A proposal for dealing with the potentially dangerous mentally ill

[Lurks Often]

First, the vast majority of those that are dealing with a mental illness are no threat to themselves or others and their rights and privacy should be strongly protected.

Second this is a working proposal and I invite PRODUCTIVE comments directly related to the proposal.

Since the NICS database already has provisions for the mentally ill, those deemed incompetent by a judge or committed to mental hospital involuntarily, the framework is in place for a TEMPORARY hold.

This TEMPORARY hold is placed in NICS pending further medical review. I'm thinking a 30 or 60 day hold that automatically sunsets when the time expires, unless a judge authorizes an extension, with strong provisions for review and strong penalties to prevent the process from being abused, along with immunity from lawsuits if the diagnosis was made in good faith and determined to be a reasonable presumption by a review board of judges and medical professionals.

The Virginia Tech murderer should have been flagged in NICS and prevented from buying a gun.

The AZ murderer had been told not to return to the community college until he received a mental health Clarence.

The CO murderer had had contact with mental health professionals before the shooting as well

When the final police report is released for the CT murderer, I will be surprised if we don't find out that there were warning signs that could have enabled a hold to be placed on him as well.

[kickysnana]

1. Our mental health resources are totally inadequate to do this at this time.

Having barely escaped a Psychiatrist that preyed on single mothers and was eventually taken to court and disbarred her initial evaluation of me is still somewhere in my medical records but not what happened to her.

Recently after complaining about the off the charts behavior of a new neurologist after mine moved out of state at one of the largest medical groups here, the department head took it upon himself after a fifteen minute appointment to say I did not actually have a disease I had tried my darndest not to be confirmed 20 years before, by three separate in depth studies. He did no additional tests, just gave his "opinion" (hoping to ward off a law suit? I actually don't know.)

If you go to three practitioners you may get three diagnosis and that is probably only opinion. There is really no follow-up to see if people are taking their medicine, getting better, worse or dying for that matter. If we had Dr Welby instead of Scrubs perhaps we could do this.

So if you get on this list how do you get off? Does taking a medication make you ineligible, to do what? Then all people taking any mood altering medication should be on total disability or what? Do we stop them from traveling? Shopping alone? Being with vulnerable people at all?

Where do we get the money for the additional paperwork, judicial and medical, and legal?

We do need to talk about it but there is no easy answer as our medical and legal system is not up for this at all.

[Lurks Often]

17. It is not a list

merely a temporary hold in the NICS system preventing you from buying a firearm for a period of 30-60 days, allowing a medical professional to take your case before a judge for his approval or disapproval.

As for funding we can start be eliminating foreign aid to countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt and if that is not enough there are other countries that can be removed from the foreign aid list as well.

[kickysnana]

75. Two people I know with health insurance have been unable to get

in to see a mental health professional outside, ER since Thanksgiving with severe symptoms.

There is no will to change the status quo of funding the military-industrial-complex at the determent of health here in the US. ie Reid caving on the filibuster after using it as a red herring to rally the faithful.

So all you have is a list, like the no fly list that you cannot find out if you are on or get off of if you are there by accident.

Another "see we did something" once more.

We have overturn "corporations as people", looking busy as opposed to real safety and putting our money where it benefits the country, not the 2%, somehow overturning Citizens United.

Otherwise we are just flapping our gums as we have since 1980.

On edit to ad crosspost:
The U.S. Prepares For Military Action In Bolivia
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654214

[cali]

2. this is a horrendous idea that deprives citizens of due process.

appalling to see it proposed here. sick.

[Lurks Often]

6. How so?

It requires a medical professional to make the diagnosis, at which point a TEMPORARY hold (30-60 days) is placed on their ability to purchase a firearm, which automatically sunsets if a judge does not extend it.

I'm not trying to deprive anyone of due process permanently, only for a brief amount of time to allow medical professionals and the court system to determine if the person in question is indeed a threat to themselves or others and to prevent such a person from buying a firearm until a definite answer can be determined.

