Be careful what you wish for - the problem with the "mental health" issue

[KimberUltra]

Stop taking aspirin and allergy pills now. Pretty soon a dosage of benedryl will get your 2a rights pulled.

 

[x_wrench]

in THEORY, a mental background check SOUNDS like a good idea. there are so many holes in that theory however, you could not get it to hold 2 drops of water no matter how much filler you put into the cup. who is doing the deciding, what qualifies you, what does not, how long will they hold it against you, what kind of loop holes are there (EVERY law has loopholes), etc. , etc. , etc. just another government folly that will end up costing tax payers millions, with no real result. other than denying good people guns.

 

[beatledog7]

I've actually been spending a lot of time puzzling this out. My current thinking is that the criteria for what I call the "Koo-koo DQ" ought to be really straightforward and simple.

If a person is adjudicated mentally ill to the extent that the person is to be institutionalized as a danger to himself or others, he may not own a gun. If a person is not dangerous enough to be institutionalized, that person may own a gun. Mental health professionals would not be the arbiters of who is dangerous, but they would serve as expert witnesses in hearings.

This way, a judge would have to declare that a person must be off the streets before that person is prohibited from owning a gun. People who get diagnosed and adjudicated as truly dangerous would get real help, the general public would be shielded from these dangerously mentally ill people, and non-dangerous people with minor issues would be able to exercise their 2A rights.

How many people would be declared dangerous if such a declaration would require their institutionalization? A whole lot fewer, for sure, and only the ones who really are dangerous and who have family or insurance resources to pay for institutionalization or who would qualify for state funding of the same.

That might mean, I admit, that a few people who probably should be declared dangerous would not be so declared because of the long-term costs, but that's the same argument people make about letting criminals out of prison. Society seems willing to accept the risk of having violent criminals on release programs to save resources, so it follows we should accept the risk of a few wackos not going to koo-koo U who really ought to be there.

This would protect the rights of the vast majority of people with various mental challenges that require treatment but do not make sufferers dangerous.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Mental health disqualifiers are worse than criminal records in many situations regarding RKBA and work. This has been bad and is getting worse. There is no easy answer except to balance one's need for treatment with the need to 'keep it off paper' when possible. For the anti's, it's all about adding to the no-gun list by any means and that is a flat fact.

 

[itsa pain]

gun owners dribbling out for 20 years only law abiding people should own guns has given them the rope to hang us. the same people that want your guns will decide who is law abiding. passing 70000 new laws a year and making them up as needed will nullify almost everyone. the useless nra agreeing to background checks in the 90's was another suicidal surrender

 

[pharmer]

"I have not seen any actual diagnoses reported by the people who made them. No doctor's report or hospital report or even a school psychological (and they don't give diagnoses, only recommend appropriate placement.)

I have heard that somebody reported he had this, or had that, or that a family member reported something, but I have not seen anything even close to an official medical and/or treatment history.

Have you?"

Every time you go to the doctor or "health care facility", to get paid they need to specify an ICD 9 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) code. This essentially labels whatever you are being treated for and entered in your "chart." With YoMaMaCare this will be conveniently electronic. And I'm sure it will be safeguarded against abuse. Joe

 

[bogon48]

From my perspective the real problem is with those situations where someone has come in contact with the mental health system, expressed violent intent toward oneself or others and then fallen through the cracks, due to a privacy issue or simple inactivity by authorities. These people need to be prevented from owning firearms until they are judged to be no longer a threat. This won't stop people like the Newtown murderer, who planned his attack very thoroughly and quietly, but it would have stopped the Aurora and VA Tech shootings.

I'll also point out that goodly number of the firearms deaths cited each year are suicides, including those of vets. These suicide numbers are lumped with other crimes to make guns look totally evil. In 2010 there were over 19,000 gun suicides that might have been prevented had someone, even a family member, temporarily locked up the guns. Yeah, someone could still drive into a tree or take pills, but suicidal impulses are often short-lived, and people can overcome them.

