Mental health check requirement to own guns???

[Cee Zee]

What I am saying is:

Not what I asked you. Why is it you expect me to dig up proof and all you do is speculate? You're in a very small minority if you believe there is no medical database being formed. The entire function of Obamacare depends on having that database. From rationing care to just knowing what bills to pay for you they have your medical records just like the insurance industry did before. I gave you proof that there are already medical databases in existence and that they had already been abused. But once again you think you can cling to one single point that you "think" proves your point and then not bother even trying to answer my question of you.

That's a lame game friend. Answer my question.

 

[Tcruse]

The reality is that there are many, many more people in this country than there were just a few years ago. Statistically there is more potential for nuts to get guns and misuse them. Add to that the availability of high-power, high-capacity rifles and we've got a problem.

I'm not big on gun control but it seems to me that our military and law enforcement personnel have trained long and hard for the privilege of carrying assault weapons, and it's a shame that these honorable pieces of equipment have been made available to every melon-blasting kid who wants one.

Just my opinion, everybody's got one.

"availability of high-power, high-capacity rifles" - what exactly are you referring to? Certainly, the semi-automatic AR-15 in .223/5.56 is a medium range low power rifle. Do you consider the standard 30 round mag "high-capacity"?

 

[Tcruse]

What so called mental health professional would approve ANYONE having a gun?

AFS

Member organizations:
CSGV consists of 48 organizations. Among them are religious organizations, child welfare advocacy groups, public health professionals, social justice, and political action organizations.[6]

Considering the number of medical related organizations that are part of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) that has its goal to remove guns from "ordinary people", I would say at least there is lots of smoke and likely some fire in this claim.

Member groups include:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of Suicidology
American Ethical Union
American Jewish Committee
American Jewish Congress
American Psychiatric Association
American Public Health Association
Americans for Democratic Action
Association of Japanese Families of Gun Violence Victims in the U. S. A.
Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
The Bible Holiness Movement, International
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Children's Defense Fund
Child Welfare League of America, Inc.
Church of the Brethren
Communitarian Network
The Council of The Great City Schools
DC for Democracy
The DISARM Education Fund
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Jesuit Conference - Office of Social Ministries
Jewish Community Center Association
Jewish Women International
Loretto Community
Mennonite Central Committee
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of Negro Women
National Urban League
North American Federation of Temple Youth
Pan American Trauma Association
Peace Action of Washington
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association
UNITE HERE
United Church of Christ
United Federation of Teachers
United Methodist Church Board of Church & Society
United States Conference of Mayors
United States Student Association
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Woman's National Democratic Club
Women's League for Conservative Judaism
YWCA of U. S. A.

 

[Tcruse]

It is hard to track down where most of the claims about the ACA setting up a federal health record database come from but most seem to be centered on two things. One, the ACA requires medical providers switch to electronic records or face a penalty. Two, the ACA sets up PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute). PCORI was set up to do research on the effectiveness of treatments. Research like:

• Does new wonder drug X that costs $100 per dose actually work better than old generic drug Y that costs $1 per dose.
• Does robotic surgery have better outcomes than old fashion arthroscopic.
• Does hospital A that charges $30K for a hip replacement have better outcomes that hospital B than charges $10K.

The ACA allows PCORI access to health care records to do this type of research but data used has the patient identifying information removed. It also does not set up a new database but pulls specific data require for a study from existing databases. Such a system allows researchers access to sample sizes much larger than what they would get with a normal clinical trial.

I agree with your statements, however, as part of the electronic medical record program certification, there is a requirement to demonstrate a real time data feed (HL-7 v2.51) to a "government agency" (yet to be setup) that includes when you arrived, when you left, what you paid, what procedures were done, what diagnosis codes were used, and demographic information. Certainly a lot of information that could be abused easily.

 

[Ed Ames]

You're claiming Newsmax is not a reliable source???

They really aren't. They are full a member of the confirmation bias press. They are generally cited only when the person citing them does a quick google source for anything that can bolster their on-line argument and doesn't research the quality ot those citations. They have been caught reporting counterfactual stories fairly often for such a small operation.

In other words, they are just like the Huffington Post.

They aren't credible enough to cite in an informal online discussion.

 

[hartcreek]

Yes I can prove that the government is building a database. These group discussion are being monitored right now at two places in the United States. How do I know......my sister used to live so close you could see the super computer building out on the Yakima Fireing Center.