[cali]

82. yes, and medical professionals are just so infallible

predicting dangerousness is a very iffy proposition.

[Lurks Often]

86. I agree with you

which is why any extension of the temporary hold requires a judge to agree.

[Cirque du So-What]

3. Anything to deflect from the root of the problem

which is that there are too damn many guns in circulation, which makes them too damn available.

As I've seen repeated so often - even among the gun-promoting crowd - anyone who wants a gun badly enough is able to readily obtain one, even if it's done illegally. How is this 'nut list' that the RW is incessantly touting able to prevent those determined enough to get a gun? How about addressing the root of the problem: there are too damn many guns in circulation, and the gun lobby wouldn't have it any other way.

[Lurks Often]

7. An unproductive answer

The likelihood of any significant gun control making it through Congress is about zero.

[Cirque du So-What]

10. And YOUR answer is productive?

Saying that 'nothing will get done anyway' is the EPITOME of unproductive answers.

[Lurks Often]

14. So you have nothing

to contribute to the conversation that is politically possible and will hold up to legal scrutiny?

[Cirque du So-What]

23. Allow me to retort

First of all, why are you so cocksure that it's 'politically impossible?' That's the sort of argument parroted in the RW blogosphere in a lame version of 'resistance is futile.'

Bad news for those folks:

Pew: Majority Support For Bans On Assault Weapons, High-Capacity Clips
Tom Kludt 3:31 PM EST, Monday January 14, 2013

A majority of Americans support a broad range of gun control policies, including bans on assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, according to a poll from Pew Research Center released Monday.

The poll showed 55 percent support an assault weapons ban, while 54 percent favor a prohibition on high-capacity clips. Support is even wider for other proposals, such as background checks for private and gun show sales (85 percent), a federal database to track gun sales (67 percent) and a ban on semi-automatic weapons (58 percent).

But Pew also showed strong support for a proposal from the National Rifle Association that drew the ire of many gun control advocates. According to Monday's poll, 64 percent of Americans support putting armed officers in schools — a sharp contrast to the findings of a survey last week from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling.

more...

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/pew-majority-support-for-ban-on-assault-weapons

How dare you keep hammering at any suggestion that the American people lack the wherewithal to influence change! It's as though the RW bloggers believe that if attention is deflected onto 'the mentally ill,' it will be a panacea to placate the masses just long enough until the next gun massacre occurs. Not this time, bucko! The American people are fed-up with the half-assed rhetoric that emanates from the execrable NRA and their polly-parrots currently flagellating 24/7.

[Lurks Often]

26. Congress thinks otherwise,

A very large part of Congress thinks that THEIR constituents don't want gun control and that THEIR constituents feel so strongly about the issue, that they will show up at elections and vote that member of Congress out of office.

Every year state legislatures are passing pro-gun laws that remove prior restrictions and enable new rights.

Every year courts are striking down anti gun laws.

"sort of argument parroted in the RW blogosphere" a typical argument of those who have nothing but emotional rhetoric as a basis for their arguments.

President Obama has stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, so has the Supreme Court.

Former President Clinton has stated that gun control gave control of the House to the Republicans in 1994, costing Tom Foley, then Speaker of the House, his seat in Congress. In a speech on 1/19/13 Clinton stated that Al Gore's support of gun control cost him the state of Colorado, which if he had won that state would have given him the Presidency in 2000.

I no longer pay attention to the polls, I've seen too many people here cherry picking the polls that agree with their view point, including using pollsters that they screamed were inaccurate during the run up to the election.

[Cirque du So-What]

31. More 'resistance is futile?' Is that all ya got?

Times are different, and you conveniently ignore the polls I posted that show the American people are ready for meaningful action. You can pooh-pooh all the polls you want, but your side is playing defense this time around.

[Lurks Often]

39. Going to have to disagree

that times are different, because I don't see anything making it through Congress, but we'll find out one way or the other so enough.

