| User | Comment |
|---|
| southernyankee | | posted 22-Apr-2007 1:38am |
Where's the option for undecided? I definatly think its breach of privacy, and also a very dangerous precedent to let any psychiatric official to ban someone for life from owning a gun. What I think they should perhaps do is keep a database of people RECENTLY committed. The limit should be from one to five years and have the results thrown out of the system after that, and there should also be an appeals process. They should also practice safe deletion when someone gets thrown out of the system and make it hard from the information leaking to insurance companies. |
| cabinfever | | posted 22-Apr-2007 2:28am |
Yes, if certain specifications are met, i.e. documented violent tendencies. |
| RGirl | | posted 22-Apr-2007 3:25am |
Yes, if certain specs have been met that deem this person at risk for violet or suicidal acts. I will tell you why. I know personally how deceiving the brain can be. Years back before the full extent of damage was known I spent a lot of time isolated and my brain had manufactured memories that were false. People noticed something was off but not to the true extent. To make a long long involved delusion brief I believed that a friend of mine had committed suicide during a stand off with police. The scary part was that I believed it had been a suicide pact and I hadn't fulfilled my part of the bargain. The only way for me to gain peace was to do what I had promised to do and meet her on the other side. She was waiting for me. Even scarier, at the time I lived with my mom and stepdad. My stepdad is a gun enthusiast. I had open easy access to guns. Luckily the problem was revealed when I went for a follow up doctor's appointment the next day.
Unrelated, but related, when I was 15 I attempted suicide and I meant it. There was something akin to divine intervention where that one is concerned but that was a result of outside problems. I'd moved away from friends, my parents were drunk &/or high every night, I was gay and couldn't talk about my life openly and my girlfriend broke up with me because I had moved so far away. But to understand the serious intent I had was scary.
If the US had a data base that said 'don't sell this person a gun under any circumstances' I'd ask my name be put on there because even it has been years and I take medication I know how thoroughly your brain can trick you into believing something that is not true is. That false memory was so clear I could feel the girl's blood splatter on my face- and it never happened. Isolation was a factor in how it got as far as it did.
|
| ausfox | | posted 22-Apr-2007 4:12am |
Yes, but how would you manage that? Every man and his dog seems to have a mental illness these days. Then there would be all the people who have mental illnesses but it's not recorded. I don't think it would work in reality. |
| RGirl | | (reply to ausfox) posted 22-Apr-2007 6:12am |
It wouldn't have to be every person. Possibly just those that have exhibited dangerous or violent behavior in the past in association with their 'mental illness'. |
dab   | | posted 22-Apr-2007 7:27am |
It seems like such a sensible idea. In fact, that's the idea, in part, behind the instant check system that's in place in the US right now. However, when you look at all the things that must be in place to make it work and if you have any consideration for privacy and any appreciation for how such systems will be used against people once they exist, maybe it's not such a good idea. |
bill  | | posted 22-Apr-2007 7:29am |
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
I know the recent tragic shooting is very upsetting, but it's really a very small incident compared to so many other problems in our society (problems that kill hundreds of people a day if you want to put it in numbers). Trying to prevent random acts of violence may seem like a good idea, but it's not going to work. If someone gets it in their head that they want to kill people, there isn't a lot we can do about it. We may be able to make it hard for them to get a gun legally. But, wont they just get the gun in the black market in that case? Or, if not a gun, maybe they'll build a bomb, or use poison to kill, there are hundreds of ways someone can kill people.
I also think it's a bad idea to create a government agency whose job it is to determine if someone meets "certain specifications", etc. We don't need more government agencies up in our face, combing through our lives, looking for flaws. Such things are a burden on our society. They cost money (our government is already in massive debt, we can't afford to make it bigger, especially not to solve a "problem" that is actually quite small if you adjust for media hype). It may seem like the privacy issue is no big deal. You're probably thinking "I'm not a psycho, so this wont affect me." But, stuff like this can and will get used against innocent people. It's inevitable.