 

[JSH1]

Not what I asked you. Why is it you expect me to dig up proof and all you do is speculate?

I didn't ask you to prove your claims, Davek1977 did. I simply pointed out that one of the articles you linked as proof does not support your claim.

Again, you can believe what you want to believe. I'm done with this discussion as the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with guns or gun rights.

 

[Red Wind]

Man does this thread bring Catch 22 to mind... or Kafka.

Or George Orwell. Or Walt Kelly: "We have met the enemy and it is us."

 

[Tony k]

I don't buy the idea that are people with a "mental illness" are more dangerous than the general population. In fact, there's been plenty of studies to indicate that the mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators of violent crime.

A quick interwebs search brought me to this government website: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

"The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small. only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)."

"People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)."

So there's an entire group of American Citizens who commit very little violence and are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population. That doesn't seem like a group of people who should be categorically rendered defenseless.

 

[jon_in_wv]

The problem of the mentally ill getting firearms is well known and ignored by the government. After the Virginia Tech shooting the ATF provided Congress a study showing that only 25 states reported if people were adjudicated mentally defective and only 4 did it regularly. Congress did nothing until the manchin-toomey "compromise" where they tried to gain access to the medical records of everyone so they could have some bureaucrat take over "adjudicating" whether or not you could possess a firearm. If Congress was even remotely worried about the mentall ill getting weapons they would simply create a website or NCIC function for states to input the information and fund the collection of the information. They won't do it. The goal isn't to stop a few mentally ill people from getting firearms, its a red herring, the real goal is to USE the excuse of the mentally ill to prohibit as many people as possible from possessing firearms. Until they can find a way to pass that they aren't interested because just like an assault weapons ban it just isn't an effective way to curb deaths.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not sure if this belongs in Legal, but I was watching the local news tonight, and they mentioned something I have never heard. The Little Rock police had met with some reps of the city to express their desires for future legislation. One of their desires was for clarity on how to return a firearm to a qualified person when the firearm was seized from a "mentally incompetent" person.

The weird comment was this: Arkansas doesn't require mental health checks as a prerequisite of gun ownership like some other states do.

My question is there any state that requires an individual to undergo a mental health evaluation prior to purchase?

I know not to expect them to know what they're talking about, but it irritates me when they just spout inaccuracies as fact.

The form you sign when you buy a firearm, and the phone call made to check on your elegibility are FEDERAL matters. The state neither has nor needs a separate check.

If the police are in doubt about a particular person whom they are returning a firearm, let them call the FBI line that gun dealers use.

 

[Cee Zee]

They are full a member of the confirmation bias press. They are generally cited only when the person citing them does a quick google source for anything that can bolster their on-line argument and doesn't research the quality ot those citations. They have been caught reporting counterfactual stories fairly often for such a small operation.

In other words, they are just like the Huffington Post.

They aren't credible enough to cite in an informal online discussion.

Actually they aren't. I don't give much credence to "any" news gathering organiztion these days but we're talking a left leaning publication citing a right wing congressman's views and not trying to discredit them. You won't find the Huffingandpuffingpost doing anything like that. They are strictly a house organ for the progressive movement.

The fact that a normally liberal outlet backs up the views of a conservative gives them credibility IMO at least in this case. They are at least as reliable as pretty much any other news organization. They do manage to get reports out that go against their grain at times. I am a very discerning consumer of news. I don't cite them as the source for all information. I just think the fact that left leaning organization published a right leaning POV here gives them credibility on this point.

I could discredit pretty much every news outlet on the planet and not even break a sweat (one at a time). I'm not claiming they get it right all the time. Just this time. I've made that point already in a previous post.

The situation is this. Every half way credible news organization knows a database is being constructed. Some think that's a good thing. Most don't whether they are on the left or right. But this is not the baby of just one news outlet. It is a commonly accepted POV. I can cite plenty of other sources. I just haven't done it because I'm not the defender of common knowledge. I just know what it is. I have been asked for a citation for my views. I provided it and of course it was just criticized. I am not required to satisfy everyone with an axe to grind here. Do your own research. If you do you'll quickly find there are other news organizations that support this claim. I'm tired of making this point. You go find proof that the claims of that congressman are false. When I see that maybe I'll respond. But I won't be posting citations so that others can nitpick them. It's my turn to nitpick. Show me any source that claims that no database is being created and then we'll talk.

