wmw999 2,589 #1 February 1, 2011 Yes, there are only two choices. There are laws in many states decreeing that "mentally ill" should not be able to carry guns. Right now, as far as I know, the definition of "mentally ill" is largely one of whether the person has been committed or somehow been declared as such by the judicial system. Doctors are not required to report people who come for mental health support. Schools are not required to report people who are weird, even if those people are told they can't return without a doctor's note. HIPAA says that doctors cannot share information without the patient's consent, unless it's a threat to public health. It's not practical to run every request for concealed carry by every doctor in case the doctor thinks it's a bad idea. Really. So, which is worse. 1. Invading privacy by having personal mental health information have a lower standard for being reported (and then leaked in the future -- it will happen). 2. Having the current system where the reporting sucks, and only legal mental proceedings are generally considered in granting a gun carry request. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #2 February 1, 2011 QuoteHIPAA says that doctors cannot share information without the patient's consent, unless it's a threat to public health. It's not practical to run every request for concealed carry by every doctor in case the doctor thinks it's a bad idea. Really. There are already systems in place. If a Dr. thinks you are a danger, he can report you. Cho for example had been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder for years and by law was not allowed to buy a gun. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html QuoteThe special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 February 1, 2011 I believe that breach of privacy is the worse matter. The rights that we have are dignitary in nature. On the other hand, if there IS a threat, many states (like California) authorize a physician to report that patient. The physician may have a duty to warn, such as if a patient says, "I'm gonna blow away my ex-husband and his whole family." It's the "papers, please" aspect and denial of a person of a right (not a privilege - a RIGHT) without due process. What other right given to us can be taken BEFORE due process is given? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #4 February 1, 2011 Just because someone is mentally ill, it does not follow they will purchase a gun and go on a killing spree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #5 February 1, 2011 >Just because someone is mentally ill, it does not follow they will purchase >a gun and go on a killing spree. Agreed. Indeed, it is worthwhile to put some effort into ensuring that does not happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 February 2, 2011 Quote>Just because someone is mentally ill, it does not follow they will purchase >a gun and go on a killing spree. Agreed. Indeed, it is worthwhile to put some effort into ensuring that does not happen. Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #7 February 2, 2011 Quote Just because someone is mentally ill, it does not follow they will purchase a gun and go on a killing spree. I agree. A friend of mine is a veteran and has done tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. He suffers from night terrors every now and then. Anyone who knows him though knows he is a great guy and would never commit any violent acts. Janet Napolitano would consider him a greater threat to the US than a Muslim extremists though What protections would he get when everyone is required to produce a card that says "screened and suitable to own a gun"?"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #8 February 2, 2011 In the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #9 February 2, 2011 >Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. This provides for "vetted" weapons carriers. Run this program for a few years; verify that it does indeed screen well for psychotic behavior. Then implement just the psych test for regular CCW holders. If _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #10 February 2, 2011 I might have gone for the second choice had you not included the word "possibly". YOU are possibly looney. No guns for YOU.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #11 February 2, 2011 Quote...a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, Hmmmm...How can you be sure that the shrink selected is not himself a nutter....or someone with an agenda with respect to guns? Who's going to appoint him? Schumer? The NRA? QuoteIf _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. Right. Knock off constitutional rights one little piece at a time. Today you need to score at least 70% to qualify. Next administration: "Well, let's bump that up to 80%" Next administration: "Well, let's make it 100% then nobody will qualify. That'll put a dent in the NRA. HEE HEE HEE" You'd be making the makeup and the adminstration of the "test" a political football.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 February 2, 2011 Quote>Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. So your proposal takes away rights that already exists, and puts them in the form of special permits. Fabulous! and in reality, this will be used against people - with ever growing types of areas being added to the secured areas description, and an increasingly high bar to even get it. (of course, in CA we can't even get a regular CCW, so the special one is a moot concept). A different example where this has happened as been with parolees, esp sex offenders. It is estimated that it's is effectively impossible to live in San Francisco and be in compliance of the various 1000 yard radius from X and Y and Z regulations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 February 2, 2011 Quote>Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. Quote How about just owning a gun that is to be kept in the home for personal protection? Should an honest law abiding citizen be subjected to an evaluation by a psychiatrist? This provides for "vetted" weapons carriers. Run this program for a few years; verify that it does indeed screen well for psychotic behavior. Then implement just the psych test for regular CCW holders. If _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. QuoteHow are you going to deal with the criminal or really crazy psychotic who obtains a gun illegally? I don't think they are going to subject themselves to your solution. Once again, you are trying to solve a problem by going after the law abiding citizen and not addressing the real problem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #14 February 2, 2011 QuoteJust because someone is mentally ill, it does not follow they will purchase a gun and go on a killing spree. Indeed. Studies show the rate (lifetime rate) of violence in people with mentally illness is 14%. That sounds high except the rate for all people is 7%. So, that is quite a significant increase but certainly not all people with mental illness are destined to become violent offenders. Of those who do commit a violent act only a small number will do so with a gun. I don't know how you go about denying a right from an entire class of people."