Should background checks include identifying the mentally ill

[OHCHUTE 0]

A University of Maryland student went nuts Monday morning and shot and killed one of his roommates and wounded another and finally shot himself dead. A month before, one roomate left the house due to the student acting weird. The perp bought guns the month before and the roomates were aware of guns in the group house. It's been reported the person was seeing mental health professionals and may have been on medication.


Now MD is having closed door sessions regarding gun control. Should any background check include:

1) People who are on antipsychotic medications, or who have been seen by mental health professionals for treatment be identified and DENIED the purchase of guns.

2) Should people (parents, roomates) report to law enforcement any person acting weird who is in possession of guns, and guns taken from that person.


With as many nut cases there are, I don't see the effectivenss of any background check if it doesn't include identifing the mentally disturbed being denied purchase of guns.

Hence this conversation is about combining mental health records along with any back ground check.

It is clear, a mentally disturbed person who is in possession of guns is a ticking time bomb that might need diffusing.

[Andy9o8 2]

I generally agree with you in principle. But as with anything, there's the potential for abuse. Lawrocket, for example, has posted his feelings about this in some detail as I recall. Maybe he'll weigh-in here.

[davjohns 1]

What Andy said.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with Andy. Nice in principle. But - how are you going to do that while maintaining a right to privacy? The President has suggested that the right to privacy (specifically HIPAA) is an "unnecessary legal obstacle." I find this frightening.

I can see ths ending up like aviation. Even a diagnosis of depression woul dbe enough to ground a pilot. So what we have now are a bunch of undiagnosed and untreated airline transport pilots. Untreated because treatment could and likely would mean "grounding."

HIPAA actually ensures confidentiality so that patients will be honest with a physician. MEntal health notes are actually not even accessible by the patient because they are considered so sensitive.

This is where these proposals are shocking. Take a right (the 2nd Amendment) and limit it. Make access to the right dependent upon a waiver of other rights, such as those guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. RIght to privacy? It's actually LIBERALS who are looking to eliminate it.

The gun nuts are still off worrying about the 2nd Amendment infringement to the point of blinding themselves to the other infringements.

Depressed? Too bad. Your life could be ruined if people found out. "He's got a depression diagnosis? He's got a handgun registered in 2006. GO get it. He's now a criminal because it's a felony for a person with a mental health diagnosis to be in possession of a firearm."

It's a double bind. Get treatment and lose a freedom? Or keep a freedom without getting treated.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

This question reminds me of a line from 'A Knight's Tale':

"YES! And at the same time, a resounding NO!"

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[OHCHUTE 0]

This is a tough one to regulate although it needs attention. The kid that moved saved himself. I too might have been a victim of murder/suicide in a group home not knowing Gary (a weird person) even had a shotgun in his room. I moved out the week before he shot himself. He was a horribly depressed person and I knew he was a ticking time bomb.

I guess it comes down to: get the hell away from weird people, especially if they are known to have guns. And report them to police if they are violent or are talking crazy along the lines of hurting anyone.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Mental health is a pretty serious HIPPA issue.

Many hospitals where I work on the medical records system have mental health patients locked and they will not even show up on a patient search unless the doctor is in that department.

I really don't see how you can have mental health patients on a 'do not buy' list. Who reports them to the list? Who maintains the list? Who has access to the list?

How do you get off the list?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Well then, more the argument you need to stay the hell away from nut cases. If that is possible.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I really don't see how you can have mental health patients on a 'do not buy' list. Who reports them to the list? Who maintains the list? Who has access to the list?

This is what the President meant when he referred to HIPAA as an "unnecessary legal obstacle." The President thinks that the govt. should have a list of all mental health patients. Obviously, electronic medical records makes that easier - central database of everything

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[promise5 17]

Just a thought. There are thousands of people that have the same mental health issues that this shooter and others have had without acting out in this manner. After the Sandy hook shooting a dad did an interview on the news about his son having the same mental health issues as the shooter without ever harming anyone. I think we need to be careful that when we begin to "see" people as a ticking time bomb just because of health issues they have.

No matter how slowly you say oranges it never sounds like gullible.
Believe me I tried.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think we need to be careful that when we begin to "see" people as a ticking time bomb just because of health issues they have.

isn't the comment too late? - plenty of congress critters looking to do just that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I think we need to be careful that when we begin to "see" people as a ticking time bomb just because of health issues they have.

