Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"evil." I hate to use that term because it has certain supernatural connotations to it with many Americans. The simple fact is that from time-to-time, sane people choose to do extremely destructive things. Even randomly kill human beings.
The term " evil" as used by some people tends to make me uncomfortable, too for the reason you stated.
Sane peoploe sometimes do destructive things. Most times, it's self destruction.
I've wondered the same thing. If you have seizures, your doctor reports you to the DMV and you cannot legally drive. Why can't we have mentally unstable reported and not allowed to buy guns? Seems a pretty common sense solution.
There is no federal databse. I believe such records are maintaned at the state level.
It is extremely challenging for a court to determine incompetence. If Adam Lansa had lived, it's unlikely a court would have deemed him incompetent to stand trial.
Most people who are mentally ill are never brought before a court for competency hearing.
But the federal government and the state governments exchange data bases and do matching programs so even if such a database existed, it would not be impossible for the feds to get their hands on it.
Perhaps if the database included the address of the person, it would have. Ensure that guns aren't sold to a household with a wack job in it.
No. First, if someone hasn't been disturbingly violent in the past there will be no need to "register" them, second, even people with disorders of some sort move around, third, you can't tract everyone someone with every disorder may know or come in contact with and screen them for guns. I really don't know what kind of "database" you are fantasizing about here but unless we make this our only National Priority over and above everything else it won't be useful in any way shape or form. And if we did it's not a place you'd want to live I trust. I used to be a DBA (data base administrator) for a company and believe me, we couldn't even keep all of our customers phone numbers up to date.
Adjudicated means "judged in court". If you ask if someone has ever been adjudicated mentally incompetent, it is a question of legal status, not of mental status. Has a legal court ever determined that you were not able to make legal decisions like entering into contracts or handling fiduciary responsibilities because of mental defect?
Many people who have mental disorders would not ever have been formally adjudicated as mentally incompetent, though they might have formally signed over a power of attorney to someone to handle matters on their behalf.
I think it substantially unlikely that anyone determined to be incompetent by a court is out and about buying weapons.
Who is mentally ill? The mother with post-partum depression who is seeing a therapist and being monitored and will recover in time? The actress who is bi-polar but is being treated? The doctor who is also an alcoholic but who's been sober for ten years? The sweet little old lady down the street who goes to church four times a week and speaks to God? The writer who goes to live in a cabin far outside of town because he prefers to work in isolation? The homeless man who pushes his belongings in a shopping cart around town and refuses any charity? The grieving daughter who's just lost her mother and is having problems moving on with her life?
Who is mentally ill? Who determines if someone is dangerous and who is not? Is there a danger in our rush to label people, that we might put a very negative label that sticks with them all their lives, that we might incarcerate people unjustly, that we might force people to take medications, and then find out that they were misdiagnosed, and that we did irreparable harm to them in the meantime?
No one is willing to let anyone kill children. But we can't protect them 100%. And we can't punish people today for what they might possibly do tomorrow. Not if we are truly committed to the principles of freedom and liberty and justice for all.
Thank you for the informative answer. Given that, are you saying that given there is a court record, such people are entered in the NICS database? If not, it seems like a great big, obvious hole in our system. I'm honestly not sure how the NICS database is structured and how they confirm identity. You do not have to provide a SS number, so I'm not sure if it's just by name and address, or what? I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that convicted felons, those convicted of misdomenor domestic abuse and under a restraining order or dishonorably discharged (all prohibited from having guns) are.
Is there anything factual that suggests anyone who had been found to be incompetent by a court subsequently purchased assault weapons and then used those weapons to commit mass murders?
Like you, I don't know much about NICS databases. I do know that Canada can access a database and if they find a 25 year old DUI conviction, immigration will be denied even if the intent is to immediately proceed to a cruise ship headed for Alaska. This is common knowledge on cruise ship forums where hoards of vacationers are stunned to find themselves in this position and lose their investment in their cruise vacation.
There perhaps needs to be a new classification of mental illness. Perhaps not one that will enforce mandatory committment but at least one that that can flag that they are a probable threat and shouldn't buy a gun. Though committment would be far more effective. If someone is crazy enough to shoot up a school, they are crazy enough to cobble together a bomb sufficient to blow up a school bus.
I hear a lot of bleating about forcing all gun sales to go trough background checks. What the heck good does that do if we don't add the dangerously mentally ill to the NICS restricted list? The SP shooter stole the firearms he used, but he could have walked into a gun store, bought any rifle (yes, even those scary "assault weapons") he wanted and no background check would have stopped him. The best they would have done would be to prevent purchase of a handgun for a few months (min age 21).
Not adding the insane to the NICS database seems rather...insane. Or don't we really care? Would we really rather have kids killed than to potentially embarass a crazy person?
How do you propose a nation reasonably define insanity and the potential to be violent?
Plan B:
once the state determines anyone who wants a gun has a mental illness, there wont be any need for gun laws.
Who defines mental illness and the potential for violence?
How does the state evaluate people for mental illness?
To the best of my knowledge Charles Manson never killed anyone. I am not sure a court determined him incompetent. Same thing for his extended family who did murder.
How do you propose a nation reasonably define insanity and the potential to be violent?
I would start out by asking those with experience with the mentally ill what signs to look out for. Lanza's mother apparently had identified her son as such, she was in the process of having him committed. A good start would be any that have threatened to (or actually have) done physical harm to themselves or others. Anyone that is sufficiently violent by the time they are a teenager that they have to be physically restrained would be a good indication, or at least one to look seriously at.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the best.