Here are some polls that I'm sure you'll find some reason to dismiss since they don't agree with your position:

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Polls-show-Americans-tilting-more-against-gun-1732889.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/gun-control-polls-aurora-shooting_n_1690169.html

[hack89]

8. Many of us consider mental illness a root cause

especially considering that over half of gun deaths are suicides. And mental illness certainly is a major factor in mass shootings.

What is more likely to be effective - completely disarming the entire population or providing needed medical services to a small portion of that population?

[Cirque du So-What]

13. Ah, we meet again...

still touting the same old, tired talking points...along with putting words in my mouth, such as suggesting that I want to disarm the entire population. I never suggested any such fucking thing! There ARE too damn many guns in circulation, however, and I suggest that there's nothing wrong with making it a bit more costly and complicated to obtain a firearm than, say, a TiVo.

[hack89]

19. I would start with mental health services first

it would be targeted at the right population and would be more effective much quicker. It would also address many other social ills beyond gun deaths - much more bang for the buck.

[Cirque du So-What]

25. Of course you would

Thing is, there are already requirements on the book for mental-health professionals to report threats of violence. I canNOT get a straight answer out of ANYone pushing this 'mental-health list,' however, on the question that I've raised many, many times:

Have you people lost your collective memory about statements you've made previously to the effect that 'anyone who wants a gun badly enough can get one?'

Wanna take a stab at it?

[hack89]

32. Why don't you ask NY - they are implementing a mental health database.

they must think it a useful idea to reduce gun violence - why else would they do it?

[Cirque du So-What]

33. It does have value, but it is not the be-all & end-all

and it is far from a panacea either. Like I've been saying, it is preferable to end the 'iron pipeline' that makes illegal guns available to all & sundry who want them - and that takes federal laws that supersede weak state laws.

[hack89]

48. Cracking down on gun trafficking is an excellent idea

as well as universal background checks.

They will be much more effective then a misguided AWB.

[DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav]

61. Making it more costly to obtain a firearm just makes it more difficult for the poor. The rich will

still have guns. The Colorado shooter had approximately 20 thousand dollars worth of equipment and the Newton shooter may have used his mothers guns and she was very well off financially also. These two shootings wouldn't have been stopped by making firearms more costly but, yes making them more costly would stop the poor from getting them for home invasion protection.

Better mental health screening methods for firearms would have made a difference in more than one of these mass shootings. I wont have a gun in my home so I'm not taking sides, just pointing out that somehow the answer always end up being the one that takes away from the poor and working poor while the rich still enjoy their rights.

[jmg257]

15. Certainly disarming the entire population would be MUCH more effective.

If your goal is drastically reducing gun related violence. 'Alot less guns = less gun violence' sure makes sense.

[jmg257]

4. And a determination of Lanza needing a hold would have helped how exactly?

Seems he aquired his murder weapons from a lawful gun owner. As do SO many others.

Maybe we should just admit what the 1 common denominator in ALL gun-related violence is, and deal with that 1st?

[Lurks Often]

9. Unknown at this time since the final police report has not been released.

Explain how you are going to get anything passed through Congress. Gun Control is dead at the Federal level until at least after the 2014 elections.

Illinois voted down the attempt at new gun control laws in Illinois
Virginia also voted down any new attempts at gun control.

The NY law is will probably get tossed out of court at some point, be it at the state level or at the Federal level.

[jmg257]

11. Ofcourse nothing is going to get through Congress. The NRA and their dupes

Wouldn't allow any bill that might actually make a difference. But they will keep yelling Squirrel! In attempts to divert attention from what everyone knows IS the real problem related to gun violence.

They'll just accept the body bags as the cost of doing business as usual.

Selfish and rather sad.

[bemildred]

5. I worry a lot more about the "potentially dangerous" normal people.

But what do I know?

[Lurks Often]

12. Just about every day you put your live in the hands of strangers

If you drive or walk or bike, you are trusting that the people driving their cars are sober, paying attention to what they are doing, driving a safe vehicle and won't suddenly decide to run you over.

If you go to the doctor, you trust him not to misdiagnosis you or leave an instrument in you or not screw up the surgery.