A little too late. Check out years of people on here saying that a person with a hint of mental illness should, for all intents and purposes, be sequestered. "That guy has a history of depression. We cannot ever run the risk that he may snap and injure someone." I'm not exaggerating.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Just a thought. There are thousands of people that have the same mental health issues that this shooter and others have had without acting out in this manner. After the Sandy hook shooting a dad did an interview on the news about his son having the same mental health issues as the shooter without ever harming anyone. I think we need to be careful that when we begin to "see" people as a ticking time bomb just because of health issues they have.

Instead they seem to want to 'see' everyone as a ticking time bomb and remove everyone's access to certain long guns and hand guns. That's even a bigger stretch than trying to 'see' people with mental health issues as being time bombs.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

A University of Maryland student went nuts Monday morning and shot and killed one of his roommates and wounded another and finally shot himself dead. A month before, one roomate left the house due to the student acting weird. The perp bought guns the month before and the roomates were aware of guns in the group house. It's been reported the person was seeing mental health professionals and may have been on medication.

Now MD is having closed door sessions regarding gun control. Should any background check include:

1) People who are on antipsychotic medications, or who have been seen by mental health professionals for treatment be identified and DENIED the purchase of guns.

No. People should not be deprived of their civil rights without due process in which they received timely notice to prepare a defense, were allowed legal representation, and their case was properly adjudicated. Under current law where people pose a threat to themselves or others they can already be involuntarily committed and loose their firearms rights via that process under federal law.

"Mental illness" includes things like feeling down in the winter because you have low vitamin D levels in your blood stream. Such minor maladies make up the majority of the 26.2% of the general population which the National Institute for Mental Health estimate suffer from a mental disorder each year.

Even anti-psychotics aren't necessarily a big deal - some are used to control epileptic seizures.

Finally with a blanket "mental disorder" disqualification you're likely to have even more problems because people will have another reason to avoid treatment.

Quote

2) Should people (parents, roomates) report to law enforcement any person acting weird who is in possession of guns, and guns taken from that person.

It depends on how you define "weird." If they're displaying a firearm in the presence of another person in a rude/angry/threating manner they've committed a crime which merits reporting.

Otherwise the answer is generally "no" like when they're cleaning their gun in the kitchen (I wouldn't want powder residue, gun oil, or cleaning solvents on my nice carpet).

Quote

With as many nut cases there are, I don't see the effectivenss of any background check if it doesn't include identifing the mentally disturbed being denied purchase of guns.

The mentally disturbed aren't a big problem.

Most murders are done by criminals, with 75% of murders having adult criminal records. 12.5% com from juveniles who by definition can't have adult criminal records and assuming the same criminal past we'd get to 84% of murders committed by people who were already criminals.

4.3% of murderers do have a history of mental illness although that's not necessarily causal where federal studies of prisoners and the general population show an 11% rate of mental disorders in the later.

FWIW, like other rational people I spend more time thinking about how I'm going to spend my lottery millions (18X more likely than being killed by a crazy who shoots multiple people) or killed by a car when I'm walking or riding a bike (57X).

[Kennedy 0]

Check the ATF form every buyer fills out for every purchase at a dealer. ATF 4473. http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

That covers when a person with mental health issues becomes a prohibited person. Adjudicated incompetents and those committed to an institution. Just suffering a mental disorder doesn't automatically remove constitutional rights (no matter how much some think it should).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[davjohns 1]

Who do we define as mentally ill?

The medicated? Many mentally ill self-medicate without going to a doctor.

Those seeking treatment? That'll put an end to seeking treatment.

Those adjudicated mentally ill? They already can't legally purchase a firearm.

Depressed? What about post-partum depression? How do you get your right to own a firearm back if it passes?

Bi-polar? Even if you are being treated and non-violent?

Diabetic? Untreated, it can cause a form of schizophrenia.

Infection causing a temporary mental defect?

Traumatic brain injury?

What if you have extreme PMS?

PTSD when you return from combat? It is very common, but often subsides.

What's the procedure to be certified as 'sane' once you make the mistake of seeking help with an issue? Suppose you were prescribed anti-depressants after giving birth, but the hormonse stabilized. If it went on your record that you were being medicated, do you have to prove that you are better in order to restore your rights?

To further complicate the issue...if we don't trust someone with a firearm, should we trust them to vote, drive a car, consume alcohol...?