Actually I feel like showing that my view is not some isolated view here. Just remember that NO ONE has cited a source showing this information is false. Here are a few that agree:

First the uber liberal US News magazine

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...amacare-looks-to-collect-private-medical-info

Then there's the right wing oracle, the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304198004575171743533402022

They say this, "For example, it requires doctors to record patients' treatments in an electronic medical database and monitors doctors' decisions. Dr. David Blumenthal, the Obama administration's National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, explained in the New England Journal of Medicine last April that "embedded clinical decision support"—his euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do—will manage the quality of doctors' decisions. The Supreme Court is likely to view these controls as a "radical shift" in authority from the states to the federal government, and even more important, a threat to privacy rights."

Then there's the left wing Daily Caller as we swing from side to side

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/22/biggest-brother-the-obamacare-database/

They say this, "Would you trust thousands of low-level Federal bureaucrats and contractors with one-touch access to your private financial and medical information? Under Obamacare you won’t have any choice. As the Obamacare train-wreck begins to gather steam, there is increasing concern in Congress over something called the Federal Data Services Hub. The Data Hub is a comprehensive database of personal information being established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the federally facilitated health insurance exchanges."

And one more from the left, The New York Post

http://nypost.com/2011/06/16/how-obamacare-destroys-your-privacy/

Their quote, "The 2009 stimulus and the Obama health law enacted last year established a national electronic health database that will hold and display your lifelong medical history — making it accessible to a troubling number of strangers, including government employees and a variety of health-care personnel."

That should be enough to establish that I am not alone with Newsmax on this. I can't imagine people are so totally uniformed that they don't even know about this but here you are. Now let's see "just one" citation that claims this isn't happening. Just one. I want my chance to nitpick. It's going to be easy BTW. But it isn't going to happen because no one but me has even bothered to cite another source. Generally the more sources you cite on a board like this the more people resent being proven wrong so they gang up on your like jackals. So consider this my last post on the subject. Anyone who doesn't understand what's going on isn't going to accept easily that they were totally out of touch. The database is real and ignoring it won't make it go away. Neither will nitpicking my source. Where's your source anyway? Meanwhile I'm dusting off my shoes and moving on.

 

[itsa pain]

The reality is that there are many, many more people in this country than there were just a few years ago. Statistically there is more potential for nuts to get guns and misuse them. Add to that the availability of high-power, high-capacity rifles and we've got a problem.

I'm not big on gun control but it seems to me that our military and law enforcement personnel have trained long and hard for the privilege of carrying assault weapons, and it's a shame that these honorable pieces of equipment have been made available to every melon-blasting kid who wants one.

Just my opinion, everybody's got one.

If you think that only police and military should have semi auto anti assault rifles then I say you are mentally unstable and have suicidal tendencies

 

[Ed Ames]

Newsmax is full a member of the confirmation bias press.

Actually they aren't. I don't give much credence to "any" news gathering organiztion these days but we're talking a left leaning publication citing a right wing congressman's views and not trying to discredit them.

Recorded for posterity. They were created to be hard-right. If you consider them left-leaning, you are either extremely biased, or you don't know much about them.

As for the database argument, it's all just wind. Medicare (passed 50 years ago) created common billing and diagnostic codes used by everyone who wants to be able to bill medicare for services. Medicare also pushed detailed (down to the individual aspirin) billing. Since it was needed for medicare, it is used for everything. That billing information provides more than enough information to tell what diseases your doctors think you have, all nicely coded for easy analysis. From that point onward anyone in the billing process knows more about your doctor's opinion of your health than your doctor wants you to have...and the government has been increasingly involved in the billing process and has always had access to those records. Up until Obamacare the right thought that was great because they were told it was to help identify/prevent medicare fraud.

None of which is particularly relevant to gun owners today, because the current law strips the civil rights (2A) of anyone who has been found incompetent as a legal matter. That isn't medical records, it is court records, and court records aren't subject to HIPAA

It also has very little to do with the OP's question.

