Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should we restrict gun sales from those with a history of mental illness?
Yes, no one with a history of mental illness needs to own a firearm. 28 41.79%
Depends, I don't want dangerous people with guns, but the law would have to be worded well 32 47.76%
No, I think mentally ill people should have the right to bear arms. 7 10.45%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,414,679 times
Reputation: 8672

Advertisements

Just found out that this guy had spent time in a mental institution for dangerous mental behavior. So why oh why was this idiot allowed to own a gun?

I'm a gun owner, I love guns, I support the ability for mentally stable individuals to own firearms and to have a concealed deadly weapons permit.

But AZ's laws say that you can still get both of those things, even with the long mental history that this idiot had.

Is it time we institute a national policy to fix this? I'm not sure how its worded, but look at Virginia Tech, the Tuscon shootings, and several others. All perpetrated by people with known mental conditions and issues.

After Tucson: Why Are the Mentally Ill Still Bearing Arms? - TIME

 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:47 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,088,423 times
Reputation: 15038
From your link.
As far back as the Gun Control Act of 1968, there have been federal laws against selling weapons to mentally ill individuals. But the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, in which the shooter Cho Seung-Hui was able to pass two federal gun background checks even after a state court ruled that he was dangerously mentally ill, highlighted the need for better record-keeping and interagency communication to enforce those laws. (More than 30 people died in the incident.) Saying that unstable individuals are disqualified from buying firearms is meaningless if the national background-check system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has no record of their illness. That's why the Brady organization was proud to announce on Friday, just a day before the Tucson shootings, that the number of records of mental illness in the NICS database had more than doubled since Virginia Tech, to more than 1 million records.


But there's a problem with that: there should be more than 2 million records in that database, if all the states cooperated fully. According to the Brady organization's records, Arizona was not even the worst offender — at least the state ramped up its reporting somewhat in the wake of Virginia Tech. But still, Arizona's own estimate is that the state has 121,700 records of disqualifying mental illness that should go into the NICS database. From the beginning of 2008 to October 2010, however, it submitted only 4,465 records. Worse than Arizona were states like Louisiana, which submitted only one record during that time frame, and Nebraska and Pennsylvania, which didn't submit any.

Read more: After Tucson: Why Are the Mentally Ill Still Bearing Arms? - TIME
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:50 AM
 
9,727 posts, read 9,740,305 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Just found out that this guy had spent time in a mental institution for dangerous mental behavior. So why oh why was this idiot allowed to own a gun?

I'm a gun owner, I love guns, I support the ability for mentally stable individuals to own firearms and to have a concealed deadly weapons permit.

But AZ's laws say that you can still get both of those things, even with the long mental history that this idiot had.

Is it time we institute a national policy to fix this? I'm not sure how its worded, but look at Virginia Tech, the Tuscon shootings, and several others. All perpetrated by people with known mental conditions and issues.

After Tucson: Why Are the Mentally Ill Still Bearing Arms? - TIME
How would a gun dealer know that any propective client is "mentally ill"? The dealers don't and should not have access to medical records.

Maybe a person would need to supply their mental "certification" with their application if the dealer has a suspicion?
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:51 AM
 
Location: USA - midwest
5,944 posts, read 5,589,638 times
Reputation: 2606
The current background check should be updated to include info on the emotionally crippled. Too often, these things seem to be common knowledge before the system picks up on it.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:51 AM
 
9,727 posts, read 9,740,305 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
From your link.
As far back as the Gun Control Act of 1968, there have been federal laws against selling weapons to mentally ill individuals. But the Virginia Tech tragedy in 2007, in which the shooter Cho Seung-Hui was able to pass two federal gun background checks even after a state court ruled that he was dangerously mentally ill, highlighted the need for better record-keeping and interagency communication to enforce those laws. (More than 30 people died in the incident.) Saying that unstable individuals are disqualified from buying firearms is meaningless if the national background-check system, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has no record of their illness. That's why the Brady organization was proud to announce on Friday, just a day before the Tucson shootings, that the number of records of mental illness in the NICS database had more than doubled since Virginia Tech, to more than 1 million records.


But there's a problem with that: there should be more than 2 million records in that database, if all the states cooperated fully. According to the Brady organization's records, Arizona was not even the worst offender — at least the state ramped up its reporting somewhat in the wake of Virginia Tech. But still, Arizona's own estimate is that the state has 121,700 records of disqualifying mental illness that should go into the NICS database. From the beginning of 2008 to October 2010, however, it submitted only 4,465 records. Worse than Arizona were states like Louisiana, which submitted only one record during that time frame, and Nebraska and Pennsylvania, which didn't submit any.

Read more: After Tucson: Why Are the Mentally Ill Still Bearing Arms? - TIME


There is a little thing called the HIPPA law that FORBIDS the disclosure of someones medical inforamation without their permission.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:53 AM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,380 posts, read 26,874,201 times
Reputation: 4581
Does this include Autistic ppl?
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,428,303 times
Reputation: 73937
Um...so you people know that you can get guns without going through formal channels, right? And that if you're really psycho, you're not going to let a law stating you can't buy a gun stop you from getting your hands on one?
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,076 posts, read 20,547,821 times
Reputation: 7807
Quote:
Originally Posted by wade52 View Post
The current background check should be updated to include info on the emotionally crippled. Too often, these things seem to be common knowledge before the system picks up on it.

Who gets to define "emotionally crippled" and based upon what criteria?

The problem with ANY database, including the one accessed for gun sales, is what's in it, how it got there and what safeguards does it have to correct injustices or errors.

Garbage in/garbage out.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,414,679 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinm View Post
There is a little thing called the HIPPA law that FORBIDS the disclosure of someones medical inforamation without their permission.
Thats right.

I think the current laws should be enforced, completely. If a state fails to report mental conditions to the federal background check system, then they should be held liable in court for a civil trial, either from the federal government or the families, to ensure that they pay for not putting the restrictions in place that need to be there.

The bills that are on the books are to loosely worded, which allow states and institutions to circumvent the restrictions on certain mentally ill conditions. I think that a new gun law should be passed that closes those loop holes.
 
Old 01-10-2011, 06:57 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,359 posts, read 26,523,683 times
Reputation: 11351
Not everyone with a mental illness is dangerous. In fact, most mentally ill people are not dangerous.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top