or diminished capacity should not be allow to purchase a firearm IMO.

It's too late to find out after they've slaughtered a bunch of innocent people that they were in fact a danger.

 

[sproing99]

People who are suspected of or diagnosed with any mental defect or diminished capacity should not be allow to purchase a firearm IMO.

It's too late to find out after they've slaughtered a bunch of innocent people that they were in fact a danger.

At a minimum I'd say diagnosed. The difficulty with mental illness is that diagnosis is, to a degree, subjective. This is particularly true on the margins.

Mental illness can also be temporary. It's estimated that between 1/3 and 1/4 of people will have some form of mental illness at some point in their lives - should they all be excluded from gun ownership ?

Many of our greatest leaders, soldiers, law enforcers have had periods of mental illness (depression and/or bi-polar disorder is not uncommon in high achievers) should they be prevented from owning guns ?


edited to add.....

So you either remove the right to buy a gun on the merest suspicion which would be the safer approach but could result in people failing to seek a diagnosis for fear of losing their permit, and their job (if it requires them to be able to use a gun); or you only remove the right where the risk is beyond reasonable doubt in which case many potential killers will slip through the net.

So while I understand that keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous sociopaths is desirable, diagnosis of mental illness is insufficiently exact to prevent many, many people having their second amendment rights taken away unfairly.

 

[Hot Mega]

At a minimum I'd say diagnosed. The difficulty with mental illness is that diagnosis is, to a degree, subjective. This is particularly true on the margins.

Mental illness can also be temporary. It's estimated that between 1/3 and 1/4 of people will have some form of mental illness at some point in their lives - should they all be excluded from gun ownership ?

Many of our greatest leaders, soldiers, law enforcers have had periods of mental illness (depression and/or bi-polar disorder is not uncommon in high achievers) should they be prevented from owning guns ?


edited to add.....

So you either remove the right to buy a gun on the merest suspicion which would be the safer approach but could result in people failing to seek a diagnosis for fear of losing their permit, and their job (if it requires them to be able to use a gun); or you only remove the right where the risk is beyond reasonable doubt in which case many potential killers will slip through the net.

So while I understand that keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous sociopaths is desirable, diagnosis of mental illness is insufficiently exact to prevent many, many people having their second amendment rights taken away unfairly.

I'll say it again...

People who are suspected of or diagnosed with any mental defect or diminished capacity should not be allow (sic) to purchase a firearm IMO.

It's too late to find out after they've slaughtered a bunch of innocent people that they were in fact a danger.

If it's suspected that a person has some mental defect acute or especially chronic.....the last thing on their mind should be possessing a firearm.

I know it's draconian and as a civil libertarian it pains me to even consider this but in this case common sense has to prevail over my ideology.

 

[afkallthetiem]

all the time i hope i dont care what the article says

 

[sproing99]

I'll say it again...

If it's suspected that a person has some mental defect acute or especially chronic.....the last thing on their mind should be possessing a firearm.

I know it's draconian and as a civil libertarian it pains me to even consider this but in this case common sense has to prevail over my ideology.

I appreciate what you say but I fear that with this draconian approach, people like police personnel will not seek diagnosis and treatment for fear of losing their right to carry a weapon, and hence their job, pension and health insurance (ironically).

And suspicion of mental illness as a reason to remove the right to get firearms is a step too far IMO. Suspicion could be created maliciously. I'd be happier with diagnosis.

What about getting guns back from people who have recently been diagnosed ? What about family members/co-habitees ?

 

[Hot Mega]

I appreciate what you say but I fear that with this draconian approach, people like police personnel will not seek diagnosis and treatment for fear of losing their right to carry a weapon, and hence their job, pension and health insurance (ironically).

And suspicion of mental illness as a reason to remove the right to get firearms is a step too far IMO. Suspicion could be created maliciously. I'd be happier with diagnosis.

What about getting guns back from people who have recently been diagnosed ? What about family members/co-habitees ?

Temporary suspension or hold is not revocation of the right. It only makes common sense that if there is evidence of diminished capacity that these people aren't cleared to simply purchase a firearm.

Of course there are practical problems with the concept but we must seriously attack the problem of obviously deranged people simply buying a firearm and killing people mere months after they were under psychological evaluation because of some loophole.