If you are going to spend your life worrying, worry about something more likely then getting caught in a random mass shooting.

[Denninmi]

18. I can tell you a more realistic threat - distracted drivers.

I used to see people driving along at times erratically, weaving, etc, and figured they were drunk. Now, if I see that, they have eyes glued on some electronic device, iPhone, iPad, etc.

[Lurks Often]

21. Exactly

Every day we go out in our cars, we are risking our lives that some dumb ass won't kill us because they are distracted, drunk or merely incompetent.

[Denninmi]

16. I guess I don't understand why this is so different from what we have now overall.

I do see a couple of differences -it sounds like you're suggesting names be submitted directly by healthcare providers, instead of via court order as it now mostly stands.

Also, I could be wrong, but isn't inclusion in NICS now permanent? if there is a way to have a name removed I don't know of it (doesn't mean squat just because I am ignorant of the law).

I disagree with some of the comments, I don't think that your proposal is unreasonable overall.

I just wish the whole thing would go away, I'm getting a headache from hearing about guns and mental illness 24/7.

[Lurks Often]

20. There difference now

is that if you are deemed incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, you stay in NICS forever (or possibly until a court reverses the prior decision).

My proposal is for a TEMPORARY hold that is automatically removed after 30-60 days. Long enough, in theory, to allow the medical professional to prove one way or the other, subject to judicial review, whether a person is a danger to themselves or others.

I would very much like to see very strong penalties for anyone who abuses the system, such as million dollar fines or revocation of their medical license.

[Denninmi]

22. That's kind if what I thought the situation was.

I think your proposal is reasonable. Probably wouldn't happen though.

[Fire Walk With Me]

24. There have been more than 1000 gun deaths in the US in the month since Newtown.

I'd say that is the far larger and uglier issue. And that no one seems to care is perfect evidence.

[Morning Dew]

27. How about....

anyone wishing to purchase a gun needs to get clearance from a mental health professional.

[Lurks Often]

29. Why?

Just because you can not comprehend why a person might want to own a gun, that shouldn't cause the rights of people who have committed no crime to be violated.

And where are your penalties to prevent a mental health professional from abusing their authority?

[Morning Dew]

30. I've owned a gun - don't own one now.

If we're concerned about the mentally ill purchasing guns, then it only makes sense to be sure that people who are actually trying to purchase them aren't a danger to themselves or others.

[jmg257]

37. So, make it a panel...you want to stop the mentally ill from obtaining weapons, this seems a great

way to start AND provide for due process.

And a bill like this could likely get through Congress with the NRA support since they are all 'MENTALLY ILL! MENATLLY ILL!' now - you should be all for it!

[Lurks Often]

42. So much for innocent until proven guilty n/t

[jmg257]

54. So much for you REALLY caring about solving the problem. nt

[Lurks Often]

56. Pathetic, you're willing to take people's rights away without due process.

I'm trying to find REAL solutions that have a chance, not pushing some pipe dream that won't make it through Congress or the courts

[jmg257]

58. I'm sorry - did you miss the part about a panel, to provide due process, BEFORE any

rights were taken away? Restrictions you should be for as they clearly AND EQUALLY are a well-balanced way to address the issue you are so quick to identify as 'the problem'?

What you are actually trying to do is avoid dealing with the REAL issue, which is the unfettered access to guns. If YOU have it, so does everyone else. You are trying to maintain the status quo, by blaming any convenient target for the faults of the gun culture system, just like your pals in the NRA and their other dupes do, by pretending guns aren't the problem.

You and Wayne's pipe dream is over, don't you see? No one else is buying the bullshit anymore. They are paying attention...20 destroyed kids and 7 dead adults all killed by 1 ass with an AR will do that. Might take another mass massacre or two to get past the selfishness and fear of so many bots and their lobbiests, but the ball has already started rolling.


Pathetic that your selfishly determined perceived needs for arms don't diminish 1 iota in light of all those being killed with them.