We already have a system for catching people with a history of violence, it's the criminal justice system. That system requires proof of violent tendencies, actual acts that have been proven in court. Also, we already have gun control. If someone commits a violent crime, it becomes very hard for them to purchase a gun legally.
Please, no more. I can't tell you how disturbing it is to see people willingly ask for bigger government which takes away more and more of their rights and privacies, all for the sake of some kind of false security. Wont it be sad if in 50 years we live in a police state, because it's what people wanted. Because they were afraid, people built a society with little or no freedoms and a government with sweeping control over their lives. Tyranny via democracy. |
Enheduanna  | | posted 22-Apr-2007 9:49am |
Do you really think it would stop someone determined to get a gun? It's an invasion of privacy, especially as the person may have made a full recovery. It also applies a single standard to everyone, and is thus too general and indiscriminate. |
Galomorro  | | posted 22-Apr-2007 10:36am |
Yes but I thought there already WAS such a thing in most places in the US at least. |
| Gomezy3k | | posted 22-Apr-2007 10:46am |
We already have such laws. The reason the Virginia Tech shooter was able to buy a gun was because of a failure in the mental health system to list it, not the gun laws... He was checked out and released with nothing going into the "System"... So we do not need any more gun laws... |
| Enheduanna | | posted 22-Apr-2007 10:48am |
Apparently the US does have such a law, although not such a database. According to the New York Times: 'Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun. ... The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”' I guess the mental-health status is supposed to show up in the required background checks for purchasing a gun, but apparently it didn't work in the case of Cho Seung-Hui. |
| Amanda | | posted 22-Apr-2007 12:50pm |
Other.
I don't really see the point in it. If someone wants to get a gun, they're going to get one regardless of what kind of laws there are. They can steal a gun, buy a gun off the streets, or get a friend or family member to purchase the gun for them. If someone is planning to use a firearm to committ a crime, I don't think they're all that worried about legally purchasing a gun. Do you really think someone is going to think, "This gun wasn't purchased legally? I can't use it to kill anyone." I seriously doubt that goes through someone's head.
Also, there are many different degrees of mental illness. Where do you draw the line? Someone may have been admitted to a mental hospital during a bad time in their life. Maybe they were depressed and were a threat to themselves. Maybe they went through a bad divorce and felt like killing their spouse. But, after the bad time in their life was over, they're perfectly fine. They go on to lead a happy, normal life. Should that person, because of one time period in their life, not be allowed to purchase a firearm? Who's to decide which person can purchase a firearm and which one shouldn't?
There are laws that prevent some mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. I think gun laws are useless, though. |
| filiasan | | posted 22-Apr-2007 4:29pm |
What degree of mental illness? I'd have to say people with mild learning disabilities are fine. I'm one of them. I know others who are and they are not psychos. I still think it's a good idea, though. Anyone who seems insane (that is, more than acceptable, as the average person is in fact half-insane) should not be allowed to carry a gun. |
| Zang | | posted 22-Apr-2007 6:38pm |
That sounds contrary to fundamental human rights. I seriously doubt that it would accomplish anything meaningful either. |
| Zang | | (reply to bill) posted 22-Apr-2007 6:39pm |
*applause* |
| dullmoon | | posted 22-Apr-2007 7:14pm |
In the case of documented schizophrenia, definitely. General mental health issues, like depression... no. This would discourage many people, say... law enforcement officers, from seeking professional help when they need it (often, given the nature of their occupations). |
Iseult  | | posted 22-Apr-2007 7:28pm |
I'm inclined to say yes, but I'm going to go with no. I think it could be a good idea, however, someone who is out there to kill doens't need a gun - a butcher's knife will suffice (or a chainsaw). I like my privacy and I'm sure other people do. And I'm sure there's plenty of undiagnosed mental people running around, so what's stopping them from getting a firearm? |
| Enigma | | posted 22-Apr-2007 8:36pm |
A person who really wants a gun to do something illegal doesn't need to purchase it from a gun shop. I'm sure most criminals do not buy their guns from a gun store, it would be much more expensive than street price.
|
| RGirl | | (reply to bill) posted 22-Apr-2007 9:43pm |
"Trying to prevent random acts of violence may seem like a good idea, but it's not going to work."