As far as the people who become deranged after they've purchased a firearm, let's worry about the one's we know we should be stopping first.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

So a guy's wife leaves him, he's feeling depressed, and go's to see a shrink. He should be on a list, because he did the right thing, and sought help? What if all he wants to do is go duck and goose hunting on the weekends, it's his relaxation...now he's on a list, and they come and seize his property?!?! Here's a better solution, put the judge, and the shrink in prison for not committing him, or convicting him of the crime, and allowing him to do this. Better yet, the collage is just as guilty for EVERY murder, because they denied the LAW ABIDING persons on campus from carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves. But at the very top of the blame chain is the schools security force that FUCKING KNEW shit was going on, but did nothing to prevent further shootings, because they were inept, and ignorant of what to do, and how to do it. Why don't you just come right out and say what you want...a national data base of every gun owner, what they own, where they shoot, a permit system controlled by a government that adds people to a domestic terrorist watch list JUST BECAUSE THEY QUESTION THE MOTIVES AND ACTIONS OF THE VERY GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS FOR THEM! The fact is, someone that wants blood will get it. If he couldn't have gotten guns, he would have made pipe bombs, or slit throats, and that is a plain and simple fact. Quit blaming loop holes, and start blaming the people that do the crime, or enable the criminal to continue with his/her crime.

 

[Hot Mega]

So a guy's wife leaves him, he's feeling depressed, and go's to see a shrink. He should be on a list, because he did the right thing, and sought help? What if all he wants to do is go duck and goose hunting on the weekends, it's his relaxation...now he's on a list, and they come and seize his property?!?! Here's a better solution, put the judge, and the shrink in prison for not committing him, or convicting him of the crime, and allowing him to do this. Better yet, the collage is just as guilty for EVERY murder, because they denied the LAW ABIDING persons on campus from carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves. But at the very top of the blame chain is the schools security force that FUCKING KNEW shit was going on, but did nothing to prevent further shootings, because they were inept, and ignorant of what to do, and how to do it. Why don't you just come right out and say what you want...a national data base of every gun owner, what they own, where they shoot, a permit system controlled by a government that adds people to a domestic terrorist watch list JUST BECAUSE THEY QUESTION THE MOTIVES AND ACTIONS OF THE VERY GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS FOR THEM! The fact is, someone that wants blood will get it. If he couldn't have gotten guns, he would have made pipe bombs, or slit throats, and that is a plain and simple fact. Quit blaming loop holes, and start blaming the people that do the crime, or enable the criminal to continue with his/her crime.

If a guy's wife leaves him, he's admittedly depressed to the degree that he's sought treatment, you believe given those set of facts that he should simply be able to go purchase a firearm without at least being cleared of his condition??

It's clearly the case that if a deranged person is not prohibited by NICS from purchasing a firearm simply because they refused to be admitted for a mental condition...that is a fucking loophole that needs to be closed.

It's clear there needs to be stricter means of controlling the sales, purchases and transfers of firearms than there are now.

Again, you do the cause a disservice by promoting an incorrigible, intractable perspective against common sense shit.

"Guns don't kill (innocent) people.." people who should never have firearms in the first fucking place kill people.

 

[Facetious]

Re: When does a state disarm the mentally ill?

Why would you want to draw attention to yourself ?



OK, OK, if not mentally ill, then : When does a state disarm the entirely double dealing, hypocritical and duplicitous rabble rousing . . ? !!!!!!

 

[Mr. Daystar]

If a guy's wife leaves him, he's admittedly depressed to the degree that he's sought treatment, you believe given those set of facts that he should simply be able to go purchase a firearm without at least being cleared of his condition??

It's clearly the case that if a deranged person is not prohibited by NICS from purchasing a firearm simply because they refused to be admitted for a mental condition...that is a fucking loophole that needs to be closed.

It's clear there needs to be stricter means of controlling the sales, purchases and transfers of firearms than there are now.

Again, you do the cause a disservice by promoting an incorrigible, intractable perspective against common sense shit.

"Guns don't kill (innocent) people.." people who should never have firearms in the first fucking place kill people.