I don't believe every so-called "mental illness" is a permanent disqualifier for firearm ownership. Heck, if more shooters had some form of obessive/compulsiveness, maybe there would be fewer accidents. Yet there are clear conditions and disorders where the person should not have guns for some period of time. To me it's sorta like suspending a drunk's license to drive until they dry out.

 

[rondog]

I keep sayin', all it'll take is a checkmark in a box on an evaluation form, and your gun rights are toast.

 

[Twiki357]

beatledog7: "If a person is adjudicated mentally ill to the extent that the person is to be institutionalized as a danger to himself or others, he may not own a gun." This should be the ONLY criteria for disqualifying a person as mentally ill. I certainly don't want any quack psychologist who may just be anti-gun making the decision and reporting that could prohibit an otherwise normal person.

The mentally ill criteria would be just as wrong as the currently unjust disqualifying criminal criteria of "Could be sentenced to a year or more." A minor offence of shoplifting a loaf of bread "COULD" carry, but hopefully would not, carry a one year sentence, but should that disqualify the person his/her 2A rights? It does now!

 

[JohnBT]

"Every time you go to the doctor or "health care facility", to get paid they need to specify an ICD 9 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems) code. This essentially labels whatever you are being treated for and entered in your "chart." "

That's precisely the info I have not seen of Mr. Lanza's. Everything I have seen is secondhand "I heard" or "I was told."

 

[BryanDavis]

Before anybody agrees to the government's intrusion into another person's medical history on the basis that it would benefit society, please ask yourself two questions... why? ... and, to what end?

If the answers are that we need to keep guns away from the mentally incompetent in order to keep horrific events like Newtown from happening... well, you need to understand that none of the proposed or recently enacted laws would have prevented Adam Lanza from doing what he did. You see, here's something that isn't generally reported... while Adam didn't fit into the "normal" box that society (and by extension, our government) seems to think people should fit into, NONE of his diagnoses included any conditions linked to violent behavior. And with no diagnosed propensity for violence, there was no reason to bar either him, or his mother from owning firearms. If this is upsetting to you, please identify which of his specific mental illnesses should have been the red flag in this case? Or should just the fact that he had some kind of mental illness be enough to bar him from firearm ownership?

Pushing, or even just accepting "mental illness" as a justifiable reason to disarm the American people based on the Sandy Hook tragedy is foolish on its face. And it is also dangerous. How many "normal" people have had - at one time or another in their lives - a period in which they were anxious or depressed, had a bout of OCD or ADD, had a panic attack, or were forced to get treatment for anger management because they got in a fight as a teen? What of those among us that have phobias, or eating disorders? Would you argue that these mental deficiencies are any less dangerous than Lanza's non-violent conditions? Or would you instead willingly turn in your firearms because you, or your roommate, or a member of your family, or your holiday houseguest, have been proven to be less than mentally perfect and shouldn’t be trusted around such a dangerous tool?

Before you answer, I’d like to remind you that there are those that would argue that even wanting to possess an “instrument of death” like a firearm is a legitimate sign of mental deficiency. So, be careful what you wish for, for you just might get it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-w...ntal-illness-registry-just-alarming-total-gun

The NRA is calling for a registry of the mentally ill.

From the article (emphasis is Not mine):

Indeed, the N.R.A. itself, in response to the massacre in Newtown, argued that mental illness, and not the guns themselves, was at the root of recent shooting sprees. The group called for a national registry of people with mental illness -- an alternative that legal experts agree would raise at least as many constitutional alarms as the banning of gun ownership.

I'm an NRA member, endowment-life level, but this sort of behavior is beyond reproach. I attempted to email Wayne LaPierre about it specifically referencing the fact that I have donated a great deal of money to the NRA, but it just got bounced back to me as unauthorized.

I hate to say this, but if worse came to worse, you could give up your guns. You can't just "give up" a diagnosis of being mentally ill.