I just watched 60 Minutes and on there they had two guys that were in the Secret Service and their job was to examine cases of assassinations and attempts. This included interviewing people. They were basically looking to form a sort of profile. They discovered that stalking was a major part and that these crimes had been planned well in advance. Then they applied what they knew to school shootings. There also those crimes were planned in advance. Some had even told other school members what they were going to do and when. In these cases it can't be called 'random'.
We already have a system for catching people with a history of violence, it's the criminal justice system. That system requires proof of violent tendencies, actual acts that have been proven in court. Also, we already have gun control. If someone commits a violent crime, it becomes very hard for them to purchase a gun legally.
And those that never went through the legal system? People who were treated medically for some illness. Say John is admitted for depression and he tells the doctor he has been stalking some one and having violent urges? He hasn't committed a crime yet but he is at risk. |
| RGirl |
It also applies a single standard to everyone, and is thus too general and indiscriminate.
I don't understand what you mean by this? |
| RGirl |
Who enters your name? What if you haven't been through the legal system? What about some that was admitted voluntarily but was still very ill and could become ill again? I'm talking about disorders you aren't cured of, but successfully treated with always a possibility for a relapse or episode. I don't mean anyone who was ever in a psychiatric facility. Just those that are showing blips on the danger for violence screen. |
LindaH   | | posted 22-Apr-2007 9:51pm |
Keep in mind, people can be charged with "assault" for dumping water on people. Is "assault" considered a "violent" crime? Yes. Is dousing people with water worthy of denying that person a firearm? No. |
| RGirl | | (reply to Amanda) posted 22-Apr-2007 9:54pm |
I didn't say every person that has been under psychiatric care shouldn't be allowed to have a gun? I am talking mostly about chronic type illnesses. They aren't cured, they are treated and there is risk of an increase in symptoms. And even then, certain symptoms that could be dangerous if they were to increase. |
| RGirl | | (reply to LindaH) posted 22-Apr-2007 9:56pm |
What are you referring to with 'assault'? |
| LindaH | | (reply to RGirl) posted 22-Apr-2007 10:09pm |
Regarding not allowing people convicted of violent crimes to carry firearms, or people with mental illnesses that include violence, you have to be careful not to deny firearms to someone just because they do petty minor "violent" assaults, like grabbing someone's arm, nudging someone out of their way, spraying people with water, etc. A person could technically be charged with "assault" but not have a violent bone in their body. |
| Amanda | | (reply to RGirl) posted 22-Apr-2007 11:47pm |
Where do you draw the line? Who decides?
Even still, I don't see the point. Like I said before, if someone wants a firearm, they're going to get it one way or the other. Why add more laws and spend more money just to make people have a false sense of security? |
| cloudhugger | | posted 23-Apr-2007 12:13am |
Yes, and certain conditions...I think that is already here. when my Dad was put in the hospital for mental issues (he was framed, by the way) they took away his FOID card. Now since they discovered that it was the medication that doctors had him on for heart conditions and whatevers, they figured out that he was overmedicated and that is why he was hallucinating and could not sleep. The medication was straightened out, he was mentally fine again but it was on his record and there would be no way he could get his FOID privilages back. That is not a very fair system. |
| LindaH | | posted 23-Apr-2007 12:15am |
|
| RGirl | | (reply to Amanda) posted 23-Apr-2007 1:58am |
I don't know but it would have to be more than one professional's say. |
| RGirl |
What is FOID? |
| bill | | (reply to RGirl) posted 23-Apr-2007 7:00am |
What you're talking about sounds like "thought crime" (from Orwell's 1984), where having bad thought gets you in trouble with the government. Are you sure you want our government going after people who simply think of doing bad things? Many people have violent thoughts, but very few of us act on them. |
| cloudhugger | | (reply to RGirl) posted 23-Apr-2007 9:35am |
Firearms Operator Identification Card, or some thing like that. |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to RGirl) posted 23-Apr-2007 10:03am |