I've got news for you pal. People like you, that scream about loop holes, and trying to give the already gun grabbing politicians a stronger foot hold on taking our rights away do the disservice! I pay REAL close attention to what goes on in my back yard, and I wright enough letters to my elected officials to let them know just how I feel. Your bullshit line of rhetoric about common sense isn't helping any causes...you live under the sad illusion that a few simple changes will solve it all. It won't...the government will want more, and the criminals will still be armed, and the only ones that will suffer, are the ones that shouldn't. Fuck me! Common sense...you want common sense... how about all of the other systems in your little fairytale that failed? No common sense accountability for a failed security force, or a failed right to a basic Constitutional right. Some fucking mentally ill guy MY WIFE worked with, demanded money, then took out A BUTCHERS KNIFE, and stabbed and killed the owner of a convenience store, to houses down from where she works, and he used to live. You want to restrict, and regulate the sales of kitchen ware next?!?!? Do you think if this fucktard Cho wasn't able to get those guns, at a gun shop, he wouldn't have been able to get them on the street. People like you just weaken the cause for the Second Amendment, because your clearly unable to see, just how dangerous, and unconstitutional, what you really want, really is. Then after this guys name is in a data base saying he's mentally ill, what's next? you going to let other people have a look see? Maybe we shouldn't hire this guy to drive our taxi cab, he might snap and mow down a crowd of people. Maybe we shouldn't let this guy work in our kitchen, he might snap and hack someone to death with a meat clever. Let me guess, it's okay to have a shotgun, or a revolver...but we don't need a rifle that accepts 30 round magazines. No man has a use for a gun that holds 15 bullets for home defense.

 

[Facetious]

Revidffum, my friend, He's (or she('s)TROLLING AGAIN

The character simply lusts for the straw manned, inverse corollary controversies.

:sigh:

 

[Hot Mega]

I've got news for you pal. People like you, that scream about loop holes, and trying to give the already gun grabbing politicians a stronger foot hold on taking our rights away do the disservice! I pay REAL close attention to what goes on in my back yard, and I wright enough letters to my elected officials to let them know just how I feel. Your bullshit line of rhetoric about common sense isn't helping any causes...you live under the sad illusion that a few simple changes will solve it all. It won't...the government will want more, and the criminals will still be armed, and the only ones that will suffer, are the ones that shouldn't. Fuck me! Common sense...you want common sense... how about all of the other systems in your little fairytale that failed? No common sense accountability for a failed security force, or a failed right to a basic Constitutional right. Some fucking mentally ill guy MY WIFE worked with, demanded money, then took out A BUTCHERS KNIFE, and stabbed and killed the owner of a convenience store, to houses down from where she works, and he used to live. You want to restrict, and regulate the sales of kitchen ware next?!?!? Do you think if this fucktard Cho wasn't able to get those guns, at a gun shop, he wouldn't have been able to get them on the street. People like you just weaken the cause for the Second Amendment, because your clearly unable to see, just how dangerous, and unconstitutional, what you really want, really is. Then after this guys name is in a data base saying he's mentally ill, what's next? you going to let other people have a look see? Maybe we shouldn't hire this guy to drive our taxi cab, he might snap and mow down a crowd of people. Maybe we shouldn't let this guy work in our kitchen, he might snap and hack someone to death with a meat clever. Let me guess, it's okay to have a shotgun, or a revolver...but we don't need a rifle that accepts 30 round magazines. No man has a use for a gun that holds 15 bullets for home defense.

Revidffum, my friend, He's (or she('s)TROLLING AGAIN

The character simply lusts for the straw manned, inverse corollary controversies.

:sigh:

Re: When does a state disarm the mentally ill?

Why would you want to draw attention to yourself ?



OK, OK, if not mentally ill, then : When does a state disarm the entirely double dealing, hypocritical and duplicitous rabble rousing . . ? !!!!!!

Unbelievable!!

Simple question. Based on what you know of this story (assuming you read it), should Cho have been able to legally purchase a firearm? What the fuck good is NICS if can't ID a guy in this situation???

You can call it what you whatever makes you feel comfy but the guy shouldn't be able to walk in and be legally cleared to purchase a firearm. You can call it whatever buzz word your indoctrination allows you to utter but in my book that's a fucking loophole.

And how is it hypocritical to believe firearms shouldn't end up in the hands of fucking deranged people???

 

[Facial_King]

Everyone should be required to have a machine gun at all times.

 

[ChefChiTown]

A lot of people who are deemed to be "mentally healthy" shouldn't own guns, so why not hand them out to the "mentally ill"...???