[Lurks Often]

59. What's pathetic is

your inability to recognize that crime is going down and that trying to ban technology that is decades old is impossible.

Good Bye Now

[jmg257]

60. Oh, so now we are on to 'banning SA guns is impossible' and 'dropping crime rates'?!?

Hmph...And here I was thinking we were talking about dealing with your current meme 'the potentially dangerous mentally ill'.

Showing QUITE CLEARLY that you, and your whole thread, are only about blowing smoke.

Find another scapegoat Wayne, no one's buying your BS here.

[Lurks Often]

64. Not even a good try.

You came to the OP with your mind made up and nothing will change that.

You are free to believe and insist what you want, that does not mean it is true or will be come true.

When 2014 & 2016 roll around and the Republicans hold majorities in the House and the Senate after the 2014 elections and when they hold the House, Senate AND the Presidency in 2016, people are going to take a dim view of those who pushed gun control and put Congress and the Presidency in the Republican hands.

You're free to disagree about that too, we'll find out soon en ought who was right.

[jmg257]

70. Wow - NOW its the election time meme!?! Have you given up on validating your solutions

for the 'dangerously mentally ill' so quickly?? I do see that was like, what - atleast 3 'you just wait and see' memes ago? I lost count, but no wonder - even you would need a list to keep track of what current point you are pretending to try to make next!

Let's see..

'the mentally ill' SQUIRREL! distraction...check.
'taking people's rights away'...check.
'bans are impossible'...check.
'won't make it through Congress'...check.
'crime rates are down'...check.
'1994 dim view of gun control all over again'...check.
pretending you REALLY care about Republicans holding majorities...check.

All this scattered blathering and STILL NO mention of any notion from you about controlling guns...I wonder why?

You should have bowed out when you said you would.
Off ya go now..there are still a few other NRA talking points you haven't visited yet...surely they just MUST be brushed up on.

C ya soon!

[Lurks Often]

71. More emotional rhetoric from you

common among those that can no longer argue the facts.

[jmg257]

74. Emotional? I am stone cold...other then a few laughs at the humour you are providing

in your now all-too-typical scrambling & reaching for ANY pro-gun/NRA BS that will hopefully keep you from ever having to be the slightest inconvenienced in your pursuit of arms. Your endless string of 'facts'? Nothing to argue really - we know your NRA stooges will do everything they can to prevent effective restrictions from passing - just as we know how proud you are of that. We know. We see the bullshit. And We understand - we all get that...for now.

Hold on to the glory, grasp it right along with your guns and your scapegoats, while you can.

[jmg257]

35. Wow - GREAT idea! It is so simple, and addresses the problem before-hand.

Part of the background check on getting approved to purchase any firearm is an interview with a qualified professional.

On edit: or better yet a panel - provide for due process, avoid bias, etc..

[Jamastiene]

28. Everybody probably needs a mental health Clarence.

I think he is much like Waldo though. He's pretty hard to find.

[Fire Walk With Me]

36. Do we have clearance, Clarence? Roger.

[jazzimov]

34. May I remind you and anyone who makes the "mental health"

argument that the Newtown shooter stole his weapons from his mom.

Of course, anyone who shoots someone else purposely has some kind of mental health issue, but we often are not aware of this until after they do the shooting.

Yes, we need mental health care in this country. We should increase funding for mental health.

But we also need better gun control.

We need BOTH. Period.

[Lurks Often]

40. I notice you avoided

the point that my proposals probably would have stopped the AZ & CO shootings.

As for more gun control, there are thousands of unenforced laws on the books already, it is politically unlikely and may not stand up to judicial scrutiny.

[jazzimov]

53. I fully support enforcing the current laws

that are on the books.

I fully support enforcing the laws that you suggest.

What I am saying is that they are NOT ENOUGH. The laws you suggest are pretty much common sense and should be enacted and enforced.

BUT there are a lot of cases where they will not be effective. We must address those, as well.

No, we won't be able to address all of the issues, but we can address most of them. And we are obligated as a Civilized Society to do so.

