More reporting of mental illness/medications for gun purchase

...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.
Click to expand...
See this is as much of a myth as the myth that more guns equate to more crime. No, most people don't know how to get a gun illegally. I do because I've grew up around enough criminal elements that I know where and how to get a black market gun without getting myself killed or arrested in the process. Most people do not.

If this kid bought his gun for self defense then he wasn't "hell bent on murder". He simply snapped and had he not had access to the guns he legally bought it's unlikely he would have been able to get his hands on them.
 
who decides who's "mental"

Physicians, physicians, physicians, physicians. Doctors are plenty qualified to say that an individual is too unstable to have a firearm.
Click to expand...

I hope you're kidding. You want everyone to get a psych evaluation before being allowed to buy a gun? I'm sure there are some anti-gun doctors who think anyone wanting a firearm is a potential homicidal maniac. An "unhealthy attraction to deadly weapons" could be viewed as evidence of a personality disorder at least.

Writing fiction his English teacher considered "disturbing" is also being considered a "warning sign" of psychiatric disorder, by some people anyway. Horror writers like Stephen King better watch out.
 
I hope you're kidding. You want everyone to get a psych evaluation before being allowed to buy a gun? I'm sure there are some anti-gun doctors who think anyone wanting a firearm is a potential homicidal maniac. An "unhealthy attraction to deadly weapons" could be viewed as evidence of a personality disorder at least.

Writing fiction his English teacher considered "disturbing" is also being considered a "warning sign" of psychiatric disorder, by some people anyway. Horror writers like Stephen King better watch out.
Click to expand...
Own, no. Carry, yes. Antigun doctors wouldn't be an issue because it would be a peer-reviewed process with plenty of transparency.
 
Redworm, crazy people don't need a carry license in order to carry. If you're going to (unconstitutionally and ineffectively) try to regulate guns, you have to regulate them primarily at the point of acquisition.
 
Th problem is that this guy was involuntarily committed via a court order in MD. He lied on his forms but there is not system to check commitments.

With this guy we are not talking about taking anti-depressants we are talking about someone who was committed because he was a danger to himself and to others.
 
Pitz, have you read this guy's plays? It doesn't take a tenured literature prof to figure out this guy is not some loner creative genius.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're right--he sure was no literary genius! Cho seems to have been a juvenile introvert with poor social integration. Instant messenging girls and "bothering" them doesn't seem that unusual for an immature male college student. The girl who reported him for harrassment didn't press charges, and referred to his actions as "annoying", not frightening or threatening, according to the webpage you listed.

I know we all would like for obvious nut cases to be kept away from guns, but civil liberties are important, and without real threats or evidence of imminent danger, people shouldn't be locked up, IMO. It's easy for this sort of thing to get out of control. Recall the days when uppity women were lobotomized as hysterics, not to mention political dissadents in Russia being commited to lunatic asylems.
 
It seems the guy was committed by a legal order and somebody forgot to check a box on the form...amazing. That sounds like grounds for denying him a firearms purchase. Looks like the system failed so far on this one.
 
Own, no. Carry, yes. Antigun doctors wouldn't be an issue because it would be a peer-reviewed process with plenty of transparency.
Click to expand...

LOL...ever dealt with a crazy relative at a mental institution that is a danger to himself and others? I have had experience with this on several occasions. The person was found to be in good mental health as long as he continues his medication and doesnt drink any alcohol..they stamp his form released.

What is the first thing that he does..exactly what the doctor tells him not to.

mental institutions have revolving doors on them.
 
Redworm, crazy people don't need a carry license in order to carry. If you're going to (unconstitutionally and ineffectively) try to regulate guns, you have to regulate them primarily at the point of acquisition.
Click to expand...
Good point. So what's the solution? There must be a standard where people are too mentally unstable to own firearms. The same way we've decided that eight year olds cannot handle firearms we must find a common ground in agreeing that certain people simply do not possess the mental responsibility to own firearms.

Before anyone bitches about "well what about knives and bats and crowbars" there's a very clear distinction between those weapons and guns. The very reason we all choose firearms to protect ourselves is because we do recognize that they are the most effective and efficient tools for taking human life. That very same recognition must be accepted when considering what a person can use to take a human life without justification.

The more gung-ho we are about everyone having firearms the fewer people we'll convince. Like mentioned in the other thread, deceptive arguments are not going to help us and if we can't convince people that gun control is bad without being completely and entirely honest in our arguments then we are simply wrong. Refusing to bend and compromise will only result in even more people being anti-gun and Constitution or no they will be banned. There's a process by which it can be changed and the second amendment is not invulnerable to being repealed.

I don't have all the answers but polarizing the issue even more by demanding that even the mentally ill be allowed to carry guns will only hurt our cause.
 
Th problem is that this guy was involuntarily committed via a court order in MD. He lied on his forms but there is not system to check commitments.
Click to expand...

Therein lay the problem. Medical records need not and should not be accessed. Nor should voluntary commitments be reported.

Involuntary commitments should be part of the background check. There should also be a process whereby an individual, who has been involuntarily committed in the past, can petition to have the prohibition from purchasing a firearm removed similar to an expungement of a criminal record.
 
Not to dismiss concerns about lunatics with weapons, but anyone having even a passing familiarity with Soviet psychiatric practices would blanch at the thought of entrusting such decisions to the loving and tender mercies of the state. I don't pretend to know the answer, but any step to revoke permanently an individual's civil rights because he (a) sought professional help; (b) was at one time under a psychiatrist's or psychologist's care; (c) took psychotropic medications to alleviate symptoms; or (d) signed a voluntary commitment order is simply too broad a broom.

And I'm sorry, I am not willing to throw the civil rights of my neighbors upon the pyre out of fear of losing my own. The tone of Redworm's last post seemed to be, "let's give 'em the loons and they'll leave us normal folks be." Was it Churchill who likened appeasement to feeding your friends to the alligator in the hope he would eat you last? We have already seen where that same logic, applied to different "classes" of gun owners, has gotten us - neck deep in brown.

No, I prefer to work for the rights of us all, on the "hanging separately" principle.
 
prbsolution_dees.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top