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.
Ok, so now most people agree on increasing mental health checks (or what have you) for persons who own and/or purchase firearms. So, what would those guidelines be? What would disqualify a person from owning or buying a firearm?
Let us say a man (or woman) was married for many years and lost his/her spouse, divorce, death, whatever. And he/she became depressed over the issue. They seek help/treatment and are prescribed anti depressants. After 6 months or so, the depression is gone and they no longer require the medication. Would they have been on some sort of "banned" list and they wouldn't have passed the background investigation? Where dose it end and who is responsible for making those decisions?
Some more fear mongering...considering how insane and loony the TeaBaggers are, liberals must be damned scared of these lunatics taking over the country so they should buy guns to protect themselves from the TeaBaggers.
The term used when filling out the form 4473 (the federal document completed to buy a firearm) is "adjudicated mentally incompetent".
I understand this "standard," however is this the standard to come? Obviously new mental health standards are on their way. What is general public going to say if some guy who suffered from depression, which is considered a mental illness, however its now "cured," goes out, gets a gun, and shoots up the local Starbuck's? If it gets out, the man had been diagnosed with depression, is the country going to "bang the gavel" and ban the millions of people in this country, with such an affliction?
I understand this "standard," however is this the standard to come? Obviously new mental health standards are on their way. What is general public going to say if some guy who suffered from depression, which is considered a mental illness, however its now "cured," goes out, gets a gun, and shoots up the local Starbuck's? If it gets out, the man had been diagnosed with depression, is the country going to "bang the gavel" and ban the millions of people in this country, with such an affliction?
My point is: Where does this all end?
Two issues...where does it end, and who has the authority to determine that someone meets whatever standard of "mental illness" that forfeits their civil rights?
Much of the problem started when well meaning, but uninformed, people in various groups, most notably the ACLU, succeed in getting many of the dangerously mentally ill released from institutions in the 60s and 70s.
I don't think you'll get an answer because I don't think anybody knows.
In New York they added a provision requiring therapists to report certain things but I'm not sure what the exact criteria is.
I don't doubt that eventually though more than a few liberals will be seeking to tighten it to include people who have taken anti-depressants or anti-anxiety drugs, simply to block as many people from getting guns as possible. Which is why compromising with these people must be done in a very careful manner.
I don't think you'll get an answer because I don't think anybody knows.
In New York they added a provision requiring therapists to report certain things but I'm not sure what the exact criteria is.
I don't doubt that eventually though more than a few liberals will be seeking to tighten it to include people who have taken anti-depressants or anti-anxiety drugs, simply to block as many people from getting guns as possible. Which is why compromising with these people must be done in a very careful manner.
And I agree with you. Here is another one of my points to this thread, which I purposely left out: I've openly stated I am a police officer. Do you realize and/or know how many police officers are walking the streets, right now, today, under the influence of anti depressant drugs and other psychotropic drugs? THOUSANDS. Literally THOUSANDS. And its perfectly legal; litigated all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Take the Sandy Hook first responders. How many of them are taking anti depressants, RIGHT NOW, because of what they saw? Colorado theatre massacre? Shall I go on? Are you going to strip away hundreds of thousands of police officers weapons? How are you going to replace them? Anti depressants are the number one prescribed drugs in the country.
Now, if the liberals get their way with an ultimate ban, for even persons with depression, how many persons who need help now won't seek it? ONE of our last privacy issues is the fact you can tell a psychiatrist, etc certain things and not worry about it being reported somewhere else.
So, John Smith has some depression problems and he owns a few guns. He likes them (the liberal hippies can call him a gun nut all they want). Now he isn't going to seek help. He doesn't want to lose his guns and his depression and/or whatever, goes unchecked and gets worse.
As others have said, this is a knee jerk reaction, which is going to have far reaching and unintended consequences.
And I agree with you. Here is another one of my points to this thread, which I purposely left out: I've openly stated I am a police officer. Do you realize and/or know how many police officers are walking the streets, right now, today, under the influence of anti depressant drugs and other psychotropic drugs? THOUSANDS. Literally THOUSANDS. And its perfectly legal; litigated all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Good point.
I think in any case that could serve as an impediment to any attempt to classify the users of these drugs as unfit to own or carry firearms. But given that most gun control does not apply to law enforcement, that's iffy.
But the type of gun control I'm referring to is related mostly to the types of firearms allowed. There's a difference between supporting certain restrictions on types of civilian firearms and supporting restrictions on which civilians can own firearms. From a common sense standpoint this would support my initial argument but not being a lawyer or anything close to one, I really don't know how this would go over legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306
Now, if the liberals get their way with an ultimate ban, for even persons with depression, how many persons who need help now won't seek it? ONE of our last privacy issues is the fact you can tell a psychiatrist, etc certain things and not worry about it being reported somewhere else.
So, John Smith has some depression problems and he owns a few guns. He likes them (the liberal hippies can call him a gun nut all they want). Now he isn't going to seek help. He doesn't want to lose his guns and his depression and/or whatever, goes unchecked and gets worse.
Regarding "you can tell a psychiatrist, etc certain things" yes you can, but I believe as it currently stands they are required by law to report you if they have reason to believe you are going to commit a violent act in the near future.
You probably know this better than I do being in law enforcement.
If this is currently the case, I don't know what exactly they've done in New York, because I wouldn't go any farther than that. It is possible that the only addition they've made is some kind of data sharing with gun registration to preemptively confiscate that person's guns in addition to whatever they do now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306
As others have said, this is a knee jerk reaction, which is going to have far reaching and unintended consequences.
Well that partly depends what exactly gets pushed through now. I was reading today (I think CNN) that already, support for gun control is dipping.
Just goes to show how emotionally driven and illogical people can be.
I'm mulling this over and I think this is more dangerous than it appears. Polls have indicated that the vast majority believe in mental health checks. After all, it sounds very reasonable. The problem with this is that that same vast majority of people will not bother to look into what exactly is being checked. It would be very clever and easy to mask draconian restrictions under this "mental health checks" idea, and very difficult to fight at least from the standpoint of public perspective.
This is same concept as labeling a compact 9MM as an "assault weapon" but to the public flashing pictures of scary looking black rifles in order to sway opinion.
This is all hypothetical though, I think from a legal standpoint it may be difficult to do.
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.