[Lurks Often]

55. Then we need to find a way to reduce violence

without impacting the rights of people who have never broken the law or banning guns that have been around for decades prior to the present time.

Violence is on a 20 year downward trend according to the DOJ & FBI statistics, whether that is because of more guns or despite more guns is an argument we probably won't find an answer to.

Addressing "regular" crime will require us to address the social and economic issues, if you look at a map of crime, you will find the bulk of crime centered around the major cities and sometimes their immediate suburbs.

Addressing the crimes committed by the mentally disturbed is more problematical and will require us to do a better job of identifying the warning signs and enabling treatment while at the same time making sure we respect the privacy and rights of the mentally ill.

[jazzimov]

62. Yes, you are absolutely correct

that we need to find a way to properly address these issues.

In the meantime, we need to do what we can to minimize the violence as best we can.

Once we have minimized the killings, then we can talk about "rights".

Please notice my priority here - KILLING.

Some people's priority here tends to go against everyone else's priority and infringes upon everyone else's rights. Most of the people want the right to be free from the fear of being killed by random gunfire. Some people want to be able to instill that fear and argue that it is a "right" to be able to instill that fear in others in order to "protect them" from such fear.

This is a laughable rationale, at the most.

[Lurks Often]

63. Then we disagree with the method

for once a right is lost, it becomes extremely difficult to get it back.

Just look at the Patriot Act, still going strong.

[jazzimov]

67. At least we agree with the desired outcome

although we may disagree on the method (as you said). We are making progress! together!

I agree that once a "right" is lost, it is extremely difficult to get it back.

However, your example of the Patriotic Act is a very poor example. Many of the rights that were restricted in the original PATRIOT Act were "fixed" in PATRIOTIC Act II, which Obama actually supported:

http://obamaspeeches.com/053-Floor-Statement-S2271-PATRIOT-Act-Reauthorization-Obama-Speech.htm

However, many of the things that you describe as "rights" would not be restricted as a result of better gun control. In fact, I think that the rights of most people would be better enforced.

I have the right to walk down the street without a reasonable expectation or fear that I will be shot.

Remember, your rights end where mine begin.

I hope we can continue useful dialogue.

[Lurks Often]

69. Yes we agree on the outcome

and perhaps the Patriot Act was the wrong example, but you understood what I was trying to say.

"I have the right to walk down the street without a reasonable expectation or fear that I will be shot."

I do that every day, most people do, so I don't understand where the fear comes from.

I'm more worried when I get in the car and drive somewhere, there are some really bad drivers here in CT.

[Fire Walk With Me]

38. Know what? I'm FAR more worried about these emotionally ill people and the mass harm they cause:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021264513

THEY should be monitored, put on lists, regulated, jailed instead. A little proportion?

[Lurks Often]

41. Then I encourage you to start your OWN thread about it. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

43. Even I give at least three responses to someone before going anywhere near that sort of reply.

And I'm dual diagnosis. U Mad Bro?

[Lurks Often]

45. Not at all, your post has NOTHING to do with my original post. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

49. As a "mentally ill" person (who also hates violence and doesn't care for guns) I find your call to

further demonize us to be nauseating and bigoted. Your delineation isn't strong enough and you aren't qualified, even by your upset regarding the topic. One in four Americans suffer from some amount of "mental illness" and the doctors are still changing definitions and treatments. Some of the drugs they hand out cause more harm than good; why not focus upon that? Big pharma are a profit-driven industry which should be alarming in and of itself. Not enough attention is being paid to that problem.

As to your call to further herd real, living PEOPLE, it is exactly the same as my calling for the jailing of the emotionally-devoid criminals who are personally profiting upon causing starvation in millions. That's millions of people starving; shouldn't there be something done about them? They are obviously sick and are causing death and massive suffering. I find the crime to be the intentional murder of multiple persons, the same as in your OP. Why is there no outcry against their crime, why no drive to jail and control them? It is exactly the same thing, but in far greater proportion. And it is a call to attention regarding something which -should- be categorized and removed from the ability to continue to cause such harm.