Quite a quagmire.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,096]

>Who do we define as mentally ill?

A great many people are mentally ill. I think you mean - who do we define as so mentally ill that they should not be allowed to own guns? I'd suggest using the current guidelines on when to put someone on a psych hold as a starting point, since that is a current legal and widely used standard that deprives someone of their rights in order to protect themselves and society.

>if we don't trust someone with a firearm, should we trust them to vote, drive a car,
>consume alcohol...?

If we don't trust someone enough to release them from a hospital or police station, they certainly should not be trusted with a firearm.

[davjohns 1]

Well, Bill, I think everyone can agree with you there. However, it isn't terribly helpful. Who's going to sell a firearm to someone while they are detained for psych reasons? How the heck did they get to the gun shop anyhow?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

The best defense against these types of incidents is each other. That's right- you, me, the neighbors and family members.

I'm one of the last people out there that wants to get involved in someone's business. I'm a bit of a hermit and a privacy freak.

But you look back at these recent incidents and someone or someones knew what was going on and didn't do anything.

More is coming out now about what was going on. The roomates knew there was a problem but didn't want to engage other people for fear that any outside intervention might backfire, which is a reasonable thing for these students to believe. That might have tipped the guy over the brink. But he tipped anyway. It's a delicate situation. In my case, I got away from the strange acting person because I could do it. It might have been more difficult for both these students to just leave.

Just horrible. There was article in post this morning about the person who died...

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

>Who do we define as mentally ill?

A great many people are mentally ill. I think you mean - who do we define as so mentally ill that they should not be allowed to own guns? I'd suggest using the current guidelines on when to put someone on a psych hold as a starting point, since that is a current legal and widely used standard that deprives someone of their rights in order to protect themselves and society.

>if we don't trust someone with a firearm, should we trust them to vote, drive a car,
>consume alcohol...?

If we don't trust someone enough to release them from a hospital or police station, they certainly should not be trusted with a firearm.

That sounds good at first, but are you aware of how easy it is to get someone involuntarily committed?
In Wisconsin, there's a "72 hour hold." It's used to put someone into a mental facility (usually the psych ward at the hospital) for "their own safety."
All it takes is a cop and/or a doctor and you are locked up.
I know of one guy who ended up on one because his soon-to-be ex-wife called the cops and said he was threatening suicide. She used the three days he was gone to clean out the house.

You said "starting point." and I understand that, but there needs to be real due process. I'd have a very serious problem taking away someone's rights based on that very, very easy committment process.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 3,096]

> Who's going to sell a firearm to someone while they are detained for psych reasons?

Psych hold = guns confiscated temporarily. Court finding of incompetence = it becomes permanent.

[1969912 0]

Quote

> Who's going to sell a firearm to someone while they are detained for psych reasons?

Psych hold = guns confiscated temporarily. Court finding of incompetence = it becomes permanent.

So is there a SWAT raid on the home of everyone put on a 72 hr evaluation hold? Cops breaking doors down, shooting dogs that bark at them, ripping the place apart looking for (possibly non-existent) guns?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[billvon 3,096]

>So is there a SWAT raid on the home of everyone put on a 72 hr evaluation hold?

Why do you need a SWAT team? They don't send a SWAT team when they repossess someone's car.

[1969912 0]

Quote

>So is there a SWAT raid on the home of everyone put on a 72 hr evaluation hold?

Why do you need a SWAT team? They don't send a SWAT team when they repossess someone's car.

Cops don't repossess cars. The seize cars in some cases. Cops often make a big show out of gun raids, brininging in large teams of heavily armed personnel. Do you want cops to search the residence of every person put on a 72 hr psych eval hold? Do they get their guns back after release? Why take the guns while the subject is in a locked facility?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[davjohns 1]

Quote

> Who's going to sell a firearm to someone while they are detained for psych reasons?

Psych hold = guns confiscated temporarily. Court finding of incompetence = it becomes permanent.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are describing. The only psych hold I am familiar with is when they lock you up for 72hrs to make sure you aren't suicidal. If that's what you are describing, nobody in there has guns, so I don't understand your point. Should we remove firearms from anyone who has been on a psych hold? I hope you know that all it takes to lock someone up is another someone claiming the person is suicidal. I've been involved in one. There is no real due process. It's a bit scary.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.