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #15 February 2, 2011 QuoteIn the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P. I don't think it is nearly that easy. Mental Health practitioners are not able to predict with any degree of accuracy which of their clients might become violent. About the only reliable predictor is when somebody has become violent in the past. That is probably an accurate predictor for people without mental illness as well. Then you would have to even identify disqualifying conditions. Do you want to prohibit gun ownership for anybody who has ever been treated for depression? Anxiety disorder? Adjustment disorder NOS? Pretty much anybody who has ever had counseling has been assigned one of those diagnosis. Would you limit it to the Big 3 (Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia)? On what basis?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #16 February 2, 2011 Quote>Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. This provides for "vetted" weapons carriers. Run this program for a few years; verify that it does indeed screen well for psychotic behavior. Then implement just the psych test for regular CCW holders. If _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. You can simply open carry in my state without any sort of permit."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #17 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteIn the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P. I don't think it is nearly that easy. Mental Health practitioners are not able to predict with any degree of accuracy which of their clients might become violent. About the only reliable predictor is when somebody has become violent in the past. That is probably an accurate predictor for people without mental illness as well. Then you would have to even identify disqualifying conditions. Do you want to prohibit gun ownership for anybody who has ever been treated for depression? Anxiety disorder? Adjustment disorder NOS? Pretty much anybody who has ever had counseling has been assigned one of those diagnosis. Would you limit it to the Big 3 (Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia)? On what basis? It would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #18 February 2, 2011 QuoteIt would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. Now THAT'S a fair start...except maybe for the private seller. Would he be required to pay for the check? Tack on the cost to the price? Would it be a public database? On-line? Accessible to anyone?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #19 February 2, 2011 Quote. . . a psych test by a registered psychiatrist . . . I would be very curious to see what this psych test would involve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 February 2, 2011 Quote>Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. This provides for "vetted" weapons carriers. Run this program for a few years; verify that it does indeed screen well for psychotic behavior. Then implement just the psych test for regular CCW holders. If _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. Great - we'll make sure to set the same thing up for speech and voting. After all, if it's good enough to be done for ONE right, it's good enough to be done for all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #21 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuote. . . a psych test by a registered psychiatrist . . . I would be very curious to see what this psych test would involve. "Do you want to buy a gun?" "Yes" "You're obviously mentally ill and a danger - Next!"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jgoose71 0 #22 February 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote In the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P. I don't think it is nearly that easy. Mental Health practitioners are not able to predict with any degree of accuracy which of their clients might become violent. About the only reliable predictor is when somebody has become violent in the past. That is probably an accurate predictor for people without mental illness as well. Then you would have to even identify disqualifying conditions. Do you want to prohibit gun ownership for anybody who has ever been treated for depression? Anxiety disorder? Adjustment disorder NOS? Pretty much anybody who has ever had counseling has been assigned one of those diagnosis. Would you limit it to the Big 3 (Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia)? On what basis? It would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. Have to agree with Southern Man. Please further define "Disqualifying Condition." The Human psyche isn't that simple. And then to follow on with what Mike said, we have now started to place limits and conditions on gun rights, what's to stop the government from placing limits and conditions on other rights? You have to be screened to carry a gun, next, will you have to be screened before you can start talking in the main stream media? Wait, this could work out......."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #23 February 2, 2011 QuoteIt would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. In Virginia we overhauled the reporting requirements in response to the Cho disaster. Suppossedly they are better now and our database more accurate. I think that is good. I'm not sure it is 100% accurate."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #24 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. In Virginia we overhauled the reporting requirements in response to the Cho disaster. Suppossedly they are better now and our database more accurate. I think that is good. I'm not sure it is 100% accurate. There are 49 other states in which to buy guns, 33 of which don't even require a NICS check of all purchasers at gun shows. I have been told by a usually knowledgeable source on such matters that Texas has an effective screening process for issuing CCW permits. Assuming this to be true, maybe said process could be extended to gun purchases.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Southern_Man 0 #25 February 2, 2011 Quote There are 49 other states in which to buy guns, 33 of which don't even require a NICS check of all purchasers at gun shows. I have been told by a usually knowledgeable source on such matters that Texas has an effective screening process for issuing CCW permits. Assuming this to be true, maybe said process could be extended to gun purchases. What are the details of that process? Specifically with regard to mental health? What is the status of open carry in Texas? Virginia is an open carry state."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Southern_Man 0 #14 February 2, 2011 QuoteJust because someone is mentally ill, it does not follow they will purchase a gun and go on a killing spree. Indeed. Studies show the rate (lifetime rate) of violence in people with mentally illness is 14%. That sounds high except the rate for all people is 7%. So, that is quite a significant increase but certainly not all people with mental illness are destined to become violent offenders. Of those who do commit a violent act only a small number will do so with a gun. I don't know how you go about denying a right from an entire class of people."