More reporting of mental illness/medications for gun purchase

P

Playboypenguin

Moderator
Since the Vtech shooter is being reported to have been under treatment for mental illness/depression and on meds, is anyone else thinking that we will soon see politicians on both sides calling for a more invasive system of reporting mental illness and medical histories such as current meds to the state by medical officials. Then these records having to be referenced before allowing a purchase of a handgun?

If only one or two people in that German class or other class he tried unsuccessfully to invade had been armed. I know I would have been now but at that age I would not have been.

If a school is going to disarm their students they could at least provide adequate armed security.
 
The best I can find is a couple of news articles with language like:
"...investigators believe Cho at some point had been taking medication for depression."

Vague enough. Let's wait until someone goes on the record with that, or at least gives some sort of timeframe.
 
This quote is directly from wikopedia...
Professors in the English department have described his creative writing as so disturbing that he was referred to the University's counseling service. Sources have also indicated that he recently showed troubling signs, including setting a fire in a dorm room and stalking some women. Some investigators believe that he was taking medication for depression. In a note left in his dorm room he laid out a rambling list of grievances in which he railed against "rich kids," "debauchery" and "deceitful charlatans" on campus
Click to expand...
He was clearly referered for counseling and investigators have reason to believe he was on meds for depression. Most likely meaning they either were told this by friends or family or they found meds in his rom.
 
There is now a reference in the Wikipedia article to a news article with the language I quoted above. It wasn't in the copy of the Wiipedia article I had open when I read your first post. Regardless, it's not well documented except in a few scattered media reports. And yesterday the media was "reporting" that the shooter was a 24-year-old Chinese student who arrived here last August on a non-resident student visa.

See the problem? The media gets things wrong.

Note that lots of news reports have now shown up that he was maybe depressed and maybe on medication at some point, but all the news sites seem to be copying the first few such claims.
 
See the problem? The media gets things wrong.
Click to expand...
Whether the reports are right or wrong is irrelevant. The very fact that it is being said will be enough to spark many politicians into full grandstanding mode.

It could later turn out to be completely untrue but the fact that it has already spread will start a fire that might be hard to put out.
 
Doesn't the act itself attest to mental illness whether or not it was diagnosed beforehand?

Let's go to the NIH...
Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.1 When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.2Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness.1 In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada for ages 15-44.3 Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.1
Click to expand...

Meds in his room? Ok, not exactly an indicator that he would take those actions.
 
Meds in his room? Ok, not exactly an indicator that he would take those actions.
Click to expand...
Noone is saying that taking meds for depression is going to send you on a shooting spree, but I do feel that there is a strong possibility that politicians will latch onto this and try to pass stronger restrictions against people being treated for any mental illness or on mood altering meds buying firearms. It would not really make sense or accomplish anything but it would be an empty measure to appease the masses that will be screaming for something to be done.
 
An empty measure that would affect 1 in 4 Americans(well, voters) arbitrarily. That would be political suicide.
 
"I do feel that there is a strong possibility that politicians will latch onto this and try to pass stronger restrictions against people being treated for any mental illness or on mood altering meds buying firearms."

I know I will be flamed for saying this, but I think that scenario is the best we can hope for. The pro-gun spin would be "They guy was wacko, and he was *known* to be wacko. He should never have been allowed to buy a gun in the first place." Otherwise we would have to say "He was just a regular guy who owned a few guns but just snapped and killed a bunch of people. @#$% happens."

In my view, it really *is* reasonable to prevent people with SOME mental illnesses and/or who are taking SOME medications from owning guns.

Tim
 
In my view, it really *is* reasonable to prevent people with SOME mental illnesses and/or who are taking SOME medications from owning guns.
Click to expand...

Who gets to define "mental illnesses"?

Who gets to make the decision on who is mentally ill, and who isn't?

Who gets to make the decision on which drugs, and how much of a drug, make one unfit to own firearms?

And I hope your answer isn't the federal government. You know, the bunch in charge of the IRS, the INS, the USPS, the BATFE, etc......
 
In my view, it really *is* reasonable to prevent people with SOME mental illnesses and/or who are taking SOME medications from owning guns.
Click to expand...
If there's a centralized list of people taking certain medication, regardless of whether it's used for prohibiting gun transfers or for some other reason, isn't that a violation of medical privacy laws?

Your view essentially supports the elimination of private firearms transfers, since private individuals would not have access to such a list.
 
I'm concerned about what sort of ramifications this might have on people will mental illnesses.

Remember when Thomas Eagleton was booted off McGovern's ticket for Sargent Shriver because of his hospitalization and electroshock treatments?

I wonder whether or not banning people who have issues will just cause them not to come forward with them, rather than preventing them from having guns. (Clearly we want to prevent crazies from having guns, but I'm wondering if the straightforward way wouldn't hurt more than anything else. Also, who defines crazy is another question. (That said, a homeless paranoid schizophrenic should not have a firearm--he is not mentally aware enough to possess freedoms)).
 
Well....it appears that....

...we are all missing an important point....and some are advocating for that which most of us abhor....more rules and legislation...does anybody here really believe that a person who has no intention of abiding by the system is really going to fret over some additional restrictions to gun ownership? The real psycho's who are hell bent on murder and mayhem has ready access to any weapon he or she chooses, and no law is going to stop that person from acquiring and unlawfully using that weapon.
 
And before I forget....

....such a list of individuals on so-called "psycho tropics/anti-depressants" would have to include everyone...imagine the numbers of people who would automatically be disqualified from any and all law enforcement careers, military careers, federal, state, and local government careers...politicians...hell, we can socially and legally marginilize a whole generation or two of peoples and have only the "elite" few to run the world and own the guns...hmmmm....
 
I guess my point is that as politically-oriented gun owners we need to avoid the appearance of wanting to allow everyone to own guns regardless of mental capacity or drug intake. Oh, I suppose some here really *do* want that, but I presume that most of us have known or at least seen some people who should not be armed.

Tim
 
As noted by Glenn Greenwald, buried in an ABC News article is this very troubling paragraph:
Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.
Click to expand...

So, good to know the govt has a database of what medications a persona has ever taken. joy oh joy.
 
yeah I'm not sure what that paragraph means. I'm pretty sure the Feds don't keep a file on everybody who's ever taken an anti-depressant. Maybe they were referring to a specific type of drug that the Feds have never heard of? Who knows, reporters are wacked.
 
Who gets to define "mental illnesses"?

Who gets to make the decision on who is mentally ill, and who isn't?

Who gets to make the decision on which drugs, and how much of a drug, make one unfit to own firearms?

And I hope your answer isn't the federal government. You know, the bunch in charge of the IRS, the INS, the USPS, the BATFE, etc......
Click to expand...
Physicians, physicians, physicians, physicians. Doctors are plenty qualified to say that an individual is too unstable to have a firearm.
 
If there's a centralized list of people taking certain medication, regardless of whether it's used for prohibiting gun transfers or for some other reason, isn't that a violation of medical privacy laws?

Your view essentially supports the elimination of private firearms transfers, since private individuals would not have access to such a list.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. You want to pass the psych test for a firearm, you agree to release your mental health information to public record. Compromises need to be made otherwise we will lose all of our gun rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top