 

[Cee Zee]

Still nitpicking I see. Totally ignored my other evidence. I suppose US News, The Daily Caller and the NY Post are all conservative too, right? Who do you think cares that I assumed Newsmax to be part of the MSM? Big whoop but you go and record it for posterity. LOL

Where's your proof "it's all just wind"??? I don't see any citations that back up your POV. So all those people who are concerned about the huge data center being built are what... idiots? No one thinks what you do except dyed in the wool Obama supporters and they still think you can keep your insurance if you like it. You're absolutely right that social security created a database of your medical info "IF" you were on Medicare. And it was abused. You just detailed how. And now you think a new, much bigger database won't be??? Ever hear of Eric Snowden? The whole world thinks the US is invading their privacy and using the information they gather against them. But you have it all figured out. It's not a problem. Gotcha.

Yeah the gubmit used that medicare database to accuse some doctors of abuse because they got more payment than other doctors. They sorta failed to reveal that those doctors treated more people on Medicare. But their names were dragged through the mud in every news media outlet coming and going. Want to know if your doctor was one of those who got "too much money"? Look here. Would you want the government telling people how much money you make? That's exactly what they did. They assumed more payments equaled abuse. That's quite an assumption considering there were about 100,000 doctors supposedly getting paid too much. They actually found out that oncologists got paid more than other doctors!!!! Shocking considering how many old people get cancer and what it takes to treat them including a tremendous amount of work by their doctors. Yeah it's critical that the gubmit use our private data to figure out what everyone already knew - cancer doctors make lots of money. Shocking and perfect worth the invasion of our privacy to collect that info. (note the sarcasm)

Like I said, you detailed the abuse of that database social security created. It was never meant for doctors to use for billing insurance either (as you pointed out it was). That alone was an abuse of the database. Some people really trust things way too much. Doctors and insurance companies used the system for their benefit. Who gave them that right? Why do you think there are laws about privacy of health care treatment? Clearly they aren't followed but they should be. And social security was one of the worst abusers of that privacy. In another post in this thread I detailed how medical evidence about what pain medicine people were using was used in an ongoing police investigation. How did they get that information? And what else do they use that data for? It certainly was never collected to be used to prosecute people. Are you getting any of this? Thousands of people were revealed to be taking pain killers. I'm sure a lot of them were abusing those pain killers. I'm sure others weren't. I'm sure it's better for junkies to be given a maintenance dose of pain killers rather than having them rob and murder to get what they want. Every self respecting doctor in the country thought that not long ago. A few idiots who let greed get the best of them made that policy go away. They didn't end drug abuse in my area. Instead of taking prescription pain meds those junkies are now taking heroin and big city drug gangs are setting up shop to sell it. But hey it made for great publicity to show the world that too many people were addicts. It didn't help anything. It made things worse. And it made people targets for other junkies who now knew where to go to steal pain meds.

Again medical data is not a crime fighting tool in spite of the perfectly innocent investigations into doctor abuses. That social security database has been abused over and over again. And you wonder why people don't want an even more centralized list where every law enforcement group in the country has access to it? Are you serious? Do you trust doctors with your medical records? How about the police? BATF? FBI? NSA?

It's insane to think that database won't be abused including by those seeking to grab guns. Have you paid attention to what's going on in this country with spying and data collection??? And you trust the government after all that?????????????????????????????????

As for the database argument, it's all just wind.

QFP. When the gun grabbers attempt to use that database to take guns from people I'll point you back to this. You think that won't be worse than being mistaken about an obscure news agency's politics?

 

[Tony k]

Jon_in_wv said:

The problem of the mentally ill getting firearms is well known and ignored by the government. After the Virginia Tech shooting the ATF provided Congress a study showing that only 25 states reported if people were adjudicated mentally defective and only 4 did it regularly. Congress did nothing until the manchin-toomey "compromise" where they tried to gain access to the medical records of everyone so they could have some bureaucrat take over "adjudicating" whether or not you could possess a firearm. If Congress was even remotely worried about the mentall ill getting weapons they would simply create a website or NCIC function for states to input the information and fund the collection of the information. They won't do it. The goal isn't to stop a few mentally ill people from getting firearms, its a red herring, the real goal is to USE the excuse of the mentally ill to prohibit as many people as possible from possessing firearms. Until they can find a way to pass that they aren't interested because just like an assault weapons ban it just isn't an effective way to curb deaths.

.

I'm 100% with you on the last part of your post (quoted in bold). I'm gonna quibble with you a little bit about the first part.

