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.
Part of the problem with such a proposed measure is HIPPA laws regarding patient confidentiality. What if instead of reporting the exact nature of the problem, the person diagnosing/treating the patient enters a generic code that puts a red flag on his or her name making them an automatic deny if they apply for a gun permit? Another problem is this would require the person to either seek treatment or be ordered by the court to treatment for the diagnosis to be made. I know I suffer from PTSD and depression and so I choose to not own a gun. But in the case of someone with paranoia or other types of mental problems, they don't think they're crazy. They think only they can see what's really going on in their world and so they're not crazy.
Part of the problem with such a proposed measure is HIPPA laws regarding patient confidentiality. What if instead of reporting the exact nature of the problem, the person diagnosing/treating the patient enters a generic code that puts a red flag on his or her name making them an automatic deny if they apply for a gun permit? Another problem is this would require the person to either seek treatment or be ordered by the court to treatment for the diagnosis to be made. I know I suffer from PTSD and depression and so I choose to not own a gun. But in the case of someone with paranoia or other types of mental problems, they don't think they're crazy. They think only they can see what's really going on in their world and so they're not crazy.
Did the shooter have treatment? Was he institutionalized? That's the only way there would be a record of him having mental problems.
Did the shooter have treatment? Was he institutionalized? That's the only way there would be a record of him having mental problems.
His wife was able to get a restraining order on him and his family had recognized his mental problems. The state of Alabama denied him a gun permit. No one at this time knows how he got the gun he used. With the wife's testimony, the court could have ordered him a psychiatric evaluation and proceeded from there.
I don't see why not. Something has to give here. Nutty people are getting access to weapons, and i don't know how much more of this stuff people can take before the public starts demanding that something be done about it. If that means changing the laws on what medical information can be made available to keep flat-out crazies from buying weapons legally, then by all means, lets get on it.
I'm fully aware that this doesn't preclude them from buying a black market weapon, but let's close one avenue at least.
His wife was able to get a restraining order on him and his family had recognized his mental problems. The state of Alabama denied him a gun permit. No one at this time knows how he got the gun he used. With the wife's testimony, the court could have ordered him a psychiatric evaluation and proceeded from there.
How would another law have kept this guy from buying a gun? Do you suggest these people be locked up?
I don't see why not. Something has to give here. Nutty people are getting access to weapons, and i don't know how much more of this stuff people can take before the public starts demanding that something be done about it. If that means changing the laws on what medical information can be made available to keep flat-out crazies from buying weapons legally, then by all means, lets get on it.
I'm fully aware that this doesn't preclude them from buying a black market weapon, but let's close one avenue at least.
just be very careful what you ask for, as you may just get it. remember if the hippa laws are changed to allow the government access to medical records, are you sure they are going to limit said access to just aq background check for gun purchases? remember when the NSA was just gathering cell phone intelligence on foreign calls? and that was all that was allowed? and now they gather such intelligence on EVERYONE?
i dont want certain people to have access to firearms, but we cannot get to the point where we infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, and preventing someone from getting a firearm even though they have no such problems.
just be very careful what you ask for, as you may just get it. remember if the hippa laws are changed to allow the government access to medical records, are you sure they are going to limit said access to just aq background check for gun purchases? remember when the NSA was just gathering cell phone intelligence on foreign calls? and that was all that was allowed? and now they gather such intelligence on EVERYONE?
i dont want certain people to have access to firearms, but we cannot get to the point where we infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, and preventing someone from getting a firearm even though they have no such problems.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson
The government is already too involved in all of our lives. Giving them unfettered access to medical records is not the direction we should be going. Not to mention confiscating civil rights without any form of due process.
If the state seems someone too dangerious to own a gun then they are too dangerious to be a member of society and should be in jail.
just be very careful what you ask for, as you may just get it. remember if the hippa laws are changed to allow the government access to medical records, are you sure they are going to limit said access to just aq background check for gun purchases? remember when the NSA was just gathering cell phone intelligence on foreign calls? and that was all that was allowed? and now they gather such intelligence on EVERYONE?
i dont want certain people to have access to firearms, but we cannot get to the point where we infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, and preventing someone from getting a firearm even though they have no such problems.
That's why I proposed a generic red flag that would come up like a security or criminal history flag. No mention of diagnosis.
On the one end, the second amendment makes it's point pretty clearly. Everyone has the right to bear arms. It doesn't make exceptions. All people should be able to legally purchase a firearm.
Then there's the issue of public safety. Someone who is unstable risks putting others in harms way if they get a firearm.
Of course, taking someone's rights away due to something that they can't control is in many ways unfair. Once you commit a crime, most people can say certain rights, like the right to bear arms, can be suspended or taken away all together, but once that happens, people have already been hurt.
I don't think there's an easy solution to this. I fully support people's second amendment rights and think a lot of the gun control people are suggesting will only work in a perfect world, which we don't live in. I'm somewhat on the fence about mental healthy checks. The issue of public safety is compelling, but all people have a right to confidentiality when it comes to medical problems.
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.