It's a one-size-fits-all law--it assumes that all mentally-ill people are the same and should face the same legal restrictions when buying guns. But there are types and degrees of mental illness, and it's not clear to me that they should all be treated the same, or that they should all be denied the right to own a gun. Of course, I guess this is moot, since there is an actual federal law and it applies only to severe mental illness, where the person has been deemed a danger. So in reality, the law is more discriminate--that is, it distinguishes between types and degrees of mental illness, and only excludes severe cases. (Whether or not I support such a law is a separate matter...) |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to RGirl) posted 23-Apr-2007 10:11am |
I was just quoting the article, so I'm not sure about all the particulars. I don't know if it applies to people who haven't been through some sort of legal system. I think the state is meant to notify the federal government, but the point the article was making is that that doesn't always happen. At any rate, I'm not sure someone not currently mentally ill should be denied the right to buy a gun just because they were once mentally ill and could theoretically relapse. |
| CynShar | | posted 23-Apr-2007 12:42pm |
No one should be able to buy firearms of any kind
|
| icurok | | posted 23-Apr-2007 2:41pm |
It's not really my place to tell you what you ought to do with your own gun culture. Thankfully, it's not an issue over here. |
| LJD | | posted 23-Apr-2007 5:13pm |
Obviously, a person with schizophrenia should not have a gun, or any weapon that could hurt someone else, or him/herself. |
| cerealkiller | | posted 23-Apr-2007 5:14pm |
I believe there is such a thing already. |
| RGirl | | (reply to bill) posted 24-Apr-2007 12:10am |
I mean with certain criteria met. |
| RGirl |
I never ever ever ever said EVERY person with a 'mental' illness! I said certain criteria be met. I of all people know about the varying types and degrees of 'mental' illness. I'm tired of.......whatever.
It isn't a separate matter because that is exactly what the survey question asks. |
| bill | | (reply to RGirl) posted 24-Apr-2007 8:18am |
|
| Enheduanna | | (reply to RGirl) posted 24-Apr-2007 9:20am |
> I never ever ever ever said EVERY person with a 'mental' illness!
> I said certain criteria be met. I of all people know about the varying
> types and degrees of 'mental' illness. I'm tired of.......whatever.
Whoa! I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. Although in my defense, your question just asks about "known mental illness," which is fairly general. You mention the paranoid schizophrenic as an example, and I was assuming that meant that the law could include any number of other "known mental illnesses." I guess I read more into the question than you intended.
> It isn't a separate matter because that is exactly what the survey
> question asks.
I meant that only in the context of my comment about the parameters of the existing federal law. I didn't mean that it was a separate matter from the context of this whole survey, but that it was a separate matter from my own comment, in which I was just mentioning what the federal law included, not giving my own opinion on the law. I think having the law apply to certain severe and dangerous cases is probably a good idea, although I still have some reservations. And I certainly think that if someone wants to voluntarily have themselves added to such a database, as you say you would, they should be able to do so. |
| RGirl | | (reply to bill) posted 25-Apr-2007 12:53am |
It sounds like only those who go through the judicial/legal system get put in a data base. Not all dangerous people are arrested or involuntarily committed. Do you know who they get the info from to put some one in the database? A judge? Doctor? |
| RGirl |
I am really sorry. PMS. Honest, I am not using it as an excuse. Yesterday I was that nasty to everyone that crossed my path.  I feel really bad today about my attitude yesterday. I need to make some rules about not getting on the internet for certain periods of the month. |
| bill | | (reply to RGirl) posted 25-Apr-2007 7:30am |
dunno |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to RGirl) posted 25-Apr-2007 10:24am |
I understand. You've mentioned before that you get really cranky PMS, so that's kind of what I figured was going on.  I know you're a really nice person! |
| RGirl |
Thanks. I am happy to report that the dangerous time has passed....until next month anyway. |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to RGirl) posted 25-Apr-2007 11:05pm |
That's good to hear! |
| Pomeranian | | posted 28-Apr-2007 3:53am |
no not a database there should be a town crier who screams the names of all crazy people every morning at town hall. |