Are we using the terms "mentally ill" and "adjudicated mentally defective" interchangeably for the purposes of this discussion? By my way of thinking, mental illness is a broad category that includes a very small sub-population of people who should probably be adjudicated mentally defective (and also represent a threat to others). I'm not too concerned about someone who washes their hands 100 times a day having a gun. I'm not too concerned about the "crazy cat lady" having a gun. Those folks are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of crime. I am concerned about the sociopath who has no conscience or empathy and is just as likely to shoot you as give you the time of day. There's a huge difference between the first to examples (hand washer and cat lady) compared to the third example. It's wrong to lump them all together.

I think the feds should ignore most cases of the mentally ill getting firearms. We hear a lot about crazy people going on rampages with guns because it is highly sensational and makes money for the media. Those types of incidences are a very small percentage of the total murders committed. Like you said Jon, mental illness is a red herring. A back door way to grab guns.

 

[Blue Duck]

Interesting thread. Not to worry. They want you to be nuts when you vote, just not if you want to own a gun.

 

[Ed Ames]

Where's your proof "it's all just wind"??? I don't see any citations that back up your POV.

I don't need a higher authority to back up my opinions.

Data are neutral and without intention. They are terrain. We as humans fight over their terrain just as we fight over land, seeking advantage in whatever we find. You are saying that due to technology, the terrain is too easy for others, your opponents, to access. I am saying that while the terrain exists, it will be fought over and accessability is just a skirmish in that fight.

While health data are collected, there will be abuse. Someone will ignore the rules or change the rules, and bad things will happen. It doesn't matter if those records are on paper or digital. It doesn't matter if they are centralized or indexed and searchable. The existence of those data is power, and that power will be abused. That is an axiom.

But...even as you and your enemies are fighting on the terrain, others are conducting epidemiological studies, or remitting payments for the health care services you receive. Which means the terrain - data - is not going away. As such any discussion of databases and access is just wind. You should instead be talking about how to use those data to forward your cause.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No they are not: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...l-database-ru/

Oh, yeah. THAT'S a credible source.

 

[fastbolt]

There's a difference between intimating a "mental health check" would be required in order to qualify for purchasing a firearm, versus having existing state mental health records made available to the existing fed database used for NICS.

This subject is far from simple, and it's been generating no small amount of concern and discussion (and disagreement, it seems) among mental health professionals, advocates, etc. At least discussing the subject may result in a better understanding of what really needs to be discussed, and what ought to be done and could be done within our legal system and manner of government.

Now, getting any uniformity from the states regarding what they collect, how they collect it, how they make it accessible to a fed database, etc? Good luck. Might be an uphill effort over the next several years.

My concern would be some legislator having some group of staffers craft some "quick fix" legislation that that would be offered to appeal to a constituency (or lobbyists, donors, etc), but in both the short & long run would actually create more problems.

NOT a simple subject.

Lots of things from which to choose when starting to examine this subject, too.

Random selections ...

http://www.jaapl.org/content/36/1/123.full

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0188.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ntrol-background-checks-mentally-ill/2028689/

 

[Cee Zee]

There's a difference between intimating a "mental health check" would be required in order to qualify for purchasing a firearm

I never so much as implied that this had already happened. I just said it was a potential threat to our rights through the back door. I also said it wouldn't be the first time gun issues had been brought up by medical people looking to curtail gun ownership. It's a concern and that's all I said it was.

I don't need a higher authority to back up my opinions.

Can't find any either.

 

[Ed Ames]

Wouldn't waste my time, in a conversation with someone who can't tell if a person agrees or disagrees with their position.

 

[fastbolt]

I never so much as implied that this had already happened. I just said it was a potential threat to our rights through the back door. I also said it wouldn't be the first time gun issues had been brought up by medical people looking to curtail gun ownership. It's a concern and that's all I said it was.

Don't mistake my comment to apply to you, specifically, as I wasn't responding to anything you'd currently been discussing with other members. My comment was only intended to interject a bit of clarification and possible meaning to the overall earlier conversation of this thread.

Perhaps you made the simple mistake of thinking my comment was somehow directed to, or in reaction to, the posts you'd been making?

It was merely a coincidence of timing. I was posting in general reaction to the OP's thread-starting question, not anything you'd been debating with someone else.

 

[Tony k]

+1 to post #68. Well said, fastbolt.

 

[Cee Zee]

Perhaps you made the simple mistake of thinking my comment was somehow directed to, or in reaction to, the posts you'd been making?

Actually I didn't think you singled me out. I was just making a point of clarification too for those that might assume erroneously from what others have said.