What I am saying in a nutshell (no pun intended), is that you are off-base and might wish to instead turn your sights upon something more dangerous to far more people. As well as my post far above regarding "why isn't anyone either upset or calling for regulation regarding the 1000+ 'normal' people who have killed each other in the month after Sandy Hook"? A thousand people have died and no one cares. I suppose we now only care if more than one person is killed at once. You know? Proportion. And no more easy answers to complex issues.

[Lurks Often]

57. My proposal was limited strictly to those

mentally ill determined to be a threat to themselves or others by medical professional. The TEMPORARY hold against buying firearms would last 30-60 days to allow the medical professional to determine if the initial diagnosis was accurate and to come up with sufficient evidence to bring to a judge. This is something we do all the time with restraining orders.

I also advocated very strong penalties for the misusing or abusing the process and if there are more or better ways to prevent the process from being abused, I'm interested in hearing it.

I have no interest in demonizing the 99+% of the mentally ill. My proposal is for that minuscule portion that go on to commit mass murder.

I agree, I tend to think that in a small number of cases, the drugs make things worse, not better and may very well have led to the person going over the edge.

You are very quick to accuse me of demonizing and violating the rights of the mentally ill (although that was not my intention), but then turn around and do the same thing to the millions and millions of gun owners across the country who have never broken a law and never will.

Violence is on a 20 year downward trend according to the DOJ & FBI statistics, whether that is because of more guns or despite more guns is an argument we probably won't find an answer to.

Addressing "regular" crime will require us to address the social and economic issues, if you look at a map of crime, you will find the bulk of crime centered around the major cities and sometimes their immediate suburbs.

Addressing the crimes committed by the mentally disturbed who become violent is more problematical and will require us to do a better job of identifying the warning signs and enabling treatment while at the same time making sure we respect the privacy and rights of the mentally ill that are not violent.

[Fire Walk With Me]

65. I had to stop at "determined". You KNOW who they are? You can tell? You are qualified?

Are even doctors who keep changing the books on mental illness?


Eli Lapp: This gun of the hand is for the taking of human life. We believe it is wrong to take a life. That is only for God. Many times wars have come and people have said to us: you must fight, you must kill, it is the only way to preserve the good. But Samuel, there's never only one way. Remember that. Would you kill another man?
Samuel Lapp: I would only kill the bad man.
Eli Lapp: Only the bad man. I see. And you know these bad men by sight? You are able to look into their hearts and see this badness?
Samuel Lapp: I can see what they do. I have seen it.
Eli Lapp: And having seen you become one of them? Don't you understand? What you take into your hands, you take into your heart. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing. Go and finish your chores now.
Samuel Lapp: Yes Grosvater.

---

Over 1000 people have been killed by "normal" people. THEY need to be checked and regulated. This society needs to be checked and regulated.

[Lurks Often]

68. If a patient tells a medical professional that they want hurt themselves

or others, then it would be reasonable for a temporary hold to be placed on that person's ability to purchase a firearm while the patient is further evaluated. It is done quite frequently in cases where a restraining order is used.

It is wrong to punish 80+ million people for the actions for a very small percentage of a population.

You are very quick to accuse me of demonizing and violating the rights of the mentally ill (although that was not my intention), but then turn around and do the same thing to the millions and millions of gun owners across the country who have never broken a law and never will.

[Fire Walk With Me]

80. You have no concept of the state of the "mental health care system" or that if you start calling out

the ill, they'll balk from speaking honestly with any who could get them in trouble. This in itself could possibly -create- another problem.

Please know that in California, Gov. Ahnold slashed the MHC budget 60% in a single cut. It's can be difficult for even those who -want- the care, to get it. If you want to prevent causes and conditions, strengthen MCH across the country as a starting point. Prevention, not "scarlet letters". Your right to guns does not allow you to make rules for other people. That's NRA talk! Are you actually using an NRA talking point!?