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #15 February 2, 2011 QuoteIn the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P. I don't think it is nearly that easy. Mental Health practitioners are not able to predict with any degree of accuracy which of their clients might become violent. About the only reliable predictor is when somebody has become violent in the past. That is probably an accurate predictor for people without mental illness as well. Then you would have to even identify disqualifying conditions. Do you want to prohibit gun ownership for anybody who has ever been treated for depression? Anxiety disorder? Adjustment disorder NOS? Pretty much anybody who has ever had counseling has been assigned one of those diagnosis. Would you limit it to the Big 3 (Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia)? On what basis?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #16 February 2, 2011 Quote>Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. This provides for "vetted" weapons carriers. Run this program for a few years; verify that it does indeed screen well for psychotic behavior. Then implement just the psych test for regular CCW holders. If _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. You can simply open carry in my state without any sort of permit."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #17 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteIn the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P. I don't think it is nearly that easy. Mental Health practitioners are not able to predict with any degree of accuracy which of their clients might become violent. About the only reliable predictor is when somebody has become violent in the past. That is probably an accurate predictor for people without mental illness as well. Then you would have to even identify disqualifying conditions. Do you want to prohibit gun ownership for anybody who has ever been treated for depression? Anxiety disorder? Adjustment disorder NOS? Pretty much anybody who has ever had counseling has been assigned one of those diagnosis. Would you limit it to the Big 3 (Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia)? On what basis? It would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #18 February 2, 2011 QuoteIt would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. Now THAT'S a fair start...except maybe for the private seller. Would he be required to pay for the check? Tack on the cost to the price? Would it be a public database? On-line? Accessible to anyone?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #19 February 2, 2011 Quote. . . a psych test by a registered psychiatrist . . . I would be very curious to see what this psych test would involve. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 February 2, 2011 Quote>Sure, I'm all for that. How do you propose that be accomplished? First step - create a "secure area" CCW permit. Require extensive and regularly updated background checks, a psych test by a registered psychiatrist, recurrent training, insurance and registration of the gun to be carried. In return the holder can carry the weapon in airports, at political rallies, in schools etc. This provides for "vetted" weapons carriers. Run this program for a few years; verify that it does indeed screen well for psychotic behavior. Then implement just the psych test for regular CCW holders. If _that_ works, implement it for all people owning guns. Great - we'll make sure to set the same thing up for speech and voting. After all, if it's good enough to be done for ONE right, it's good enough to be done for all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuote. . . a psych test by a registered psychiatrist . . . I would be very curious to see what this psych test would involve. "Do you want to buy a gun?" "Yes" "You're obviously mentally ill and a danger - Next!"Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #22 February 2, 2011 Quote Quote Quote In the gun rights threads, this is always an easy discussion. "if you're mentally ill you shouldn't have access to guns." Things often aren't all that easy. Not in either direction. Wendy P. I don't think it is nearly that easy. Mental Health practitioners are not able to predict with any degree of accuracy which of their clients might become violent. About the only reliable predictor is when somebody has become violent in the past. That is probably an accurate predictor for people without mental illness as well. Then you would have to even identify disqualifying conditions. Do you want to prohibit gun ownership for anybody who has ever been treated for depression? Anxiety disorder? Adjustment disorder NOS? Pretty much anybody who has ever had counseling has been assigned one of those diagnosis. Would you limit it to the Big 3 (Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar disorder, Schizophrenia)? On what basis? It would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. Have to agree with Southern Man. Please further define "Disqualifying Condition." The Human psyche isn't that simple. And then to follow on with what Mike said, we have now started to place limits and conditions on gun rights, what's to stop the government from placing limits and conditions on other rights? You have to be screened to carry a gun, next, will you have to be screened before you can start talking in the main stream media? Wait, this could work out......."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #23 February 2, 2011 QuoteIt would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. In Virginia we overhauled the reporting requirements in response to the Cho disaster. Suppossedly they are better now and our database more accurate. I think that is good. I'm not sure it is 100% accurate."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #24 February 2, 2011 QuoteQuoteIt would make a very good start if the state kept a reliable database of people with disqualifying conditions, and ALL purchases required the same background check as purchases from a licensed dealer - ALL purchases, no exceptions. In Virginia we overhauled the reporting requirements in response to the Cho disaster. Suppossedly they are better now and our database more accurate. I think that is good. I'm not sure it is 100% accurate. There are 49 other states in which to buy guns, 33 of which don't even require a NICS check of all purchasers at gun shows. I have been told by a usually knowledgeable source on such matters that Texas has an effective screening process for issuing CCW permits. Assuming this to be true, maybe said process could be extended to gun purchases.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #25 February 2, 2011 Quote There are 49 other states in which to buy guns, 33 of which don't even require a NICS check of all purchasers at gun shows. I have been told by a usually knowledgeable source on such matters that Texas has an effective screening process for issuing CCW permits. Assuming this to be true, maybe said process could be extended to gun purchases. What are the details of that process? Specifically with regard to mental health? What is the status of open carry in Texas? Virginia is an open carry state."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