And the millions upon millions of gun owners in the country are killing other people left and right, but the "mentally ill" proportionally obviously only make up a very small percentage of gun deaths. Your proposal is already present in many or most states, and expanding it would cause harm (while "normal" people are killing each other off with guns every single day). I suggest you have entirely the wrong target and issues in mind.

I suggest you keep open this web page, and watch the updates. Dead, dead, dead...lots and lots of "normal" people who can easily get guns. Where again is the problem?

https://twitter.com/GunDeaths

[Lurks Often]

87. We're not going to agree,

but seriously "millions upon millions of gun owners in the country are killing other people left and right"? Exaggerate much?

[Jamastiene]

83. +1000000

Thank you.

[kudzu22]

44. I think an FDA review of antidepressants is in order

I don't have stats on it, but I believe many of the mass shooters of recent years were on some form of antidepressant. It's possible that untreated depression may result in only a suicide, but depression treated with these drugs may encourage the patient to take out others as well.

I also agree that the NICS system needs to be enhance with better mental health reporting.

[Lurks Often]

46. Agreed,

I've read similar things, certainly the fact that the VT murderer, AZ murderer, CO murderer and CT murderer were between the age of 20-25 needs further research.

[LWolf]

47. I like my proposal better.

A universal fucking SOCIALIST health care program that guarantees prompt, high-quality, care to anyone who needs it, including mental health care, regardless of their ability to pay, for as long as they need it.

A multi-layered PUBLIC, fucking SOCIALIST safety net that makes sure that not a single person within our borders ever goes without basic necessities. A system that would prevent many mental health problems and catch the rest before they escalated.

[leftstreet]

50. +1

[quinnox]

52. I can't believe you said "socialist"

Alarms are going off all over the country!

[LWolf]

81. Yep.

[gollygee]

51. Are there any studies

as to what percentage of people who kill with guns are mentally ill vs. not mentally ill? There are plenty of violent people who aren't mentally ill, and as you said most mentally ill people are not violent. Isn't looking at mental illness instead of how violent a person is avoiding the actual problem?

[Lurks Often]

73. It depends on your viewpoint

I think anybody willing to murder another person has mental issues.

A more accurate response is the number of murders commited by the mentally disturbed like the VA, AZ, CO & CT shootings is a very small number compared to the overall murder rate, however what happened in the VA, AZ, CO & CT shootings has a far, far higher impact then the more "regular" kinds of murder that happen every day across the country.

I am not looking at mental illness as a whole, merely the very, very small subset that express a desire to hurt themselves or others.

As for determining, in advance, who is going to commit a crime, when they have not expressed a desire to do so, I'll leave that for you to determine how to manage that, but that is a very slippery slope you just stepped on.

[FarCenter]

66. It should be limited to specific illnesses which involve agression or threats to others

Depression or thoughts of suicide should not be included since these people are generally not a threat to others, and there are far to many of them.

[raccoon]

72. "mental health Clarence?" Did spellcheck suggest that? nt

[Jamastiene]

84. I would imagine a mental health Clarence would be

rather difficult to find. I guess someone could start calling every mental health professional listed in the Yellow Pages and asking if their first name is Clarence, but what if they still can't find a mental health Clarence even that way?

[dkf]

76. Lanza was blocked from buying a rifle.

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza, the suspect in the suburban Connecticut elementary school shooting rampage, tried to purchase a "long gun" rifle from a local shop but was turned away because he did not want to wait for the required 14-day background check, law enforcement sources said Saturday.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/15/nation/la-na-nn-sandy-hook-gunman-tried-to-buy-rifile-days-before-20121215

[Lurks Often]

77. I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say.

Since he was not 21 and had no pistol permit, he was required by state law to wait for two weeks.

[dkf]

78. The law worked, but it didn't stop anything.

The only gun control law that would work is unconstitutional. That is really the dilemma.

[Jamastiene]

85. Oh yeah. Those laws really stopped him, didn't they?

[tama]

79. Couple proposals

Increasing control is IMHO the wrong path. Instead:

1) End drug war
2) Increase use of contemplative methods in education and health care.